# Who is in and who is out?



## pip1954

Just sick and tired of the amount of people flooding this isle.
Yes you have guessed I, m out and proud to say so. =D> 
Pip


----------



## Cordy




----------



## beech1948

Me too,

1) Too much immigration and too little border control
2) The EU has a democratic deficite which is gargantuan....no way to remove the EU Commissioners
3) The deal offered to the UK was derisory and delivered with contempt by the EU
4) The UK is frequently ignored or treated with contempt by the other EU member states..eg Poland dictates social security policy to the UK.
5) We pay too much
6) The EU is dismantling UK establishments which have served us well for 00's of years
7) Britain will have a better economy out of the EU with no EU trade wars because we im port more than we export to them.
8) I'm tired of the silly rules and legislation they force on us

Lets GO soon.


----------



## bugbear

pip1954":vkebflvq said:


> Just sick and tired of the amount of people flooding this isle.
> Yes you have guessed I, m out and proud to say so. =D>
> Pip



Does that mean we get all the lovely Spanish ex-pats back?

BugBear


----------



## RobinBHM

The European Commission has announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU, rather than German, which was the other contender. Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had room for improvement and has therefore accepted a five-year phasing in of "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make sivil servants jump for joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the "k", Which should klear up some konfusion and allow one key less on keyboards.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f", making words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e" is disgrasful.

By the fourth yer, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and everivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. ZE DREM VIL FINALI COM TRU!

Herr Schmidt


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Very good ... the old ones are the best.


----------



## Jacob

Thing is I really like immigrants. All the ones I meet are interesting and working hard etc. They bring a lot of new cultural life with them. More the merrier. Population movement is generally a good thing. The UK certainly benefits enormously and they help to fill up the lack of skills - do the work and pay the taxes.

I'd be more worried about all those expats from the Dordogne being returned - imagine them all here - moaning about house prices, the weather, the wine, the food!
Worse still all those geriatric gangsters from the costas. Let Spain keep them we don't want them here.


----------



## katellwood

Jacob":372vkw5y said:


> Thing is I really like immigrants. All the ones I meet are interesting and working hard etc. They bring a lot of new cultural life with them. More the merrier. Population movement is generally a good thing. The UK certainly benefits enormously and they help to fill up the lack of skills - do the work and pay the taxes.
> 
> I'd be more worried about all those expats from the Dordogne being returned - imagine them all here - moaning about house prices, the weather, the wine, the food!
> Worse still all those geriatric gangsters from the costas. Let Spain keep them we don't want them here.




I would think the quality of immigrant in Central Derbyshire is somewhat different from the immigrant in a Kentish town especially those who have snuck themselves over the Channel 

How many 6'2" males with more facial growth than Brian Blessed claiming to be 13 are there in Derbyshire


----------



## iNewbie

bugbear":1gpejcbr said:


> pip1954":1gpejcbr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just sick and tired of the amount of people flooding this isle.
> Yes you have guessed I, m out and proud to say so. =D>
> Pip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean we get all the lovely Spanish ex-pats back?
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...


I thought our prisons are full - /Posted on behalf of Bonnie Riggs.


----------



## RogerBoyle

katellwood":3kdwhvsk said:


> Jacob":3kdwhvsk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is I really like immigrants. All the ones I meet are interesting and working hard etc. They bring a lot of new cultural life with them. More the merrier. Population movement is generally a good thing. The UK certainly benefits enormously and they help to fill up the lack of skills - do the work and pay the taxes.
> 
> I'd be more worried about all those expats from the Dordogne being returned - imagine them all here - moaning about house prices, the weather, the wine, the food!
> Worse still all those geriatric gangsters from the costas. Let Spain keep them we don't want them here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think the quality of immigrant in Central Derbyshire is somewhat different from the immigrant in a Kentish town especially those who have snuck themselves over the Channel
> 
> How many 6'2" males with more facial growth than Brian Blessed claiming to be 13 are there in Derbyshire
Click to expand...


Unfortunately far too many


----------



## Limey Lurker

>How many 6'2" males with more facial growth than Brian Blessed claiming to be 13 are there in Derbyshire

Probably a lot fewer than those claiming to be female!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

There are cogent arguments to made in favour of some immigration. There are also cogent arguments to be made that too much of it is not a good thing.

The best way to settle the arguments is by proper debate in Parliament, the decisions being made by people accountable through the ballot box to those they govern, and not as the unintended consequence of a supra-national treaty forced on us by people we didn't elect and can't hold to account. The same applies to many other matters.


----------



## Vincecj

I voted out in '75 and I'll be voting out this time.


----------



## Jacob

The most cogent argument for immigration/emigration is that it is democracy voting with it's feet. People move away from unsustainable lives towards what they hope will be better ones. Things are so bad in many places that the risk of drowning at sea is regarded as worth it. 
Any amount of debate will make no difference unless influence is brought to bear on the causes, foreign govts, famine, war etc. 
The EU (with us in) will have greater power and influence than individual states.
People move because of political and economic failure not of their own making, and so they should if that's the last resort.


----------



## katellwood

Jacob":3kop6g2n said:


> People move because of political and economic failure not of their own making, and so they should if that's the last resort.



I cannot see this being an argument re immigration from EU member states, they come because the grass is greener on this side of the channel. Our elected Parliament should be addressing this more effectively and to the greater good of UK Citizens instead they just paying lip service to it.

In relation to Asylum, this should be temporary until it is deemed safe for refugees to return to their home country and not just stay infinitum.


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":1m0ukbm8 said:


> The most cogent argument for immigration/emigration is that it is democracy voting with it's feet.



Not cogent at all.

Does that mean if I prefer your house to mine, I can just move in?

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob - you're (probably deliberately) confusing two different issues, namely the free movement of labour within the borders of the EU, and the Middle Eastern/North African migrant crisis.

My comment concerned the former.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":3dfqd63f said:


> Jacob - you're (probably deliberately) confusing two different issues, namely the free movement of labour within the borders of the EU, and the Middle Eastern/North African migrant crisis.
> 
> My comment concerned the former.


Deliberately.
They merge together, boundaries aren't clear. There's a lot of population movement going on for a variety of (related) reasons. You'd expect Brexiters to support them as they claim to be asserting the power of the common man against the tyranny of undemocratic agencies.


----------



## thetyreman

to be honest I am surprised at the amount of people I know who want to get out of Europe, it disturbs me, I think conservatives are deliberately saying they want to stay in just so you vote to get out, and it seems to be working.


----------



## DennisCA

I'm voting out too.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I'm not at all surprised at the number of people I know who want to get out of the EU - swmbo's on the fence but I can think of only one person I know that I know to favour staying. We stay and we'll lose any vetoes and rebates as they'll have us over a barrel - the rest of the EU doesn't give a toss about Britain as long as we can borrow enough money to keep paying them.


----------



## RogerS

We need some immigration but not uncontrolled immigration and we can thank the last Labour government for that. Jack Straw admitted that it was a 'spectacular mistake'. Their research suggested that only a "relatively small" number of migrants would head to the UK and in 2004 decided to give workers from eastern Europe the immediate right to work in the UK.

Next month official statistics are set to confirm that the UK's population has reached a record high, exceeding the symbolic 65m threshold. At the start of the millennium, statisticians expected this number to be reached only after 2031.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

thetyreman":2s50w4tx said:


> to be honest I am surprised at the amount of people I know who want to get out of Europe, it disturbs me, I think conservatives are deliberately saying they want to stay in just so you vote to get out, and it seems to be working.



For me, it's about being governed by people accountable to those they govern. The Westminster government isn't perfect, but at least each of us has equal power (one vote), and can collectively hold it to account at a General Election if enough of the population thinks that government isn't acting in the nation's best interests.

Government by Brussels is different - government is something done to populations whether they like it or not by people not elected by them, and not accountable to them through the ballot box (the European Commission take the decisions, basically), and determined to follow their own agenda of a European super-state; something nobody has ever had the chance to vote for or against.

For all its faults, I'd rather have the Westminster system; if enough of the population thinks a government is going in the wrong direction, it can be thrown out and somebody else given a chance, as happened in 1979, 1997 and 2010. There's no democratic way to change Brussels' mind once an EU treaty is signed. All the arguments about the economy, immigration and so on are secondary, as far as I'm concerned.

I also think Brexit would be the best thing that could happen to Europe. It would force a rethink about the direction of the EU. A group of independent, self-governing nations co-operating where they saw fit on matters of trade, defence and so on would be more stable, and in the end better for more ordinary people, than an enforced super-state in which all ways of life and attitudes must be made to fit one template.


----------



## Water-Mark

In or out we need and will have immigration, the numbers are not dependent on the EU.
We could take back our borders but we won't, like we could spend our 50, 40 or 20 million on the NHS but we won't. 

VAT on domestic fuel and tampons could be scrapped but it won't. 

Will we be better off?
The truth is we don't know what the economy will do and neither do they, no one can say what will happen either way nor can they say what would've happened either way.

Someone though will try.

Most of the EU control and human rights act stories i've read over the years have actually been false, whilst the stories we should be reading we're deemed to boring to print.

For all its faults i'm voting in, not for any political beliefs but as a human being and inhabitant of this planet think it needs fewer borders and boundaries not more.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":21ji04kp said:


> ....
> For me, it's about being governed by people accountable to those they govern. The Westminster government isn't perfect, but at least each of us has equal power (one vote), and can collectively hold it to account at a General Election if enough of the population thinks that government isn't acting in the nation's best interests.


Nothing will change on this


> Government by Brussels is different - government is something done to populations whether they like it or not by people not elected by them, and not accountable to them through the ballot box (the European Commission take the decisions, basically), and determined to follow their own agenda of a European super-state; something nobody has ever had the chance to vote for or against.


We participate in the decision making (MEPs etc) and if we don't like it we can pull out any time


> ....There's no democratic way to change Brussels' mind once an EU treaty is signed.


Yes there is - if the worst comes to the worst we can pull out - as we will be doing shortly if the vote goes that way


> ......... an enforced super-state .....


No force is involved. We vote to remain (or not), we negotiate via our MEPs and MPs and all/any other pressure groups, if the worst come to the worst we pull out. It's all by voluntary agreement - we don't sign away any rights other than by voluntary contracts.


----------



## finneyb

I'm IN, just posted my postal vote.
This is just right wing Tories thinking we still have an Empire - they need to wake up and smell the coffee; life has changed.

Brian


----------



## flying haggis

Im out


----------



## Rhossydd

Voting to stay in.
I think that we have more influence and power as part of a large grouping, than being a minor isolationist 'Johnny no mates' on the edge of Europe.
When every major political party, the elected government, the trade unions, every major financial body and every other country in the world except Russia and China think we're all better off in the EU, why would anyone with sense think otherwise.
Leaving looks to be a financial disaster for the country and me.


----------



## Woodmatt

Bugbear,I am one of those lovely Spanish ex pats now back in the Uk and loving it.The grass is definitely greener here,mainly due to the rain.

I will be voting out.When you live abroad you realise just how diverse each country and its people are.So in my view all the different countries cannot be run by one government which is what we are heading for if not already there.Lets get out.


----------



## Jacob

expats aren't going to like losing reciprocal health (and other) benefits. They'll all be hobbling back - if they are fit enough to make the journey! Better start planning now!

NB countries will still have their own governments - it's a bit exaggerated this notion that we would just become like the USA.


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":1wfxvi4v said:


> NB countries will still have their own governments - it's a bit exaggerated this notion that we would just become like the USA.



Each state of the United States of America still has it's own government with its own powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_leg ... _States%29

BugBear


----------



## pip1954

Well I said my bit to start but I think there is a lot of scare mongering going on and I think it will back fire people get sick of hearing all the rubish ,I for one don't really think thing's will change for the worse if we come out ,
I just think we should be in charge of our future good or bad that to me will not happen in the EU we have more than enough rules that we have had to follow,
It's time for change


----------



## Rhossydd

Jacob":21885uf2 said:


> NB countries will still have their own governments - it's a bit exaggerated this notion that we would just become like the USA.


A good point. I wonder how widely travelled some of the Brexiters actually are. The diversity between our European neighbours is huge, in no way is mainland Europe some sort of homogenised uniform state.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Recent 2015 figures show immigration equally split between EU and non-EU. The non-EU (180000) entry is based on a points system. We are now being told by Leave that a similar system would apply to EU nationals in the event of a Leave vote. It is worth noting that 10% of doctors and 5% of nurses are EU migrants - plus others in key service jobs. The difference in real immigration between Leave and Stay is quite possibly something around 100000.

The bigger risk to the UK will arise when or if economies on the European mainland improve. We will see far fewer new arrivals and job vacancies unfilled for lack of suitable candidates.

A far better solution than the economic pain and risk of exit would be to very flexibly and rapidly divert funds to ensure that local infrastructures are able to cope with immigrants who are not evenly distributed.

In the longer term - 10 years + in my estimation - whether the UK will perform better in or out is a matter of faith or instinct. In the short term there is no evidence that things will be better, but every indication they will be worse. A belief in the economic talents of Gove and Johnson compared to IMF, BoE, IFS, Obama, Merkel etc etc seems misplaced (to say the least). The notion that potential losses can be replaced by newly negotiated trade deals with both the EU and others in time scales below five years is naive at best - just look at past performance in this by EU where a 10 year time scale is not unusual and trade deals require approval by all members.

I can accept sovereignty could be an overriding issue for some. But I have been utterly disappointed with the quality of the arguments and behaviour of our home grown political elite on both sides of the argument. I could be very easily persuaded that the Brussels elite (for all its faults) may be more attractive than the clowns that seem to rise to the top in Westminster.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"The notion that potential losses can be replaced by newly negotiated trade deals with both the EU and others in time scales below five years is naive at best - just look at past performance in this by EU where a 10 year time scale is not unusual and trade deals require approval by all members."
Only because the EU as such is thoroughly incompetent. The money is in Germany - they won't be overridden by minor Countries if they're going to lose money. As was pointed out on QT the other night - Chile has negotiated more trade deals than the the EU, and none have taken anywhere near ten years.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":u6q0qw9l said:


> Jacob":u6q0qw9l said:
> 
> 
> 
> NB countries will still have their own governments - it's a bit exaggerated this notion that we would just become like the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> A good point. I wonder how widely travelled some of the Brexiters actually are. The diversity between our European neighbours is huge, in no way is mainland Europe some sort of homogenised uniform state.
Click to expand...


That's precisely why the great project to create a unified single-state Europe won't work - there's no common demos. The sooner it is abandoned in favour of each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign, but co-operating where there is mutual benefit on matters such as trade and defence, the better for all concerned.


----------



## Jacob

There isn't "a great project to create a unified single-state Europe".
The EU is about "each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign, but co-operating where there is mutual benefit". 
If it went another way we could pull out. Proof? Referendum coming up, if it's a no we pull out, otherwise we wouldn't be having one; "they" would stop us!


----------



## RogerS

Remind me again why the EU Parliament decamps every month and shuttles between Brussels to Strasbourg for precisely four days? What's that all about?

What did you say? The MEPs voted to scrap this second Parliament but France veto'd it. Now who was it saying that MEPs have some sort of clout ?

Our MEPs have virtually zero influence in the European Parliament as they were unable to stop the majority of proposals they opposed from being passed.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

phil.p":pvigfrmj said:


> Only because the EU as such is thoroughly incompetent. The money is in Germany - they won't be overridden by minor Countries if they're going to lose money. As was pointed out on QT the other night - Chile has negotiated more trade deals than the the EU, and none have taken anywhere near ten years.



I agree that the EU is sclerotic and bureaucratic - but this is common to many administrations including UK. It's taken over a generation to still not decide where to put additional south-east runway capacity, HS2 may cost as much as 5 times the French equivalent and won't be operational until 2033 (phase 2), we are rapidly running out of generating capacity and Hinckley point is still uncertain etc.

It is always difficult to find sensible comparators - the GDP of Chile is 10% of the UK. A Norwegian politician made an interesting relevant point - because Norway is small it needs to respond flexibly to events around it (like Chile??), but the UK wants to set the agenda and expects others to conform to its wishes.

I agree Germany may dominate EU proceedings - but it may not just be the minnows that protest - eg France and Italy may wish to protect their domestic car manufacturers from Honda, Toyota, Nissan made in the UK. Minnows may be hopeful of inward investment from the Japanese, Korean and Chinese manufacturers. It is by no means a done deal and similar consideration apply outside the car industry - eg: fishing rights, pharmaceuticals, financial services.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":wejh5d8o said:


> The sooner it is abandoned in favour of each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign,.


when has that ever worked in the past ?
Germany is a federation created from smaller states, as is Italy, USA, even the UK.


----------



## rafezetter

Rhossydd":et2uxc2i said:


> Voting to stay in.
> I think that we have more influence and power as part of a large grouping, than being a minor isolationist 'Johnny no mates' on the edge of Europe.
> When every major political party, the elected government, the trade unions, every major financial body and every other country in the world except Russia and China think we're all better off in the EU, why would anyone with sense think otherwise.
> Leaving looks to be a financial disaster for the country and me.



What sort of power and can you point out any situations regarding when the EU has backed down and accepted our version of requirements on a particular topic?

73 times we have tried to veto a law being imposed on us that our Govt deemed unfavorable and 73 times the UK's requirements for ammendments have BEEN OVERRULED

We overpaid by a significant amount our "contributions" and brussels REFUSED to return the money, instead adding "sweeteners" to trade etc that didn't even come close to the same sort of amount of money.

WE HAVE NO POWER within the EU, that's not soapboxing, it's just a fact.

Oh and lets not forget there are 5 ridiculously poor and impoverished countries, who are barely more than 3rd world all waiting in the wings, with barely a functional govt between all 5 of them, who will all be granted powers of veto over us - (and asking for money).

All of the "benefits" people think we enjoy being part of the EU, can be gotten other ways with no loss to us. Jobs? no problem - entry into another country with a job all ready to go happens in many other countries without a hitch. I live near both MOD and HP main bases in Bristol and every single one of the foreign nationals I've spoken to have all said it was simple and painless to come here on a work visa.

How having an open travel border with all its inherant risks changes this I have no idea - especially since half of them are from NON EU COUNTRIES, where the open border doesn't even apply!

I honestly think the majority of people who say they are voting in haven't read a damn thing about the realities and are just going by the cronies on TV from both sides, both of which are not doing a very convincing job either way.

I honestly think the "out" vote will fail because there are too many "not a clue's" and not enough educated and informed voters.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":14t43zcz said:


> Cheshirechappie":14t43zcz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sooner it is abandoned in favour of each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign,.
> 
> 
> 
> when has that ever worked in the past ?
> Germany is a federation created from smaller states, as is Italy, USA, even the UK.
Click to expand...


It worked pretty well before that over-bloated, bureaucratic self-serving EU was formed.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"A Norwegian politician made an interesting relevant point - because Norway is small it needs to respond flexibly to events around it (like Chile??), but the UK wants to set the agenda and expects others to conform to its wishes." - Terry
No. The UK should set the agenda ... for the UK. Others can set their own. Where influence is concerned we've had 43 years of futility - how much more time do we need? 
Besides which - isn't there an element of truth in saying that who pays the piper maybe should have a say in calling the tune? I don't really think that unreasonable, and I object to Countries that have been leeches for years and will be for the lifetime of the EU having equal input to us. 
As an aside - how many Americans would have voted for a federation had they realised that the rich states would still subsidise the poor states 200+ years after?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":1v9skjvs said:


> There isn't "a great project to create a unified single-state Europe".
> The EU is about "each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign, but co-operating where there is mutual benefit".
> If it went another way we could pull out. Proof? Referendum coming up, if it's a no we pull out, otherwise we wouldn't be having one; "they" would stop us!



Is that not what "Ever Closer Union" really means?

Many countries in Europe are no longer independent, self-governing and sovereign because they've adopted the Euro, so they no longer have full control of their economies. This works OK for the larger, more powerful nations (Germany), but has been an absolute disaster for smaller ones (notably Greece, but Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland have all suffered). By all proper economic measures, the Euro has been a complete failure, but it's being desperately kept alive, using measures illegal under EU law, for the sole political reason that it's essential to Ever Closer Union - building the Single State of Europe. I don't think the misery dished out to smaller countries is a price worth paying for that aim.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":1rdt2l4s said:


> Cheshirechappie":1rdt2l4s said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sooner it is abandoned in favour of each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign,.
> 
> 
> 
> when has that ever worked in the past ?
> Germany is a federation created from smaller states, as is Italy, USA, even the UK.
Click to expand...


It has certainly worked better than previous attempts to 'unify' Europe, all of which have ended in tears for various reasons.

All your other examples work (more or less) because they had a common language and common way of thinking (more or less) at unification.


----------



## Rhossydd

rafezetter":3kdl6ekf said:


> WE HAVE NO POWER within the EU, that's not soapboxing, it's just a fact.


Just like everyone else. It's actually a good and stabilising aspect.
In the same way I don't have any more control over the UK treasury or my local council.

There's a lot wrong with the EU, but overall we're far better off inside than sitting poor on the outside.

For a balanced, well informed and independent view look at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/


----------



## clk230

You mean there's educated people that believe 28 different countries can actually agree on matters that don't always affect them .Just look at this thread lots of different views imagine involving 28 different cultures with 28 different motives , just imagine how long it takes just to hear all the views , it can't work take your rose tinted specs off people. 
I'm OUT.


----------



## Eric The Viking

The USA pays a huge price for the "Dollar zone", in unemployment.

If, for example, Michigan had its own currency, and its cars became too expensive, it could simply inflate its "Michigan$" to the point where its cars became competitive again. It's not that simple, obviously, but small currency areas and flexible exchange rates are _efficient_. In their absence, we get disasters like Flint, Detroit and Baltimore in the USA, and Greece and Spain in Europe (OK, there are other factors such as unserviceable debt, too). 

Separate currencies for depressed parts of the USA have been seriously suggested by some free market economists there. And even so the separate states have other economic levers they can apply, such as local income and indirect taxation, but it demonstrably isn't enough.

The euro was bonkers from the outset, and the early warning was the collapse of the ERM. It only exists now as a paving, political project. And then there is the staggering hubris of the _acquis_ and harmonization of all kinds of laws and taxation in the interests of a "free" market.

Don't forget that our government can no longer "buy British" except in the one area of defence. All other public expenditure, over a very low threshold (£200k, IIRC) has to go out to pan-European tender. And this gets us worse value for all sorts of reasons, and leads to nonsense like G-Cloud (and other "framework agreement" schemes), and some of the more egregious waste in the NHS etc., with poorly executed contracts or simply failure to deliver, and huge bureaucratic overheads.

I haven't got the energy to continue this today, but the single market is a bad joke, made at our expense.

E.


----------



## clk230

Just how is it a good and stabilising aspect to have rules forced on us by other cultures/countries ???


----------



## Grahamshed

Most of you seem to think that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Do you also think that the united states of America would be better off as independent states ?


----------



## clk230

For the same reason I think other countries should keep their noses out of our business , you'll have to ask the Americans


----------



## bugbear

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Grahamshed":2kqygv08 said:


> Most of you seem to think that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Do you also think that the united states of America would be better off as independent states ?


In the sense they control their own tax rates and virtually all their own laws to all intents and purposes they are - but still work for the common good, which is as it should be.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":ldoldo5d said:


> rafezetter":ldoldo5d said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE HAVE NO POWER within the EU, that's not soapboxing, it's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like everyone else. It's actually a good and stabilising aspect.
> In the same way I don't have any more control over the UK treasury or my local council.
> 
> There's a lot wrong with the EU, but overall we're far better off inside than sitting poor on the outside.
> 
> For a balanced, well informed and independent view look at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/
Click to expand...


The LSE is not independent !

You can vote for your local councillors. You can vote for your MP. You CANNOT vote for the ones in the EU that really call the shots.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":3j506gdx said:


> You can vote for your local councillors. You can vote for your MP. You CANNOT vote for the ones in the EU that really call the shots.


I can vote for my MEP which has as much effect as voting for my local councillor.

What's puzzled me is why so many people are moaning about lack of say in Europe when so many of them must have voted for the UKIP MEPs who got elected, but then won't take part.
"I want a say, so I'll vote for someone who won't get involved" makes no sense.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The LSE is not independent !
Nor is the CBI, the BBC, the IMF ...


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":28ezlw0h said:


> The LSE is not independent !
> Nor is the CBI, the BBC, the IMF ...


Trust no one eh ?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Grahamshed":2e701f38 said:


> Most of you seem to think that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Do you also think that the united states of America would be better off as independent states ?



I don't think the two are at all comparable. The USA pretty much started (comparatively recently in historical terms) with a more or less common aim - liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all it's citizens. They have a common demos - everybody in America is proud to call themselves American, though they may also be proud to be Texan, Californian or whatever. Europe's history is far longer and more complex, with many of the present countries and borders able to trace their origins back to Pre-Roman tribal times (Gaul, for example - now France) - though the many layers of history since have introduced lots of complexities. Consequently, there are so many different engrained attitudes to life and approaches to the business of government that there is no common demos on which to build.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":25cwyytm said:


> phil.p":25cwyytm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LSE is not independent !
> Nor is the CBI, the BBC, the IMF ...
> 
> 
> 
> Trust no one eh ?
Click to expand...


It's certainly true that many of the large financial organisations have a long history of getting their forecasts wrong. As for the CBI they're standing up for their interests, not necessarily everybody else's. The EU does work well for large, powerful organisations that can afford to lobby in their own interests in Brussels, but not so well for smaller organisations or Joe Public.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":f45xv4pm said:


> RogerS":f45xv4pm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can vote for your local councillors. You can vote for your MP. You CANNOT vote for the ones in the EU that really call the shots.
> 
> 
> 
> I can vote for my MEP which has as much effect as voting for my local councillor.
> ...
Click to expand...


Well, if you think that voting for your local councillor doesn't have any effect then no point in you voting then. At least the local councillors are involved with setting the agenda, priorities etc for my locality. The MEP simply plays lip-service in promulgating the goals of the Council of the EU who are non-elected. Not only that but the MEPs get over-ruled by the others most of the time. At least in my local council we don't have 28 separate agendas.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":34a82vri said:


> RogerS":34a82vri said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can vote for your local councillors. You can vote for your MP. You CANNOT vote for the ones in the EU that really call the shots.
> 
> 
> 
> I can vote for my MEP which has as much effect as voting for my local councillor.
> 
> What's puzzled me is why so many people are moaning about lack of say in Europe when so many of them must have voted for the UKIP MEPs who got elected, but then won't take part.
> "I want a say, so I'll vote for someone who won't get involved" makes no sense.
Click to expand...


It's a democratic and peaceful way of expressing your opinion. No need for demonstrations or riots.

You're right about the comparable influence of MEPs and local councillors, though. The real power in the EU lies with appointees, not with elected representatives. That's why the Westminster system, in which those who make the decisions are drawn from those elected, is better (not perfect, but definitely better) - the decision-makers are accountable to the electorate through the ballot box.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rhossydd":20dmrj0z said:


> phil.p":20dmrj0z said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LSE is not independent !
> Nor is the CBI, the BBC, the IMF ...
> 
> 
> 
> Trust no one eh ?
Click to expand...

I don't expect any organisation (or person) supported financially in any way by the EU to do any other than praise it. Would you?


----------



## Grahamshed

Slightly tongue in cheek......
'Yes Minister' would have us believe that it is the civil servants that actually make the decisions and they are not elected either.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I believe they were traditionally neutral until Blair got at them.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Grahamshed":2p16qy3d said:


> Slightly tongue in cheek......
> 'Yes Minister' would have us believe that it is the civil servants that actually make the decisions and they are not elected either.



Civil Servants offer advice to Ministers. Usually two options - the one the civil service wants, and an utterly unpalatable one that would probably shorten the Minister's career.

(I watched 'Yes Minister' as well. What a shame we don't get comedy of that quality these days!)

Edit to add - More seriously, Ministers direct the civil servants, and are accountable when things go wrong. The Civil Service is there to execute the direction of elected Ministers, which it does very well sometimes. Of course, human nature and politics being what they are, the 'Yes Minister' scenario has more than a grain of truth in it!


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":3b9dqct4 said:


> Well, if you think that voting for your local councillor doesn't have any effect then no point in you voting then.


In practice you're completely correct. When parties you don't support have massive majorities, my vote doesn't have any effect on policy.
But I still always vote and have only ever missed one opportunity in 41 years of voting because of work.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":3o9hdrfd said:


> I don't expect any organisation (or person) supported financially in any way by the EU to do any other than praise it. Would you?


The BBC isn't 'supported' by the EU at all.

Try to name an organisation that hasn't had any funding from the EU though. Even UKIP are effectively being supported by the EU, I don't see them refusing to accept payments from them on principle.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":cxrenbg5 said:


> phil.p":cxrenbg5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect any organisation (or person) supported financially in any way by the EU to do any other than praise it. Would you?
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC isn't 'supported' by the EU at all.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's wrong. We've already had this discussion elsewhere. They got £2m from the EU over the past 3 years.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Grahamshed":14s5mm6p said:


> Most of you seem to think that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Do you also think that the united states of America would be better off as independent states ?



Economically, almost certainly - they pay a price for having a single economic area. Obviously there are benefits, but weighing in the federalist's favour are a single language (well two really!) and reasonably homogeneous culture across the USA. The latter two make relocation easier - jobs evaporate in Flint, U-Haul trailer rentals move Flint's population to other places. Thus it is in the EU too, but with the absence of U-Haul, and increasingly the absence of jobs to go to (unemployment is steadily increasing across the EU, and immigration isn't helping this one bit), oh, and the absence of a common language and culture. So people don't move, and the short-term outcome is mass unemployment, economic collapse and societal breakdown.

Texans, who have a reputation for being bloody-minded, have seriously had a look at independence several times since the civil war, but it has been 'pointed out' to Texas that such a move would be illegal under the US constitution (it invariably is!). Californians have also had a lobby group proposing it (most populous state and by far the biggest economy, and with a huge proportion of Spanish-speaking immigrants compared to elsewhere).

The fact remains, the EU and the USA are not equivalent, for all sorts of reasons, the most important being the large amount of autonomy of the constituent US states - taxation powers, local civil and criminal law, etc. 

The US federal government is constrained in exactly the opposite way to EU member states here: it has responsibility for defence ("defense"), foreign relations, and cross-state-border law, and a few relatively minor things. 

In the EU, member states presently have responsibility for their own defence spending, and to a limited extent education, healthcare and small areas of law. All the rest is ultimately the province of the EU, under the _acquis_:

taxation
government expenditure (mainly in the eurozone)
environmental issues
agriculture and fisheries
transport policy
law*
quality and technical standards for goods
trade arrangements
telecommunications
There are probably a few more headline categories I have forgotten. Hardly anything on that list is considered the province of the US federal government, except in certain specific circumstances (for example, banning a pesticide across the nation).

In a number of the categories above, the EU doesn't exercise its authority on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't the ultimate authority. For example, eurozone countries theoretically have very strict rules attached to public-sector borrowing. For practical purposes their treasuries no longer control their money supply, but recent history shows that PSBR% has to become really huge before there's any intervention.

The other odd area is law: The European Convention on Human Rights stems from the Council of Europe, NOT the EU. Amusingly, the Wikipedia page starts off "Not to be confused with..." Although the symbology is identical to that of the EU (same ring of stars on a blue background). It's arguable that the pro-EU argument that the two are separate is quite disingenouos - same actors, same decision makers, etc. The obvious intent is to merge the two at some point.

That's criminal and family law. Commercial law is increasingly being subsumed into the acquis, as case law grows at the European Court. The Single Market gives ample scope for applying the ratchet - someone appeals to the Court on the grounds such and such a decision infringes single market law, and _hey presto_, it's irrevocably an EU area of law ever after.

I'd be fascinated to know of cases where the European Court (the EU one - there are many!) has said it has no competence to hear a case - there must be some, but somehow...


E.


----------



## RogerS

Many thanks, EtV for that excellent synopsis. =D>


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":v32e3em7 said:


> Sorry, that's wrong. We've already had this discussion elsewhere. They got £2m from the EU over the past 3 years.


All for work done. Did you really not understand where the money went ? I spent some time digging out the nitty gritty detail of where that money went to satisfy my own curiosity and posted the detail here.

This is the problem people just like reading a headline that suits their prejudice, and quote it again and again, but won't accept that's it's wrong even when proved to them.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":wst67mh2 said:


> RogerS":wst67mh2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's wrong. We've already had this discussion elsewhere. They got £2m from the EU over the past 3 years.
> 
> 
> 
> All for work done. Did you really not understand where the money went ? I spent some time digging out the nitty gritty detail of where that money went to satisfy my own curiosity and posted the detail here.
> 
> This is the problem people just like reading a headline that suits their prejudice, and quote it again and again, but won't accept that's it's wrong even when proved to them.
Click to expand...


Wrong again. I do wish you would check your facts first. Also the accuracy of your statements. This all started because you claimed that 'the BBC isn't supported by the EU at all'. It clearly is. 

And not for work done. In fact, it's much more than that paltry £2 million. It's over £20 million. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84760

You also wrote "This is the problem people just like reading a headline that suits their prejudice, and quote it again and again, but won't accept that's it's wrong even when proved to them". Pity you don't follow your own advice.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":2tiootm0 said:


> This all started because you claimed that 'the BBC isn't supported by the EU at all'. It clearly is. .


You need to understand the difference between "the BBC" and the BBC World service Trust. Just because it starts 'BBC' doesn't mean it's the same organisation. The BBC has been successively spilt into smaller and smaller independent bits that have virtual no interconnection.

Would you like to cite any of those projects quoted on the link you supplied that might effect the BBC's reporting of the referendum issue ?

eg Buying services from the BBC's training department to assist with developing the professionalism of broadcasters in Georgia is hardly going to make the slightest difference to editorial policy on the Today programme.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":21bnatn3 said:


> RogerS":21bnatn3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started because you claimed that 'the BBC isn't supported by the EU at all'. It clearly is. .
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand the difference between "the BBC" and the BBC World service Trust. Just because it starts 'BBC' doesn't mean it's the same organisation. The BBC has been successively spilt into smaller and smaller independent bits that have virtual no interconnection.
> 
> Would you like to cite any of those projects quoted on the link you supplied that might effect the BBC's reporting of the referendum issue ?
> 
> eg Buying services from the BBC's training department to assist with developing the professionalism of broadcasters in Georgia is hardly going to make the slightest difference to editorial policy on the Today programme.
Click to expand...


Moving the goalposts time, again.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":ikzrhavm said:


> Moving the goalposts time, again.


I'm not moving goalpost at all. That seems to be your prerogative with this one.

I fully understand that any lay person won't have much, if any, idea of how complex the structure of the BBC is. Also how easy it is to push out misleading "facts" that are totally misleading.
As someone who actually has some knowledge about the labyrinthine corporation that is the BBC, I'm trying to help you understand what this scare mongering headline really is all about.

Of course if you're blindly prejudice against the BBC and don't want to gain any understanding if headlines like you've quoted have any relevance to the debate, there's not much I can do.


----------



## whiskywill

Rhossydd":1pjqkn8c said:


> we're all better off in the EU, why would anyone with sense think otherwise.



I have read every one of your postings on this subject and you haven't given any serious evidence to back this up. To suggest that only Russia and China are happy for us to leave is based on the "Remain" propaganda. Have you spoken to everybody, or even anybody, in Russia or China to confirm this?


----------



## finneyb

Rhossydd":2r67he4g said:


> Voting to stay in.
> I think that we have more influence and power as part of a large grouping, than being a minor isolationist 'Johnny no mates' on the edge of Europe.
> When every major political party, the elected government, the trade unions, every major financial body and every other country in the world except Russia and China think we're all better off in the EU, why would anyone with sense think otherwise.
> Leaving looks to be a financial disaster for the country and me.



The big issue as I see it is the repeated anti-establishment feeling amongst the people eg Corbyn's election by the Labour party membership against the MPs wishing; Trump's selection as the Republican candidate, against the Republican party leaders' wishes. This democracy thing is not perfect and I fear that we may leave the EU for no other reason that people can exercise power without responsibility. And once we do they will complain

Brian


----------



## Rhossydd

whiskywill":3ht33kxt said:


> you haven't given any serious evidence to back this up.


Thsi wasn't meant to be a campaign thread, just what you're going to vote.
The evidence is out there, go and make your own mind up. Don't just rely on tabloid spin and politicians just trying to keep their highly paid jobs though.


----------



## Rhossydd

finneyb":ouuckwyh said:


> This democracy thing is not perfect and I fear that we may leave the EU for no other reason that people can exercise power without responsibility.


It's a difficult, complex issue and a big mass of voters won't really have an understanding of the consequences of their vote until it wrecks their finances and opportunities.

I'm coming to the conclusion that like driving a car or flying an aeroplane, people should have to pass a test of competence before being allowed in a poll booth.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

finneyb":38kbw66c said:


> This democracy thing is not perfect and I fear that we may leave the EU for no other reason that people can exercise power without responsibility.
> 
> Brian



I'm more worried about people exercising power without accountability to those over whom the power is exercised. The definition of freedom is the electorate at large having the collective power of veto over who governs.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":3e0azslr said:


> I'm coming to the conclusion that like driving a car or flying an aeroplane, people should have to pass a test of competence before being allowed in a poll booth.



Hmmm - we could end up with, "You can vote because you think the right way, you can't vote because your thoughts are wrong."

That's not freedom.


----------



## Jacob

finneyb":lmczp3o7 said:


> ......
> The big issue as I see it is the repeated anti-establishment feeling amongst the people eg Corbyn's election by the Labour party membership against the MPs wishing;


More a case of the anti-people feeling amongst the establishment - some labour MPs seem shocked at being expected to take notice of the membership and the media establishment are hopping mad at losing control of the agenda - with people actually thinking for themselves! :shock: 
The media, across the board from left to right, is less trusted than it used to be. Probably a good thing.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":3v5gzwur said:


> Hmmm - we could end up with, "You can vote because you think the right way, you can't vote because your thoughts are wrong."
> That's not freedom.


The problem at the moment is that too many people don't understand anything about the political and governmental process and how it impacts their lives.
Other countries have theses sort of studies as part of their basic school curriculum.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Maybe the problem for those who wish to remain is that too many do?


----------



## finneyb

Jacob":19jbvfyf said:


> finneyb":19jbvfyf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/
Click to expand...



Jacob,

Excellent read, thanks for posting

Brian


----------



## finneyb

Cheshirechappie":cwm6yc48 said:


> finneyb":cwm6yc48 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This democracy thing is not perfect and I fear that we may leave the EU for no other reason that people can exercise power without responsibility.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more worried about people exercising power without accountability to those over whom the power is exercised. The definition of freedom is the electorate at large having the collective power of veto over who governs.
Click to expand...


_' Democracy. The argument about ‘unelected bureaucrats’ is spurious. We never get to vote for Treasury or Home Office officials. The real questions are:
•Is there a democratic deficit in the EU, i.e. does the European Parliament exert sufficiently powerful democratic oversight over the activities of EU officials? There are legitimate doubts whether that is so.
•How likely is it that the problem will be addressed? There are grounds for optimism: the problem is recognised and other member states share UK concerns, so that pressure for change will comes from multiple sources.
•Is this issue a reason for leaving? Clearly views can differ. Mine is the same as William Hague’s in the quote at the start of this article.

For what it is worth, there are 55,000 EU civil servants; the UK has 393,000 (BBC, 13 May 2016) .' 
Source http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/
_


----------



## mind_the_goat

RogerS":3e0i1nxo said:


> The MEP simply plays lip-service in promulgating the goals of the Council of the EU who are non-elected.



This is the EU council made up of the Heads of elected Government of the participating countries, or some other non-elected EU council ?


----------



## gregmcateer

Should London vote to separate from rest of UK, seeing as it 'contributes' more, (albeit due to the sad demise of much of manufacture etc, whilst the 'financial service's sector has been given almost free reign and bailed out)?

Just a thought...


----------



## RogerS

When students at the LSE start to allow proper debate and freedom of speech at their meetings and debating platforms then I'll start to take anything that comes out of the LSE more seriously.


----------



## mind_the_goat

Rhossydd":56h8kirr said:


> What's puzzled me is why so many people are moaning about lack of say in Europe when so many of them must have voted for the UKIP MEPs who got elected, but then won't take part.
> "I want a say, so I'll vote for someone who won't get involved" makes no sense.



It makes no sense unless you realise that many people do not understand how the EU works and believe that MEPs are not important. I confess my knowledge of the EU has been poor, but in the last few weeks I have got myself an education on the subject, the threads on this forum have contributed considerably, through general discussion, fact checking and some very useful reference material shared by various contributors. 
I have one big concern that after this vote, the number of people who still don't understand how it all works will not have changed very much. I have also become very angry at politicians and the various hangers on from both sides who have treated the general population as complete idiots. It wouldn't surprise me to see the turnout at the next general election fall to even lower levels after this, maybe that's the plan. It's a real shame as it has been a great opportunity to get people interested in Government again and to buy in to the decision making process through rational discussion rather than blind dogma.


----------



## Eric The Viking

finneyb":2n7960vy said:


> For what it is worth, there are 55,000 EU civil servants; the UK has 393,000 (BBC, 13 May 2016) .'
> Source http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/
> [/i]



1. The LSE is far from unbiased.

2. That's the lowest possible figure they could come up with. If we used the same measures, our own bureaucracy would be tiny (only Westminster), and anyway I'm not claiming we aren't already over-bureaucratic without the EU overhead.

3. See (2) above. A huge proportion of EU administration is delegated to national governmental bureaucracies, including ours. It's rare to find UK bureaucrats solely employed on EU business (and in any case they aren't on the EU payroll directly); most have EU related responsibilities as part of their job, but that means a huge number of people, and a huge number of man-hours annually. For example (as discussed elsewhere), the Min of Ag used to have fifty people just checking field boundaries for CAP payment forms. I expect they still do, as it would be very hard to computerize.

4. See (2) and (3) above: counting heads is a meaningless statistic, which is why the pro-EU side (including the LSE) like the number so much. If you could arrive at the number of man-hours employed on EU-bureaucracy, that would be meaningful, probably. But then again, maybe not.

The trick is not to actually lie with a demonstrably false statistic, but to mislead by using statistics that seem meaningful to a lay person, but aren't.

The best example of this has to be the criteria used for entry to the euro. Basically the rules ended up not just bent, but in dainty corkscrews where Italy, Spain and Greece were concerned. Yet, according to those charged with the decision, they did meet the eligibility criteria.

And we all know what happened next.

E.


----------



## Jacob

Hmm where does one go for unbiased opinion nowadays? Boris sounds a pretty straightforward sort of chap, perhaps?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

finneyb":qyc0tr0d said:


> Cheshirechappie":qyc0tr0d said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> finneyb":qyc0tr0d said:
> 
> 
> 
> This democracy thing is not perfect and I fear that we may leave the EU for no other reason that people can exercise power without responsibility.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more worried about people exercising power without accountability to those over whom the power is exercised. The definition of freedom is the electorate at large having the collective power of veto over who governs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _' Democracy. The argument about ‘unelected bureaucrats’ is spurious. We never get to vote for Treasury or Home Office officials. The real questions are:
> •Is there a democratic deficit in the EU, i.e. does the European Parliament exert sufficiently powerful democratic oversight over the activities of EU officials? There are legitimate doubts whether that is so.
> •How likely is it that the problem will be addressed? There are grounds for optimism: the problem is recognised and other member states share UK concerns, so that pressure for change will comes from multiple sources.
> •Is this issue a reason for leaving? Clearly views can differ. Mine is the same as William Hague’s in the quote at the start of this article.
> 
> For what it is worth, there are 55,000 EU civil servants; the UK has 393,000 (BBC, 13 May 2016) .'
> Source http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/
> _
Click to expand...


It's not about Civil Servants or 'bureaucrats' - they do as instructed, they aren't the decision makers. The decision makers should be elected by those over whom they govern - the Westminster parliament is composed of elected constituency MPs, and the government is drawn from them; hence, when voting at a general election, you know who the leaders of the major parties are, so you know who is likely to be PM depending on which party has the most seats in Parliament. That's something you can take into account in casting your vote - and if enough people think a government is not acting for the nation's best interests, it can be thrown out and somebody else given a chance.

The decision-makers in the EU - the commissioners who propose legislation, and the Council of Ministers who provide the overall direction - are much less accountable to the ordinary voter. Commissioners are appointees and in no way accountable to the ordinary voter, and any EU citizen can only influence, through the ballot box, one Minister out of 28 on the Council.

The 'grounds for optimism' mentioned are nowhere near good enough to satisfy me - I'd rather go with the system that got there about a century ago (starting sometime in the 12th century, I think), and has been proven since. Westminster isn't perfect by a long chalk, but it's streets ahead of Brussels.

Edit to add - The roots of the Common Law go back even further, to the foundation of England as a nation state in the 9th century. It suffered something of a hiatus at the time of the Norman Conquest, but was rebuilt gradually starting with Magna Carta in 1215.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":6iiegfz1 said:


> Hmm where does one go for unbiased opinion nowadays? Boris sounds a pretty straightforward sort of chap, perhaps?



In this debate, I don't think there is such a thing as an unbiased opinion. Indeed, I'd be very suspicious of anything claiming it was. Better to listen to all the biased opinions on both sides and form your own view.

As for the various political personalities - well, they're always looking for something to further their careers or seal their political legacies; that's what some politicians do in almost any circumstance. Better to ignore personalities and be guided by arguments instead, I think.


----------



## gregmcateer

phil.p":1w3si305 said:


> I believe they were traditionally neutral until Blair got at them.



Blair may not be anyone's fave, but if I remember rightly, Yes Minister was before his time. :lol:


----------



## Eric The Viking

mind_the_goat":1ggg10pb said:


> I have one big concern that after this vote, the number of people who still don't understand how it all works will not have changed very much. I have also become very angry at politicians and the various hangers on from both sides who have treated the general population as complete idiots. It wouldn't surprise me to see the turnout at the next general election fall to even lower levels after this, maybe that's the plan. It's a real shame as it has been a great opportunity to get people interested in Government again and to buy in to the decision making process through rational discussion rather than blind dogma.



I agree. It is _very_ hard to get youngsters involved. 

Daughter #2 is going to SOAS in the autumn to read what is basically international politics. Despite me offering her copies of the treaties, and a small library of books on the subject, she takes no interest, whilst at the same time asking me for an "unbiased" view on the matter, so she can cast her vote, without having to actually look into anything.

But the "blind dogma" is on the pro-EU side. How does she think I came to my view in the first place? I have spent years, literally, looking at the EU and the machinations of its proponents, and the British constitution and what our democratic process was before Heath sold us out. I have been back to source material on countless occasions, I have read (and annotated) the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, and the EU Constitution, and our own foundational documents. Twenty years ago, I thought it was a good thing!

Remember Cameron's re-negotiation? What, exactly, did he come back with that was of any real value to the British people? Even Chamberlain had a piece of paper...

The levels of personal benefit accruing to the politicians involved are enormous. The accountability is almost non-existent (we can't even choose the individuals we send to the EU parliament any more, and they in turn can't even propose legislation), and this doesn't seem to bother the kids one bit!

. . .

I blame history teaching in schools in large part. They all learn about the world wars, but they don't learn what went before. They know nothing about the painful way our own democracy developed, and the deviations and wrong turns en route (for example John and the barons, the Commonwealth, the Glorious Revolution and so on), nor even Harold and Hastings. They don't understand that, for example, Spain has only had any democracy since around 1974, so it doesn't have traditions of accountability. They don't realise that whilst the French were doing Les Miserables (with real blood), we were not, and that Mme. Guillotine reigned there, and not here - _we are very different societies_.

They have no idea why anything matters, and can't extrapolate the consequences of a project like the EU failing with us trapped within it.

Google Lord Kilmuir's letter to Edward Heath. It's there in a nutshell: Anything created by deliberately lying to the people ("for a higher purpose") isn't going to end well. The EU isn't some surprise birthday party.

E.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":1mazdrs0 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1mazdrs0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm - we could end up with, "You can vote because you think the right way, you can't vote because your thoughts are wrong."
> That's not freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem at the moment is that too many people don't understand anything about the political and governmental process and how it impacts their lives.
> Other countries have theses sort of studies as part of their basic school curriculum.
Click to expand...


It used to be part of the curriculum in this country, at least in some schools - I studied British Constitution to 'O' Level in the mid 1970s. I can't say I found it riveting at the time, but it has proved of some value later. I'd agree that educational standards have slipped over the years, but recent governments have been trying to do something about it, starting with Andrew Adonis' academies initiative, and other measures by subsequent administrations.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The EU is arguably no less democratic than the UK - just another level in a longer larger chain as it has to deal with the competing priorities of member states.

The EU council comprises heads of state of member nations and sets the overall political direction and priorities under which the Commission operates.

Commissioners (equivalent of cabinet ministers) are appointed by member states for a period of 5 years. Although in theory the President of the Commission can refuse an appointment, or the European Parliament can vote (2/3rds) to remove the commission, in practice this never happens (as yet) as a compromise is usually reached.

In the UK we elect a government who are supported by a permanent civil service. Cabinet appointments are by the PM. Ministers are almost wholly reliant on permanent Civil Servants for advice, analysis and action. Except for broad strategic issues, it is the civil service and Treasury who effectively run the country, create legislation etc. In principle the Civil Service is independent of elected Government - they cannot hire and fire etc. Yes Minister mostly still applies!

Even at a local authority level most of the work is done is done by a chief executive supported by staff - the strategy is set by the elected council, albeit conditioned by central rules and legislation. 

The EU is far from perfect - and the UK is only one of 28 members so it will frequently not get its own way. 

The UK is also over centralised and bureaucratic. Voting Leave may simply replace often bizarre EU legislation with a different set of UK initiated constraints. Leave will not solve the problems - just change the name on the rulebook with a slightly different set of people disadvantaged or benefiting.


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":157k7x5l said:


> .... They don't realise that whilst the French were doing Les Miserables (with real blood), we were not, and that Mme. Guillotine reigned there, and not here - _we are very different societies_.
> .....


Not that different. 
The guillotine was expected here. The south coast was heavily fortified and signs of sedition were being brutally put down. These were revolutionary times in France, Ireland, America and here. Thomas Paine was English and a major contributor to the French and the American revolutions. France, Ireland and USA were allied against Britain for a time.
Interesting times without a doubt.

https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victori ... in-britain

The French actually landed (Killala Bay 1798) but they failed to meet up with the United Irishmen (catholics and prods) and were routed. The Irish rebel army was brutally slaughtered. 
How this relates to the EU is interesting to speculate. Maybe the aims of the revolution will finally be achieved - we'll have their heads off metaphorically - in a civilised democratic way.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Terry - Somerset":if157jrv said:


> The EU is far from perfect - and the UK is only one of 28 members so it will frequently not get its own way.
> 
> The UK is also over centralised and bureaucratic. Voting Leave may simply replace often bizarre EU legislation with a different set of UK initiated constraints. Leave will not solve the problems - just change the name on the rulebook with a slightly different set of people disadvantaged or benefiting.



I agree with the first of those points.

The second I disagree with, because there is a fundamental difference in approach between the UK way of doing things (legislate or regulate when experience shows it to be necessary, otherwise leave well alone; everything is legal unless specifically outlawed) and the continental approach (any human activity should be regulated, everything is illegal unless specifically allowed).

The Industrial Revolution happened in Britain because (among other reasons) the legal and legislative framework just allowed people to get on with things. It could never have happened in (for example) France, despite their superior intellectual establishment at the time, because such things as the steam engine would have taken so long to navigate the various government committees that would have been obsolete by the time it came to fruition.

Estimates of the proportion of UK legislation that is putting EU law and regulation on the UK statute book vary - I've heard figures varying from 15% to 75% - and the uncertainty about the amount suggest that some want the true figure concealed from the UK population. It also suggests that without this additional burden, British business, commerce and general life would be freer and lean back more toward the old way of legislating only when experience shows it necessary. Clearing the statute book of the accumulated EU law would take a long time - perhaps decades, given that there's 40 years worth of it - and not all would need to be repealed. Messrs Carswell and Hannan suggested a Great Repeal Bill to remove swathes of surfeit law, but that would need a lot of spadework to ensure that good bits were not slung out with the bad. It could be done, and a lot would be removed or superceded piecemeal as part of the ongoing evolution of the statute book. We would, however, gradually become a freer people without the dead hand of the EU over us, and commerce would be better able to get on with things - that would a boost to the economy, so we would be better off financially, too, in the longer run.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

How likely is it that the problem will be addressed? There are grounds for optimism: the problem is recognised and other member states share UK concerns, so that pressure for change will comes from multiple sources.

Really? I'd hazard a guess how far that'll get.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I'm another who actually did learn it at school - I did modern European history for O level in 1970, which went up to 1963 iirc. It certainly covered the Treaty of Rome - which was one reason I voted to leave in 1975. The powers the were at the time new perfectly well that if a referendum was offered on entry the result may well have been different - and almost certainly would have been had Heath not lied through his teeth.


----------



## finneyb

Cheshirechappie":34wgza5x said:


> Terry - Somerset":34wgza5x said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....We would, however, gradually become a freer people without the dead hand of the EU over us, and commerce would be better able to get on with things - that would a boost to the economy, so we would be better off financially, too, in the longer run.
Click to expand...


If we are going to trade with the EU, and we must, then EU requirements will apply - look at Norway. EU are simply not going to have their services/industry undercut by the UK equivalent working to a possibly more liberal agenda. 

Brian


----------



## RogerS

finneyb":24l7gdif said:


> Cheshirechappie":24l7gdif said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry - Somerset":24l7gdif said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....We would, however, gradually become a freer people without the dead hand of the EU over us, and commerce would be better able to get on with things - that would a boost to the economy, so we would be better off financially, too, in the longer run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are going to trade with the EU, and we must, then EU requirements will apply - look at Norway. EU are simply not going to have their services/industry undercut by the UK equivalent working to a possibly more liberal agenda.
> 
> Brian
Click to expand...


I think that he is referring to the shed loads of wasteful bureaucracy that the EU foists on businesses.


----------



## finneyb

RogerS":3mf3erkt said:


> I think that he is referring to the shed loads of wasteful bureaucracy that the EU foists on businesses.



Can you give examples?

Brian


----------



## Jacob

finneyb":3jeamryg said:


> RogerS":3jeamryg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that he is referring to the shed loads of wasteful bureaucracy that the EU foists on businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give examples?
> 
> Brian
Click to expand...

Fair question. You won't get any sensible answers. Roger will be incapable of producing even one good example.

Yes there will be bureaucracy but by and large it will be a net benefit in almost all cases.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/n ... e-brussels


----------



## RogerS

finneyb":37akxawb said:


> RogerS":37akxawb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that he is referring to the shed loads of wasteful bureaucracy that the EU foists on businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give examples?
> 
> Brian
Click to expand...


Plenty here http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulations


----------



## stuartpaul

RogerS":1ltehibp said:


> finneyb":1ltehibp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":1ltehibp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that he is referring to the shed loads of wasteful bureaucracy that the EU foists on businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give examples?
> 
> Brian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty here http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulations
Click to expand...

I find it interesting how each 'side' has its particular spin. For example, that article makes much of the dastardly EU reduction in vacuum cleaner power. On the face of it a good example of an overbearing approach from that damned Jonny foreigner!

However, if you take a more considered approach then surely an attempt to reduce power consumption and hence a reduction in greenhouse gases overall is to be welcomed?

Incidently, the latest Which tests show no reduction in efficiency despite this reduced power.

Its not all bad, - despite what some want us to think.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I take exception to a pointless, corrupt, useless, expensive organisation who have seven hundred and fifty heavy goods vehicles on the road perpetually between Brussels and Strasbourg for no other reason than French vanity telling me how I should save the planet by switching my TV off standby and limiting the power of my hoover. They haven't thought about routers ... yet


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"Incidently, the latest Which tests show no reduction in efficiency despite this reduced power."
So why not reduce the power two or three times further?


----------



## RogerS

phil.p":3omco0mf said:


> I take exception to a pointless, corrupt, useless, expensive organisation who have seven hundred and fifty heavy goods vehicles on the road perpetually between Brussels and Strasbourg for no other reason than French vanity telling me how I should save the planet by switching my TV off standby and limiting the power of my hoover. They haven't thought about routers ... yet



You are spot on there, Phil. Hypocrisy springs to mind. I asked the Pro-EU lot to explain why this was needed a few pages back. They are still very quiet. Mmmmm...I wonder why ?

Stuart - you focussed on the vacuum cleaners - there are plenty of other daft regulations mentioned in that article. All very 'worthy', of course. Not.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

finneyb":3j8nut94 said:


> RogerS":3j8nut94 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that he is referring to the shed loads of wasteful bureaucracy that the EU foists on businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give examples?
> 
> Brian
Click to expand...


Some years ago, there was a small business that made it's living selling heritage varieties of vegetable seeds. The quantity of each variety it sold in a year was tiny, but the number of varieties was great. The EU introduced a rule that any seed variety sold within the EU must be type-approved, and the cost of registering each variety would be a few thousand pounds. That cost is trivial for a large firm selling five or six varieties of wheat seed a year in quantities of several thousand tons, but not for the small firm selling small quantities of many heritage varieties; it went out of business. How is the world safer and better for that? That's a good example of regulations being in the interest of big business, but not in the interest of the little guy.

Another example is the regulations concerning the use of mercury. The EU banned the making of mercury stick barometers, destroying the business of a small firm in (I think) Devon. They didn't outlaw the use or repair of existing antique barometers. How many people have been killed or had their health compromised by stick barometers? Why is this measure necessary?

The farming industry is beset by examples of unnecessary bureaucracy. For example, it became a requirement of claiming subsidy that the size every field on a farm must be given in hectares to three figures of decimals. Subsidy payments were refused or delayed because quoted field sizes did not agree precisely with a GPS survey after a season's hedge growth - despite everybody agreeing that it was the same field in the same place with the same boundaries growing the same crop. How is that efficient use of farmer's time or public money in the form of civil servants' wages?

That's the problem with all these regulations. Individually, they don't amount to much, but collectively they add up to a slow strangulation of freedom. Three or four people no longer able to earn a living selling heritage varieties of seed doesn't make a headline, or in itself much affect the nation's economy, but extend that across the countless regulations imposed on us and it adds up. It comes back to the point I made a couple of pages ago - the UK approach is traditionally to regulate only if experience shows it necessary, the EU approach is to regulate any human activity, because if it's an economic activity it ought to be regulated.

The UK economy would be better off without this cumulative, unnecessary burden - it's like the slow death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## Jacob

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

The vacuum thing is part of a wide and effective energy saving strategy across the board. This is to reduce fossil fuel use. This is due to the threat of climate change. 
It's no coincidence that euro sceptics also tend to be climate change sceptics and would dismiss these things as "worthy". 
In fact there is a major crisis and if anything the introduction of fossil fuel reduction measures are now too slow and too late.
But it's only through larger institutions that we stand any chance of dealing with these things on a global scale.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":1br3t3t2 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth
> 
> The vacuum thing is part of a wide and effective energy saving strategy across the board. This is to reduce fossil fuel use. This is due to the threat of climate change.
> It's no coincidence that euro sceptics also tend to be climate change sceptics and would dismiss these things as "worthy".
> In fact there is a major crisis and if anything the introduction of fossil fuel reduction measures are now too slow and too late.
> But it's only through larger institutions that we stand any chance of dealing with these things on a global scale.



Why restrict peoples' freedom?

The vacuum cleaner one is debateable - a more powerful vacuum does it's job quicker, so may not use more energy at all - indeed a smaller one may take so much longer to do the same work that it uses more energy. 

The whole effort just seems unnecessary. Why waste the public's money on stuff that makes a marginal difference, if any?


----------



## Jacob

Nothing European or new about these sorts of rules and regulations. We've had weights n measures, building regs, codes of practice, british standards, etc etc some going back to Roman times. By and large they are a good thing and promote health and happiness. 
Look at countries where these rules do not apply and you see collapsing buildings, food poisoning scares, pollution etc - a huge list of things we try to "regulate" in the more civilised west and which we also used to suffer from in the past.

Some seem trivial but a lot of CCs "marginal differences" eventually add up to a substantial big difference overall.
Some seem silly - the mercury issue frinstance - but mercury is highly toxic and we don't want it in our environment for very good reasons.
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/mercury/l-3/mercury-3.htm
It's only by acting across borders on a big scale that we can make a difference.

It's highly predictable that when the subject of stupid EU regulations comes up very little of substance emerges except a lot of tittle tattle about trivia. Yes there are stupid anomalies but there is also a continuous process of revision and review.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jacob":2pgyvubd said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth
> 
> The vacuum thing is part of a wide and effective energy saving strategy across the board.



Wide? yes - pervasive.

Effective?

It's the same "strategic thinkers" who intend to apply the same idea to *electric kettles*!!!! If you don't appreciate why this is stupid beyond words, yet is likely to become law affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people, I suggest some GCSE-level physcs would help.

It is far too easy to dismiss such people as utter morons, but they are not so. They are, in fact, yet again giving in to the lobbying of the big manufacturers, at the expense of the little guys. In this case we can guess the names of the big manufacturers, the smaller businesses being specialists like Numatic, who make truly excellent vacuum cleaners, and who have been steadily taking market share off the bigger guys for a long time.

Consider this: the directive only applies to domestic appliances, not "industrially-rated" ones. Which type are likely to run daily for hours at a time, and which for minutes? Which is likely to fail quicker - a big, lightly loaded motor, or a small one running at or near its theoretical maximum (which in addition has been cost-reduced to blazes)?

If you make stuff for the consumer market, designed-in obsolescence or failure is important. The "perfect" consumer product fails a few months out of warranty, _so it has to be replaced_, and it cannot be maintained. Back in the day, this was an unfortunate by-product of the cost-reduction aspect of the product lifecycle, but nowadays it is deliberate.

How environmentally effective is it to scrap, dismantle, salvage *some* materials, throw the rest into landfill, then re-manufacture essentially the same thing, package it, market it, distribute and sell it_only for the same cycle to be endlessly repeated every two or three years_. If you assume cost to be a reasonable proxy for energy use, the cost-of-sales for consumer products is very commonly 70% of the retail price.

So who benefits from this? Not the consumer; certainly not the environment; but big business.



Jacob"It's no coincidence that euro sceptics also tend to be climate change sceptics and would dismiss these things as "worthy". In fact there is a major crisis and if anything the introduction of fossil fuel reduction measures are now too slow and too late. But it's only through larger institutions that we stand any chance of dealing with these things on a global scale.[/quote said:


> The Americans would say you'd drunk (deeply) of the Koolade.
> 
> I am a convinced environmentalist. I have had solar panels on the roof, since long before they were a subsudused bubble. Mine are NOT electricity generating, because that is stupidly inefficient and inappropriate use of solar power at these latitudes - you can store hot water cheaply and easily _and usefully_, but you cannot do this with electricity. Mine have one moving part, and the electronics cost about as much as an old-fashioned transistor radio. Sadly the company that made the panels has now gone bust, because of the subsidies and promotional hype given to electric panels.
> 
> I am horrified by the windmills etc. that now blight the landscape (and seascape). They have been built at huge energy cost, their maintenance cost is enormous, and they _by their very nature_ are incapable of contributing significantly to our energy needs. Similarly the solar panels on roofs. We haven't yet begun to really see the cost of these things but there will come a day, pretty soon now, I expect, when property values are adversely affected by their presence, because they will attract higher insurance premiums and a requirement for expensive maintenance.
> 
> Meanwhile, in order to ensure continuity of supply, the National Grid Company here is reduced to contracting the diesel standby sets of companies with large plants, to maintain the voltage and frequency of the grid on not-windy days (and night-time). Base-load generation stations such as Drax and Didcot, around which our national grid topology was designed in the 1950s and 1960s, and which could have relatively cost-effectively had scrubbers fitted to their exhausts, have been too-rapidly shut down and demolished. THEY HAVE NO REPLACEMENTS PRESENTLY.
> 
> A cynic would think someone wants to bring us to our knees by destroying what used to be one of the most efficient power grids on the planet, replacing the core generation capacity with too-small and wholly inconsistent and unreliable systems that cannot fulfil the role.
> 
> I oppose it, not because I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming (I do, actually), BUT BECAUSE IT IS POLITICISED AND STUPID POLICY.
> 
> If the EU's ideas policies and propaganda are the answer in these circumstances, boy it must have been a dumb question in the first place!
> 
> But sadly it was a real, serious question, and the EU is doing its bit to ensure we actually DON'T have effective answers. Meanwhile big business grows fat, ensuring we replace our consumer products as frequently as they can force us to.
> 
> Have you heard of the term "greenwash"?
> 
> E


----------



## Jacob

There you go!


----------



## RogerS

Jacob, please explain how packing up pantechnicons and shifting everything and everybody from Brussels to Strasbourg each month and vice versa contributes to energy efficiency and being eco-friendly. Until you can do that then the rest of your arguments supporting the daft EU laws are without merit.

I'll give another daft EU Directive. One that affects each and everyone of us using the web. The EU cookie Directive. What an utterly pointless waste of time, money and energy. Not to mention you and I having to click that damn pointless 'This site uses cookies' tab.


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":1x6bdgfi said:


> ......
> Consider this: the directive only applies to domestic appliances, not "industrially-rated" ones. Which type are likely to run daily for hours at a time, and which for minutes? Which is likely to fail quicker - a big, lightly loaded motor, or a small one running at or near its theoretical maximum (which in addition has been cost-reduced to blazes)?.........
> E


Consider this:
Anybody old enough might recall the Hoovers of the 50s which had tiny motors but did the job and lasted for 30 years or more. We had one in our house - bought 1954, replaced 1995. This was commonplace, not an exception. We later had a Bosch ergo max with massive motor which failed in 3 years - also commonplace.
When regulation was at its height during the war with the "Utiity" mark the result was a generation of well designed , economical and highly durable products - many of them still with us.
Bring on the regulations!

PS manufactureres of electrical goods have a fundamental problem - it's perfectly possible to make things which will last for dozens of years (if not hundreds). We all have examples in our houses. Hence building in obsolescence. Industry wouldn't allow it but the domestic consumer is easily gulled. Engine size has absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":1gg3rbfm said:


> .........
> I'll give another daft EU Directive. One that affects each and everyone of us using the web. The EU cookie Directive. What an utterly pointless waste of time, money and energy. Not to mention you and I having to click that damn pointless 'This site uses cookies' tab.


 :lol: Perfect case of trivial regulation tittle tattle! Thank you Roger. 
Any more deeply serious and fundamentally disturbing examples?


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jacob":3qsm5h82 said:


> ... Manufactureres of electrical goods have a fundamental problem - it's perfectly possible to make things which will last for dozens of years (if not hundreds). We all have examples in our houses. Hence building in obsolescence. Industry wouldn't allow it but the domestic consumer is easily gulled. Engine size has absolutely nothing to do with it.



The Biblical term is, "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."

I'll lay it out very simply for you: 

1. The vacuum cleaner motor power regulations are ridiculous (as you yourself conceded).
2. They help big manufacturers, pushing a false, "green" agenda.
3. They add cost to smaller manufacturers who use bigger motors.

And, oddly, you seem to agree with me that built-in obsolescence is a terrible thing for the environment.

So why are you clinging to the idea that this is an example of EU interference in OUR free market that is worth championing?

You are very confused, or so it seems to me.

E.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":1f7p7noq said:


> RogerS":1f7p7noq said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> I'll give another daft EU Directive. One that affects each and everyone of us using the web. The EU cookie Directive. What an utterly pointless waste of time, money and energy. Not to mention you and I having to click that damn pointless 'This site uses cookies' tab.
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: Perfect case of trivial regulation tittle tattle! Thank you Roger.
> Any more deeply serious and fundamentally disturbing examples?
Click to expand...


Come on...tell me what the point is of that futile move between Brussels and Strasbourg. Still waiting. Third and last time of asking but as we all know, you won't or can't give any valid reason. Instead you will attempt to trivialise it as per your usual 'debating' (if it can be called that) style.


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":3ctdy7js said:


> Jacob":3ctdy7js said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Manufactureres of electrical goods have a fundamental problem - it's perfectly possible to make things which will last for dozens of years (if not hundreds). We all have examples in our houses. Hence building in obsolescence. Industry wouldn't allow it but the domestic consumer is easily gulled. Engine size has absolutely nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Biblical term is, "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."
> 
> I'll lay it out very simply for you:
> 
> 1. The vacuum cleaner motor power regulations are ridiculous (as you yourself conceded).
> 2. They help big manufacturers, pushing a false, "green" agenda.
> 3. They add cost to smaller manufacturers who use bigger motors.
> 
> And, oddly, you seem to agree with me that built-in obsolescence is a terrible thing for the environment.
> 
> So why are you clinging to the idea that this is an example of EU interference in OUR free market that is worth championing?
> 
> You are very confused, or so it seems to me.
> 
> E.
Click to expand...

It's about reducing energy consumption. Tests show that efficiency isn't only about size. It's simpler than you think.


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":18y8h5i1 said:


> Jacob":18y8h5i1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":18y8h5i1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> I'll give another daft EU Directive. One that affects each and everyone of us using the web. The EU cookie Directive. What an utterly pointless waste of time, money and energy. Not to mention you and I having to click that damn pointless 'This site uses cookies' tab.
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: Perfect case of trivial regulation tittle tattle! Thank you Roger.
> Any more deeply serious and fundamentally disturbing examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on...tell me what the point is of that futile move between Brussels and Strasbourg. Still waiting. Third and last time of asking but as we all know, you won't or can't give any valid reason. Instead you will attempt to trivialise it as per your usual 'debating' (if it can be called that) style.
Click to expand...

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Euro ... ce-a-month

Probably going to end anyway.


----------



## Rhossydd

For those that believe that the UK has no influence in the EU should read this:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... k-lobbying

Nothing to be proud of there.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jacob":9ixwqepb said:


> Eric The Viking":9ixwqepb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vacuum cleaner motor power regulations are ridiculous (as you yourself conceded).
> 2. They help big manufacturers, pushing a false, "green" agenda.
> 3. They add cost to smaller manufacturers who use bigger motors.
> And, oddly, you seem to agree with me that built-in obsolescence is a terrible thing for the environment.
> 
> So why are you clinging to the idea that this is an example of EU interference in OUR free market that is worth championing?.
> 
> 
> 
> It's about reducing energy consumption. Tests show that efficiency isn't only about size. It's simpler than you think.
Click to expand...


[chortle] =D> =D> =D> =D> [/]


----------



## Jacob

Rhossydd":11nunws9 said:


> For those that believe that the UK has no influence in the EU should read this:
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... k-lobbying
> 
> Nothing to be proud of there.


They'd be better off without us!

Interesting to see that raising the mad regulations issue has only brought up trivia. 
I thought there might be more substance to it but it seems not - just the usual bureaucratic bumbling you get everywhere, but in the end we are better off for it.
Roger's cookies example would get the wooden spoon for utter triviality and unimportance. *
Are there EU regs about wooden spoons?

PS the "EU cookie Directive" means we can choose whether or not we want a web site to plant cookies on our computers, which previously they could do without us knowing. Seems reasonable to me.
Bring on the regs!


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":10usmxww said:


> RogerS":10usmxww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":10usmxww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...tell me what the point is of that futile move between Brussels and Strasbourg. Still waiting. Third and last time of asking but as we all know, you won't or can't give any valid reason. Instead you will attempt to trivialise it as per your usual 'debating' (if it can be called that) style.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Euro ... ce-a-month
> 
> Probably going to end anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


1) Those are not valid reasons. Just more examples of EU waste

2) Probably going to end? You do love your wishful thinking. There is more chance of you voting Conservative in the next general election or of ever admitting that you are wrong.


----------



## Jacob

https://www.cookielaw.org/the-cookie-law/


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Just to lighten the debate and prove that it is not just our friends across the channel who create bizarre laws. Some of the UK best - note that not all of them are pre-Victorian relics which should have been repealed. EU laws are inevitably more recent. This comes from the Law Commission website -but if you search there are many more:

*It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour.*
The 1313 Statute Forbidding Bearing of Armour forbids members of Parliament from wearing armour in the House.
*It is illegal to be drunk on licensed premises.*
Under s 12 of the Licensing Act 1872,“every person found drunk… on any licensed premises, shall be liable to a penalty”. It is also an offence under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 for the keeper of a public house to permit drunkenness or disorderly conduct on the premises. Furthermore, under the Licensing Act 2003, it is an offence to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk, or to obtain alcohol for consumption by a person who is drunk.
*It is illegal to carry a plank along a pavement.*
This is an offence under s 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. Other offences covered by s 54 include flying kites, playing annoying games, and sliding on ice or snow in the street.
*It is illegal to fire cannon within 300 yards of a dwelling house.*
This is an offence under s 55 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839.
*It is illegal to beat or shake any carpet or rug in any street. However, beating or shaking a doormat is allowed before 8am.*
This is an offence under s 60 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. In other districts, it is an offence under s 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
*It is illegal to drive cows down the roadway without the permission of the Commissioner of Police.*
The Metropolitan Streets Act 1867 made it an offence to drive cattle through the streets between 10am and 7pm, except with the permission of the Commissioner of Police.
*It is illegal to be drunk in charge of a horse.*
Under the Licensing Act 1872, it is an offence to be drunk in charge of a carriage, horse, cow or steam engine, or whilst in possession of a loaded firearm.
*It is illegal to jump the queue in the Tube ticket hall.*
Under the TfL Railway Byelaws, any person directed to queue by an authorised person or a sign must join the rear of the queue and obey the reasonable instructions of any authorised person regulating the queue.
*It is illegal to destroy or deface money.*
It is not illegal to deliberately destroy a banknote. However, under the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928, it is an offence to deface a banknote by printing, stamping or writing on it. The Coinage Act 1971 also makes it an offence to destroy a metal coin that has been current in the UK since 1969, unless a licence to do so has been granted by the Treasury.
*It is illegal to handle salmon in suspicious circumstances.*
This is an offence under the Salmon Act 1986

Terry


----------



## Eric The Viking

The salmon thing is brilliant.

What about letting coins rust deliberately - does that count?
Of course, pre-1969 you probably couldn't do that...


----------



## finneyb

RogerS":1icvn62d said:


> Jacob, please explain how packing up pantechnicons and shifting everything and everybody from Brussels to Strasbourg each month and vice versa contributes to energy efficiency and being eco-friendly. Until you can do that then the rest of your arguments supporting the daft EU laws are without merit.
> 
> I'll give another daft EU Directive. One that affects each and everyone of us using the web. The EU cookie Directive. What an utterly pointless waste of time, money and energy. Not to mention you and I having to click that damn pointless 'This site uses cookies' tab.




Taking vacuum cleaners as the example. if we leave the EU and a UK manufacturer wants to sell his vacuum cleaners in the EU as he will - he will need to comply with the EU legislation. If he has to tool up to comply with the EU regs then his UK sales will also comply with the EU Regs regardless of whether we are in or out. Equally, an EU manufacture of vacuum cleaners will sell to the UK only vacuum cleaners to the EU specification. 

I agree with the Brussels to Strasbourg issue. But nothing is perfect not even the UK system. As I understand it the French are blocking any change, at the moment. 

Better in than out, by a long way - these are just minor irritations that you will get with any group of interested parties working together - its called compromise. If we are out we still get the results of the compromise without the benefit of being at the table forming the compromise


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"The Coinage Act 1971 also makes it an offence to destroy a metal coin that has been current in the UK since 1969, unless a licence to do so has been granted by the Treasury."
The machines you see in places like Alton towers that stretch and stamp pennies have a little plate on them that give the details of the law that renders it no longer illegal (about 1983,iirc). I think the manufacturers of expensive machines purpose made for the destruction of current coinage and sited in busy public places would have been informed if they were doing anything illegal.


----------



## Eric The Viking

I can't be the only person on here that has an elliptical American 'penny' from the Empire State Building. Ours must be much more work now for youngsters, as they're steel with a copper coating plated or laminated on.


----------



## Rhyolith

Too many pages to read through, sorry. 

Just thought I would say that I am currently for voting to stay in, mainly out of the principle that we-re better off working together than apart... even if its somewhat inefficient. 

Further no one has given me a solid reason why leaving the EU would benefit anyone, whereas there seems to be a myriad of small benefits to remaining; such as all the money that goes to Aberystwyth (and much of Wales I believe) from the EU.


----------



## Jacob

Rhyolith":3urfzn1g said:


> Too many pages to read through, sorry.
> 
> Just thought I would say that I am currently for voting to stay in, mainly out of the principle that we-re better off working together than apart... even if its somewhat inefficient.
> 
> Further no one has given me a solid reason why leaving the EU would benefit anyone, whereas there seems to be a myriad of small benefits to remaining; such as all the money that goes to Aberystwyth (and much of Wales I believe) from the EU.


Money going to Aberystwyth? I'm voting out!! :shock:
Are they coining it in Machynlleth?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhyolith":1yyl9lfd said:


> Too many pages to read through, sorry.
> 
> Just thought I would say that I am currently for voting to stay in, mainly out of the principle that we-re better off working together than apart... even if its somewhat inefficient.
> 
> Further no one has given me a solid reason why leaving the EU would benefit anyone, whereas there seems to be a myriad of small benefits to remaining; such as all the money that goes to Aberystwyth (and much of Wales I believe) from the EU.



1) Benefits to remaining - the ability to vote for the people who govern us, and hold them to account through the ballot box - you can't do that with the EU decision makers (the Commissioners, and 27 out of 28 on the Council of Ministers).

2) The generally freer approach the UK traditionally adopts (legislate or regulate when evidence shows it is necessary, otherwise leave well alone) contrasts with the traditional continental approach (legislate or regulate whether it's needed or not) means that the economy does better under UK approach. The Industrial Revolution happened in Britain because people were free to get on with things; it could never have happened on the continent because it would have taken too long to work through all the government committees.

3) Where do you think the EU gets it's money from?

Vote leave - the UK will be a freer, more democratic and more prosperous place.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":1zfur2rg said:


> 2) The generally freer approach the UK traditionally adopts (legislate or regulate when evidence shows it is necessary, otherwise leave well alone) contrasts with the traditional continental approach (legislate or regulate whether it's needed or not) means that the economy does better under UK approach.


There's absolutely no credible evidence to support this, but a lot more to suggest this is totally wrong.


> The Industrial Revolution happened in Britain because people were free to get on with things


 The industrial revolution happened two hundred years ago. That has no relevance in the twenty first century.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rhyolith":36vr2wcs said:


> Too many pages to read through, sorry.
> 
> Just thought I would say that I am currently for voting to stay in, mainly out of the principle that we-re better off working together than apart... even if its somewhat inefficient.
> 
> Further no one has given me a solid reason why leaving the EU would benefit anyone, whereas there seems to be a myriad of small benefits to remaining; such as all the money that goes to Aberystwyth (and much of Wales I believe) from the EU.


England could pay for Wales - cut out the middle man.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":2u27yzfg said:


> Cheshirechappie":2u27yzfg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) The generally freer approach the UK traditionally adopts (legislate or regulate when evidence shows it is necessary, otherwise leave well alone) contrasts with the traditional continental approach (legislate or regulate whether it's needed or not) means that the economy does better under UK approach.
> 
> 
> 
> There's absolutely no credible evidence to support this, but a lot more to suggest this is totally wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> The Industrial Revolution happened in Britain because people were free to get on with things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The industrial revolution happened two hundred years ago. That has no relevance in the twenty first century.
Click to expand...


I disagree very strongly, and stand absolutely by every word I wrote - we've discussed this in some depth in this and other threads.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":8nmm2fdo said:


> and stand absolutely by every word I wrote


But have no evidence what so ever to counter the majority of world opinion that leaving the EU would be a bad idea.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The majority of the world? I have yet to come across anyone of that opinion without a vested interest.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":1fhoyzsm said:


> I have yet to come across anyone of that opinion without a vested interest.


Everyone in the UK has a vested interest in this referendum, although some might not have grasped the implications to their own lives yet. We all stand to loose out, some very badly.
Of course the leaders of the leave campaign are all so wealthy that if they succeed and are wrong about the possible financial benefits they won't actually endure any actual hardship if their wealth halves or worse.
Are you that financially secure that you have no risk to financial hardship if the worst happens ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Likewise the leaders of the remain campaign - they do very nicely thank you, with their cheap Polish plumbers, Spanish maids and gardeners and so on. The EU financially is going to hell in a handcart - why presume GB will do worse outside?


----------



## Terry - Somerset

There are many theories as to why the industrial revolution started in Britain - but I would note that at the start of the 19th century:

- Britain ruled the waves
- Had the huge economic benefit of an empire
- Which kick-started banking and other financial services
- Was a coherent whole (and had been for 100 years) rather than competing independent states 
- Germany had yet to be unified (1861)
- The French revolution shortly followed by Napoleon and later the Franco Prussian wars

There may have been a less regulatory culture in the UK (impossible to judge), but the pre-requisites for the UK to make the most of the technical advances (money, education, political stability, entrepreneurial culture) were all in place.


----------



## Jacob

One thing you can be sure of is that the "success" of the British Empire wasn't due to the rest of the world being "over regulated".
In fact if anything quite the opposite - have a look at some of the regulations concerning the Navy 18/19C; minutely detailed specifications down to the number of stitches per inch in sail canvas and the colour of the thread. Pepys writes about it - it was his job.
We gained the empire just like the romans before - by tight organisation and obsessive regulation of every detail possible.
Thar's power in them thar regulations, make no mistake!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Terry - Somerset":1pj3v3jo said:


> There are many theories as to why the industrial revolution started in Britain - but I would note that at the start of the 19th century:
> 
> - Britain ruled the waves
> - Had the huge economic benefit of an empire
> - Which kick-started banking and other financial services
> - Was a coherent whole (and had been for 100 years) rather than competing independent states
> - Germany had yet to be unified (1861)
> - The French revolution shortly followed by Napoleon and later the Franco Prussian wars
> 
> There may have been a less regulatory culture in the UK (impossible to judge), but the pre-requisites for the UK to make the most of the technical advances (money, education, political stability, entrepreneurial culture) were all in place.



Terry - those are consequences of the Industrial Revolution, not causes.

Opinions vary when the IR started, though significant events were Newcomen's atmospheric engine (1712), Watt's improvements to it (1769), Abraham Darby smelting iron with coke rather than charcoal (1709) and the various developments in Lancashire around cotton spinning and weaving in the 18th century. All these things happened because there was a demand - more coal was needed, requiring deeper mines, needing better means of drainage.

A factor in this was attitude to religion. In the 18th century, only members of the CofE were permitted in positions of authority - military officers, MPs, judges, the clergy - leaving Nonconformists with little option of advancement except through commerce. A critical factor was that they were left alone to get on with it, and not in any way officially hampered or persecuted. Also, the development of mills and factories happened in great part because they paid better wages than could be had by working independently - people went into paid work through choice, not coercion. Part of the reason for their seeking higher wages was the gradual development of a consumer society - there were things they could spend their money on, and a slow development of shops in which they could spend their money. An early 19th century mill worker was better off than an agricultural smallholder doing a bit of hand-weaving on the side.

England at the end of the 17th century was a reasonably prosperous country, its prosperity built on wool. It had endured the horror of civil war, and the increasingly authoritarian Cromwellian 'Commonwealth'. By the time Parliament invited Charles II to retake the throne in 1660, everyone was heartily sick of overbearing government, the reaction being a far more libertarian attitude to government that lasted, in general spirit at least, until the present - legislate or regulate if experience shows it to be necessary, otherwise leave alone. It was in this political atmosphere that commerce, and innovation, was able to thrive - and thus Britain ended up 'ruling the waves' in the 19th century, because people had been free to get on with things in the late 17th and 18th.

The parallels with today are that the UK generally stills holds the view that legislation and regulation should only be applied if found necessary, where the EU approach is based on the Continental tradition that every human activity should be regulated for the common good. Earlier in the thread, I gave some examples of why this makes a difference. Each little regulation in itself makes little difference to the overall economy, but collectively, they very definitely do.

I repeat - the UK would be a more prosperous country away from the dead hand of Brussels regulations.


Edit to add - I really ought to mention Cornishman Richard Trevithick (another Nonconformist!), the father of the high-pressure steam engine (late 18th century) and the first workable railway locomotive (1804), which George Stephenson later developed. Trevithick developed his interest in improving the existing steam engines to improve those used for draining Cornish mines - a well-established and developed industry in Cornwall in the late 18th century. (Indeed, among the many places claiming to be the cradle of the industrial revolution - Manchester, Coalbrookdale, Birmingham, Newcastle - Cornwall has a fair shout; it was the need to import coal for pumping engines that drove steady increases in engine efficiency in the late 18th and early 19th century.)

Another towering figure, less well known, is Henry Maudslay, the father of accurate machine tools (1790s) and the man who trained some of the greatest names in mechanical engineering of the early 19th century (Naysmith, Whitworth, Roberts, etc).


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":qzx54j80 said:


> why presume GB will do worse outside?


Because every credible financial projection says so.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":22dvx4em said:


> phil.p":22dvx4em said:
> 
> 
> 
> why presume GB will do worse outside?
> 
> 
> 
> Because every credible financial projection says so.
Click to expand...


All made by 'economic forecasters' with a long history of getting it wrong. They forecast that the Eurozone would lead to growth - wrong. They all forecast that the UK would be poorer ouside the Euro (that was wrong), none of them predicted the 2008 crash, the IMF forecast that Osborne's 'austerity' approach to the UK economy would lead to recession (Lagarde had the grace to admit they got that wrong). Treasury three-month forecasts always have to be revised after six weeks.

Why on earth does anybody take economic forecasts seriously? Their record of accuracy is absolutely abysmal. The fact that all the big economic forecasters suggest we'd be better off in is pretty much an absolute guarantee we'd be better off out, going by their past record!


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":1l1zv5bw said:


> Why on earth does anybody take economic forecasts seriously?


Because they're the best source of information we have. There might be an element of doubt if there were a huge range of variability in the projections, but there isn't. It's all negative.

Have you ever seen a forecast that credibly suggests that we'd all be better off out of the EU ? I haven't.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":1svj08nd said:


> Cheshirechappie":1svj08nd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth does anybody take economic forecasts seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're the best source of information we have. There might be an element of doubt if there were a huge range of variability in the projections, but there isn't. It's all negative.
> 
> Have you ever seen a forecast that credibly suggests that we'd all be better off out of the EU ? I haven't.
Click to expand...


Yes - the lessons of history. I've tried to set out some of them in this thread and others. History shows that countries with active democracies and light-touch regulation do far better economically than less democratic, more 'managed' economies, and end up more prosperous and freer. Examples - America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain between the civil war and now, Germany after WW2. I can think of no examples of countries that have prospered so well under managed economies - even China has had to become far more liberal in it's attitude to commerce (would that it would in other aspects of life!).


----------



## Eric The Viking

Rhossydd":2zw7wygs said:


> Cheshirechappie":2zw7wygs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth does anybody take economic forecasts seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're the best source of information we have. There might be an element of doubt if there were a huge range of variability in the projections, but there isn't. It's all negative.
> 
> Have you ever seen a forecast that credibly suggests that we'd all be better off out of the EU ? I haven't.
Click to expand...


Here are examples from a number of leading economists: 

*Prof. Patrick Minford:*
Should Britain Leave the EU? (2005 ed.) (2015 edition on Amazon)
http://www.patrickminford.net/ (home page, including links to specific papers)

*Prof. Tim Congdon:*
http://getbritainout.org/prof-tim-congdon-cbe-serious-flaws-in-the-treasurys-analysis-of-eu-costs/ as is obvious this is a rebuttal to the recent Treasury analysis. Prof. Congdon has published a lot of work in recent years on the subject.

*Dr. Ruth Lea*
http://politeia.co.uk/blog/open-letter-sir-mike-rake-dr-ruth-lea Rebuttal of 'remain' arguments in the form of a letter to the CBI.
http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/economic_perspectives_group.html Analysis blog for Arbuthnot (not specifically EU-related).
http://www.cityam.com/234438/ignore-eu-scaremongers-why-britain-would-thrive-post-brexit
Biography here

I have yet to see a Remain economic assessment that doesn't depend on a hubristically gloomy view of global realpolitik. 

But for me the argument doesn't hinge on economics but on personal and national freedom, and the nature of the superstate we are presently part of. It has shown time and again that it cannot be reformed, and that it regards taxpayer money as a self-preservation fund. 

It is a proven economic disaster area -- for those who want to trust IMF and think-tank "must stay in" propaganda, just remember all those luminaries here supporting the Euro: Heseltine, Clarke, Mandelson, Blair, Brown (in the early stages), umpteen 'captains' of industry', Eddie Izzard (who?), the travel companies, big banks, the Treasury (behind the scenes), and so on.

Anyone who did basic macroeconomics at University (as I did) could clearly see the dangers, and dangerous it has proved: trashed economies in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece; threats to the solvency of lending banks; mass unemployment. It's quite possible the migration crisis will tip things over into societal breakdown in Greece and other places, but the undermining of the foundations has been the euro debacle.

Cancelling the euro means admitting failure, and rolling back the Project of superstate creation. It is politically impossible for European politicians - Merkel, Tusk, the Eurocrats, Lagarde, et al, - to do this as it indicates their policies won't work. Truth is, the euro DAMAGES rather than helps European economies, and has almost killed several. 

How much more evidence do you need? At a rally in Bristol yesterday, Liam Fox, former Defence Secretary, pointed out we should be warning of the dangers of staying in, not rebutting the "risks" of leaving. He's right.

In any financial bubble (and subsequent crash) those who survive are those who escape early. You can't, but imagine asking George Frederic Handel about the South Sea bubble 

The EU won't end well, and that is probably not too far away - the pressures on the eurozone are already too extreme and still growing. If we are sensible we should ensure we're not 'in' when the end finally happens.

E.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":1z2td7ll said:


> Rhossydd":1z2td7ll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":1z2td7ll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth does anybody take economic forecasts seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're the best source of information we have. There might be an element of doubt if there were a huge range of variability in the projections, but there isn't. It's all negative.
> 
> Have you ever seen a forecast that credibly suggests that we'd all be better off out of the EU ? I haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - the lessons of history. I've tried to set out some of them in this thread and others. History shows that countries with active democracies and light-touch regulation do far better economically than less democratic, more 'managed' economies, and end up more prosperous and freer. Examples - America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain between the civil war and now, Germany after WW2. I can think of no examples of countries that have prospered so well under managed economies - even China has had to become far more liberal in it's attitude to commerce (would that it would in other aspects of life!).
Click to expand...

Completely the opposite.

The various empires or successful nations which have come and gone have succeeded on the basis of centralised power, tight rule and regulation, bureaucracy and so on. Often with slavery and enforced cheap labour, and in the colonies you mention; the domination and/or extermination of native populations.

The industrial revolution developed out of discovering how things could be done then becoming how things _should_ be done, with codes of practice, standards imposed, research and development largely centrally funded, and so on.
We now have the neo-liberal experiment quite obviously failing all around us with the collapse of American and UK industry and the rise of poverty.

Whether or not we want to be successful on the basis of centralised power is another question - but democracy can be powerful without being tyrannical and with the development of technology we don't need a slavery and cheap labour as in previous eras. 
And centralised power looks like the only way we will deal with climate change, which is in the process of disrupting everything, worldwide, very quickly.


----------



## Jacob

> a hubristically gloomy view of global realpolitik.


 :lol: nice turn of phrase!


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jacob":2hs70fs6 said:


> ... The various empires or successful nations which have come and gone have succeeded on the basis of centralised power, tight rule and regulation, bureaucracy and so on.



You might want to take a look at the Roman empire. Edward Gibbon's six volumes would be a good place to start. Honestly, anything by Mary Beard would be an easier read/watch though.

You may get rather a shock.


----------



## Jacob

Have recently been reading both. Gibbon is an easy read BTW which is why it was so popular, but it's long!

Think of the Roman road. No free-thinking head scratching going on there, no rolling roads of England!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":2l2ln79l said:


> Completely the opposite.
> 
> The various empires or successful nations which have come and gone have succeeded on the basis of centralised power, tight rule and regulation, bureaucracy and so on. Often with slavery and enforced cheap labour, and in the colonies you mention; the domination and/or extermination of native populations.
> 
> The industrial revolution developed out of discovering how things could be done then becoming how things _should_ be done, with codes of practice, standards imposed, research and development largely centrally funded, and so on.
> We now have the neo-liberal experiment quite obviously failing all around us with the collapse of American and UK industry and the rise of poverty.
> 
> Whether or not we want to be successful on the basis of centralised power is another question - but democracy can be powerful without being tyrannical and with the development of technology we don't need a slavery and cheap labour as in previous eras.
> And centralised power looks like the only way we will deal with climate change, which is in the process of disrupting everything, worldwide, very quickly.



Jacob - it's hilarious the way you re-write history and desperately try to prove that black is really white! The collapse of American and UK industry and the rise of poverty? Which economies are doing better - the Eurozone, or the US and UK? Who are better off at the moment, Britons or Greeks? Who on earth is suggesting a return to slave labour?


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":34f3xvnx said:


> ..... Who on earth is suggesting a return to slave labour?


Nobody - but that (plus colonisation) what largely sustained the development of all the nations mentioned by CC above, including the UK.
But workers rights have been chiselled away at in the UK and wealth has been distributed rapidly upwards. We are all waiting for the trickle down effect to start.
The EU is strong on workers rights and protection which is one of the strongest reasons for staying in.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jacob":20p5sabl said:


> a hubristically gloomy view of global realpolitik.
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: nice turn of phrase!
Click to expand...

I mean they're sticking their necks out spouting gloomy nonsense in the hope nobody will call them out on it. 

Sadly (for them) Tim Congdon has fired a pretty accurate salvo (see earlier post for links).

The reality is: 

(1) We trade at a steadily growing loss with our other EU "partners". It has been like this for decades, not weeks or months. If we were a business operating that way, we would have been bust long ago.

(2) For EU companies and countries we are cheap and profitable to do business with, because (a) we're close by, so physical goods cost less to send here, (b) the exchange rate benefits them, and (c) we have no protectionist measures in place to prevent dumping, etc. Contrast us, for example, with the 'fun' they have doing business with China. The car companies are opening up their own plants on the Chinese mainland, simply because direct exports are so hard (so are we). The point is, though, do you want a Merc or a BMW built to the quality standards prevailing in Bavaria or Shanghai? And a Chinese plant isn't doing anything for unemployment in Portugal...

(3) There are places like New Zealand and Australlia who would be pleased to return to good trading relationships - remember New Zealand lamb and butter from the 1960s? When we joined the EEC in 1972, we immediately imposed protectionist barriers (in compliance with CAP-related policies), and almost destroyed their lamb and dairy industries (we had been one of their biggest export markets). They were forced to introduce Halal abattoirs and export to the Middle East. I'll admit we have fences to mend, but we would be quite free to apologise, as a start!

(4) Even the stats on EU trade have been bent for years. Because of containerization, much of our export trade to the rest of the world goes through Rotterdam and Hamburg (I think Hamburg, definitely Rotterdam). Under EU rules, even though it's in transit, it's counted as trade with other EU countries (and then, presumably, counted again as Dutch or German exports to the rest of the world!). This is significant enough to have become known as "the Rotterdam effect" (Google it). So our trade deficit with the rest of the EU is actually worse than it first appears.

The ONS attempted to get a handle on this in 2014, but admitted it had to make educated guesses because of the way the real-world data were collected and processed by the EU. The stark 2013 numbers were these: 
Official UK exports to the rest of the EU: *£154.6bn*
Official UK-to-EU, _minus The Netherlands_: *£128.4bn*
That's actually too big a chunk off the top - they admit they can't get a proper figure in the linked article - but the fact remains, when you hear Remain (or the institutions wading in to prop up its arguments) say we have healthy exports to the EU, it IS a lie.

. . .

I'm _really_ supposed to be doing something more constructive this morning. Jacob, stop waving red rags at me!
 

E.


----------



## finneyb

Eric The Viking":1u5zuvns said:


> Here are examples from a number of leading economists:
> 
> *Prof. Patrick Minford:*
> Should Britain Leave the EU? (2005 ed.) (2015 edition on Amazon)
> http://www.patrickminford.net/ (home page, including links to specific papers)
> 
> *Prof. Tim Congdon:*
> http://getbritainout.org/prof-tim-congdon-cbe-serious-flaws-in-the-treasurys-analysis-of-eu-costs/ as is obvious this is a rebuttal to the recent Treasury analysis. Prof. Congdon has published a lot of work in recent years on the subject.
> 
> *Dr. Ruth Lea*
> http://politeia.co.uk/blog/open-letter-sir-mike-rake-dr-ruth-lea Rebuttal of 'remain' arguments in the form of a letter to the CBI.
> http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/economic_perspectives_group.html Analysis blog for Arbuthnot (not specifically EU-related).
> http://www.cityam.com/234438/ignore-eu-scaremongers-why-britain-would-thrive-post-brexit
> Biography here



Those three would make Trump look left wing.

Brian


----------



## finneyb

Moving the discussion on to other aspects of Remaining/Leaving EU.

If we leave it weakens the EU - others will attempt to copy and hold referendums, they always do.
A weakened EU allows Putin more power with the likes of Ukraine and the Baltic states. He must be rubbing his hands waiting for the UK to leave.

Taken in the round the only sensible solution is to Remain; nothing is perfect, coming out will be a nightmare. 

Brian


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":2ge1gv64 said:


> The EU is strong on workers rights and protection which is one of the strongest reasons for staying in.



Workers' rights?

What's youth unemployment running at in Spain? 40%? 50%? It's even higher in Greece, too. Then there's the effect the Euro had on Ireland - first it fuelled a boom, then it bust the economy so badly that the Irish ended up becoming depressingly familiar with something they thought they'd consigned to history - mass emigration. Then there's Stuart Rose - a leader of the Remain campaign until they shut him up - telling us that getting out of the EU could cause wages to rise in the UK (and he thought that would be a bad thing!)

Erm - those workers' rights?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

finneyb":3k8jr287 said:


> Moving the discussion on to other aspects of Remaining/Leaving EU.
> 
> If we leave it weakens the EU - others will attempt to copy and hold referendums, they always do.
> A weakened EU allows Putin more power with the likes of Ukraine and the Baltic states. He must be rubbing his hands waiting for the UK to leave.
> 
> Taken in the round the only sensible solution is to Remain; nothing is perfect, coming out will be a nightmare.
> 
> Brian



Nah - doesn't affect NATO, which is the defence against Putin. And if leaving would be a nightmare (actually, I rather doubt that - I don't think anybody would notice much difference in the short term, except some MEPs having to find other employment), then staying in would be far worse.


----------



## Rhyolith

phil.p":tkottiye said:


> England could pay for Wales - cut out the middle man.


Hahahaha! I don't see that happening... but stand to be corrected.

Again, no one has offered anything beyond speculation to why leaving is of benefit.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

It already does - it's only a question of scale.


----------



## Rhyolith

phil.p":202qqtoa said:


> It already does - it's only a question of scale.


Does it? Where's the evidence?


----------



## finneyb

Cheshirechappie":28n6xn3r said:


> finneyb":28n6xn3r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving the discussion on to other aspects of Remaining/Leaving EU.
> 
> If we leave it weakens the EU - others will attempt to copy and hold referendums, they always do.
> A weakened EU allows Putin more power with the likes of Ukraine and the Baltic states. He must be rubbing his hands waiting for the UK to leave.
> 
> Taken in the round the only sensible solution is to Remain; nothing is perfect, coming out will be a nightmare.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah - doesn't affect NATO, which is the defence against Putin. And if leaving would be a nightmare (actually, I rather doubt that - I don't think anybody would notice much difference in the short term, except some MEPs having to find other employment), then staying in would be far worse.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about relative GDPs of the two blocks and EU ability to support the Baltic states economically if needed. They form a very useful buffer. A larger EU GDP has more scope for effective economic sanctions against Russia. Economic sanctions are a preferable route to NATO action every time, because if NATO acts in anger against Russia we have WWIII.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rhyolith":35o0mt7u said:


> phil.p":35o0mt7u said:
> 
> 
> 
> England could pay for Wales - cut out the middle man.
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha! I don't see that happening... but stand to be corrected.
> 
> Again, no one has offered anything beyond speculation to why leaving is of benefit.
Click to expand...

Speculation? There's one whole load of speculation involved in staying in. Everyone on the in side is fond of saying "we'll never join the Euro", "we'll always have a veto", "we'll not have to take the thousands of immigrants the rest are taking", "we'll never have to bail out Greece, Portugal or wherever", "we'll never have to pay for the mess Germany's got itself in with the "migrant crisis" (which we were all told was a financial boon to host country)" and so on.
How long do you think these things are to last? No straw is too minute to be clutched when it comes to saving the Euro - It's their only hope of a European federation - so the rules will be changed to incorporate the UK. We're already bailing out German and French banks because of the crisis in Greece, despite being told we're not, and when Germany realises they've scored a huge own goal millions of immigrants will be given European papers and waved goodbye, despite promises to the contrary.


----------



## Eric The Viking

finneyb":g3fnvzu0 said:


> Those three would make Trump look left wing.
> Brian



Thanks for the detailed analysis.

i love it when one answers a question with detail and someone basically says, "Never mind the facts, I just don't _like_ the answer.."

I certainly can't argue with you on that basis, and your view is shared by many of those in the Remain camp, I know. ](*,) 

But here's a list of a few more economists who want out (from the Vote Leave partner site):


Roger Bootle, Managing Director, Capital Economics
Ryan Bourne, Head of Public Policy, Institute of Economic Affairs
 Keith Boyfield, Executive Director, Keith Boyfield Associates
 Professor Tim Congdon, Founder, International Monetary Research Ltd
Sean Corrigan, Hinde Capital
Mike Denham, Research Fellow, The TaxPayers’ Alliance
Bryan Gould, Former Labour Shadow Cabinet member & former Vice-Chancellor, University of Waikato
Dr David Green, Chief Executive, CIVITAS
Dr. Oliver Hartwich, Executive Director, The New Zealand Initiative
Damon de Laszlo, Chairman, Economic Research Council
Graeme Leach, Former Chief Economist, Institute of Directors
Andrew Lilico, Chairman, Economists for Britain
Neil MacKinnon, Global Macro Strategist, VTB Capital
Dr Eileen Marshall, IEA Advisory Council
Professor Kent Matthews, Associate Dean for Engagement & Professor of Money and Banking, Cardiff University
Michael Petley, Chief Investment Officer, ECU Group
John Mills, Chairman and Founder of JML
Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Economics, Cardiff Business School
Iain Murray, Vice President for Strategy, Competitive Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)
David Myddelton, Professor D.R. Myddelton, Emeritus Professor of Finance and Accounting, Cranfield School of Management.
Ross Parker
Brian Reading, former economics adviser to Edward Heath
Professor Colin Robinson, Advisory Council Institute of Economic Affairs & Emeritus Professor, Surrey University
Matthew Sinclair, Senior Consultant, Europe Economics
Professor Phil Whyman, Professor of Economics, Business, Economics and International Business, University of Central Lancashire
Dr Geoffrey Wyatt, Heriot-Watt University

. . .

You know, I didn't start off eurosceptic. Back in the 1980s I was a euro-enthusiast. But things began to look a bit "strange" around the time of Maastrict, and I started to do a little digging. I really did not like what I found.

Interesting that John Major got so righteously angry this morning about the Brexit campaign. I watched the clip on the BBC web site - all bluster and distraction, with no solid facts whatsoever. Also on my bookshelf I have a copy of the late Theresa Gorman's book, "The Baftards" about the Maastrict treaty going through the Commons.

This has never been a fair nor honest fight, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhyolith":zdbfjr3c said:


> Again, no one has offered anything beyond speculation to why leaving is of benefit.



Yes we have - it's about being governed by people we elect and can (collectively) hold to account through the ballot box.

All MPs, from whom the government decision-makers are drawn, are elected, and if enough of the electorate feel that a government isn't adequately serving the country, it can be changed - as happened in 1979, 1997 and 2010.

The EU decisions are made by Commissioners (appointed, not elected), and by the Council of Ministers, of which we can influence one out of 28. Consequently, no country's electorate can hold the EU to account through the ballot box.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rhyolith":2b0iuwug said:


> phil.p":2b0iuwug said:
> 
> 
> 
> It already does - it's only a question of scale.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it? Where's the evidence?
Click to expand...

England supports Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland. The money is in London and the South East. It is particularly galling when they get free prescriptions and more when England doesn't.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

finneyb":1vnetirn said:


> Cheshirechappie":1vnetirn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> finneyb":1vnetirn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving the discussion on to other aspects of Remaining/Leaving EU.
> 
> If we leave it weakens the EU - others will attempt to copy and hold referendums, they always do.
> A weakened EU allows Putin more power with the likes of Ukraine and the Baltic states. He must be rubbing his hands waiting for the UK to leave.
> 
> Taken in the round the only sensible solution is to Remain; nothing is perfect, coming out will be a nightmare.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah - doesn't affect NATO, which is the defence against Putin. And if leaving would be a nightmare (actually, I rather doubt that - I don't think anybody would notice much difference in the short term, except some MEPs having to find other employment), then staying in would be far worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about relative GDPs of the two blocks and EU ability to support the Baltic states economically if needed. They form a very useful buffer. A larger EU GDP has more scope for effective economic sanctions against Russia. Economic sanctions are a preferable route to NATO action every time, because if NATO acts in anger against Russia we have WWIII.
Click to expand...


Why do sovereign nations need to be members of the EU in order to co-operate for mutual benefit?

There's a valid argument that the EU exacerbated problems with Russia by it's excessively expansionist policy in Ukraine. Had the EU not been so arrogant, we would have better relations with Putin.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":20tiwu05 said:


> ....Consequently, no country's electorate can hold the EU to account through the ballot box.


Completely untrue. We vote for our MEPs who are participants in EU business (except for the Ukippers who take the money but don't turn up) and we vote for our MPs who also have input into the EU. And if necessary we can repeat this referendum any time we want and pull right out.
Obviously business is delegated etc - we don't expect a plebiscite on every issue so we don't control every detail, but that's how it is with all governments - with nearly all business in fact - you employ a plumber but you don't lean over his shoulder looking at every move, well you shouldn't!


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":1fn76z18 said:


> ....
> Why do sovereign nations need to be members of the EU in order to co-operate for mutual benefit?.....


It just happens that "EU" is the acronym for this particular mutual benefit co-operation. 
You can't be a member of a cooperative and not be a member at the same time. Or agree a contract but not agree it. 
This is simple stuff.
Would calling it something else help?


----------



## Rhyolith

phil.p":1krkvjso said:


> Rhyolith":1krkvjso said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":1krkvjso said:
> 
> 
> 
> England could pay for Wales - cut out the middle man.
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha! I don't see that happening... but stand to be corrected.
> 
> Again, no one has offered anything beyond speculation to why leaving is of benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speculation? There's one whole load of speculation involved in staying in...
Click to expand...

Yes there is, and there also non-speculative reasons. The argument for leaving to me only has the former.

Further, immigration seems to be a constant buzz word for those arguing to leave. I don't like all th selfish 'this is our country and they are taking our jobs' type talk, people need our help and we are capable of giving it... so shouldn't we? I can see thr economic and enviromental reasons for keeping our population from growing anymore, however it seems that it would be moral to do this via controlling birth rates oppose to dening those already living and in need of a good life.


----------



## finneyb

Cheshirechappie":192ynp6g said:


> Rhyolith":192ynp6g said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no one has offered anything beyond speculation to why leaving is of benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have - it's about being governed by people we elect and can (collectively) hold to account through the ballot box.
> 
> All MPs, from whom the government decision-makers are drawn, are elected, and if enough of the electorate feel that a government isn't adequately serving the country, it can be changed - as happened in 1979, 1997 and 2010.
> 
> The EU decisions are made by Commissioners (appointed, not elected), and by the Council of Ministers, of which we can influence one out of 28. Consequently, no country's electorate can hold the EU to account through the ballot box.
Click to expand...


I'm not buying this lack of democracy argument wrt EU. I see little difference between the UK and the EU systems in terms of effective democracy.

UK has the Civil Service - EU has the European Commission; it is the Civil Service who basically run the country under the political regime, as does the European Commission for the EU . The electorate doesn't appoint Permanent Secretaries in the Civil Service, why should they appoint Commissioners? The appointment of both Permanent Secretaries and Commissioners are subject to a political veto - Select Committee in the UK and European Parliament for the EU. 

A single constituency in the UK cannot vote down the Govt and neither can it in the EU. So effective democracy in the UK is some distance from the individual voter, as it is in the EU. 

The UK Parliament has political party groupings - so does the EU Parliament. Your MP or MEP needs to toe the party/group line in most cases in both systems. Of course the MP/MEP will have had a say in deciding the party line - which will be a compromise in both cases. The individual voter has little or no say in either case, either just votes one way or the other out of habit or to the party that appears to protect his/her interests. The fact that MEPs are elected on a proportional representational basis is a UK decision for the UK - personally I would prefer to see who I am electing and would support that change although I suspect it would make little difference to the outcome of the election. 

The Council of Ministers is equivalent to the UK's Cabinet in that both are formed of senior ministers - how often does a Cabinet member get voted off by the UK electorate ? 

There is of necessity far more consensus with EU decisions than with the UK system where the Govt has a majority of MPs and can basically get anything through the Commons if the majority is large enough. I see the need to have more consensus being a positive requiring professionalism and discussion as opposed to the primary school playground antics we see at Westminster.

EU democracy isn't an issue, I agree it works differently than the UK but difference isn't necessarily a bad thing. 

Remain, there is nothing to be gained by leaving.

Brian


----------



## Rhyolith

Brian, that makes sense to me. Its a somewhat more informed version of my opinion regarding the EU democracy issue.


----------



## HappyHacker

We will be stuffed if we vote out and we will be stuffed if we vote in. One way or another we will be made to pay for our temerity in suggesting that the EU is not perfect.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

finneyb":jgistopv said:


> Cheshirechappie":jgistopv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhyolith":jgistopv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no one has offered anything beyond speculation to why leaving is of benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have - it's about being governed by people we elect and can (collectively) hold to account through the ballot box.
> 
> All MPs, from whom the government decision-makers are drawn, are elected, and if enough of the electorate feel that a government isn't adequately serving the country, it can be changed - as happened in 1979, 1997 and 2010.
> 
> The EU decisions are made by Commissioners (appointed, not elected), and by the Council of Ministers, of which we can influence one out of 28. Consequently, no country's electorate can hold the EU to account through the ballot box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not buying this lack of democracy argument wrt EU. I see little difference between the UK and the EU systems in terms of effective democracy.
> 
> UK has the Civil Service - EU has the European Commission; it is the Civil Service who basically run the country under the political regime, as does the European Commission for the EU . The electorate doesn't appoint Permanent Secretaries in the Civil Service, why should they appoint Commissioners? The appointment of both Permanent Secretaries and Commissioners are subject to a political veto - Select Committee in the UK and European Parliament for the EU.
> 
> A single constituency in the UK cannot vote down the Govt and neither can it in the EU. So effective democracy in the UK is some distance from the individual voter, as it is in the EU.
> 
> The UK Parliament has political party groupings - so does the EU Parliament. Your MP or MEP needs to toe the party/group line in most cases in both systems. Of course the MP/MEP will have had a say in deciding the party line - which will be a compromise in both cases. The individual voter has little or no say in either case, either just votes one way or the other out of habit or to the party that appears to protect his/her interests. The fact that MEPs are elected on a proportional representational basis is a UK decision for the UK - personally I would prefer to see who I am electing and would support that change although I suspect it would make little difference to the outcome of the election.
> 
> The Council of Ministers is equivalent to the UK's Cabinet in that both are formed of senior ministers - how often does a Cabinet member get voted off by the UK electorate ?
> 
> There is of necessity far more consensus with EU decisions than with the UK system where the Govt has a majority of MPs and can basically get anything through the Commons if the majority is large enough. I see the need to have more consensus being a positive requiring professionalism and discussion as opposed to the primary school playground antics we see at Westminster.
> 
> EU democracy isn't an issue, I agree it works differently than the UK but difference isn't necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> Remain, there is nothing to be gained by leaving.
> 
> Brian
Click to expand...


With respect, Brian - I'm afraid I must disagree.

The Westminster system has evolved over several centuries. We (the electorate) return an MP for each constituency. When we vote, we know which party the candidates align themselves with, and we know who the leader of each party is. Thus we can take into account when voting who is likely to end up forming a government, and who is likely to be PM. The party with most MPs forms the government, the Ministers being selected from elected MPs. If the party with most seats has a majority, it can govern on it's own, if not it can either form a formal coalition with one or more smaller parties, or reach an arrangement for support in voting on matters in the House of Commons.

Ministers then propose legislation, and present Bills to the House of Commons. Parliament scrutinises that legislation in three ways - first debate and vote in the house, then scrutiny by Parliamentary Committee (cross-party, and made up of sitting MPs), then second debate and vote. If the Bill receives a majority, it procedes to the Lords. The Lords also debate, scrutinise in committee and vote; they can delay Government Bills or return them to the Commons for ammendment, but cannot throw them out. If the Bill is voted through the Lords, it becomes law.

Thus, the elected chamber has primacy, but there are several checks in the system to scrutinise legislation before it becomes law.

The Civil Service exists to assist Ministers in draughting proposed legislation, and in implementing it. They take direction from Ministers, and can advise, but cannot instruct or over-ride the direction of Ministers. If they feel it necessary, when directed by a Minister against their advice, Civil Servants can request instruction in writing.

Thus, Ministers take the decisions and are accountable for them to the electorate. The civil service does as directed by the government of the day.

The EU system is different. The overall direction is set by the Council of Ministers, basically the Prime Minister (or equivalent) of each country. Thus we can elect only one minister. The Commission then acts on the directions of the Council of Ministers - Commissioners are appointed, and can't be held to account by any electorate. They can (and do), however, propose legislation. The European Parliament (elected MEPs) can in theory scrutinise legislation, but in practice rarely does so because there is far more legislation than time available - thus, things just go through on the nod. Thus, the electorate cannot hold to account those proposing legislation, and the elected chamber is only, in effect, a talking shop.

Thus , the Westminster system, having more scrutiny of legislation, and having those proposing and scrutinising it accountable to the electorate, is a far more democratic system.


By the way - Cabinet Ministers are sometimes elected out. The most famous example is probably Portillo, but in 2015 Cable, Alexander and Davey lost their seats - as did Ed Balls from the Shadow Cabinet.


(Edited to point out that the Lords can return a Bill to the Commons for amendment.)

Second edit to add - There's an exception to the scrutiny process for legislation through Westminster - EU Directives have to go straight on to the statute book without scrutiny, since our Treaty obligations mean that EU legislation has primacy over national legislation. Estimates vary how much law placed onto the national statute book is of EU origin and how much is national, but somewhere between 15% and 75% (depending on who you believe) is of EU origin.

I can't help thinking that things would be more democratic if the national Parliaments had primacy over the EU, and EU law had to be scrutinised and if need be returned for amendment by national Parliaments. That ain't going to happen, though; it would take the EU far too long to get it's way if they allowed that, so the only way to ensure primacy of the National (elected) Parliament over the less democratic EU is to leave it.


----------



## MIGNAL

If I vote out how much duty will I have to pay on my materials? How much duty will be levied on my products sold to other EU countries? Currently it's zero. To the US it's around 7% + the form filling.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

MIGNAL":fhwyayq0 said:


> If I vote out how much duty will I have to pay on my materials? How much duty will be levied on my products sold to other EU countries? Currently it's zero. To the US it's around 7% + the form filling.



For two years, no change to current arrangements. After that, depends who you want to believe, but since the UK is one of the EU's biggest customers, they have a vested interest in doing a mutually agreeable deal. Either that, or the UK remains a member of the European Free Trade Area, in which case, no change in perpetuity.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":328wa3be said:


> After that, depends who you want to believe, but since the UK is one of the EU's biggest customers, they have a vested interest in doing a mutually agreeable deal.


Except that there's sweet FA chance of any future deal being as good. There's been a lot of talk of punitive deals to discourage any further break up.

No one knows and no one has a plan.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":36mu2suk said:


> Cheshirechappie":36mu2suk said:
> 
> 
> 
> After that, depends who you want to believe, but since the UK is one of the EU's biggest customers, they have a vested interest in doing a mutually agreeable deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there's sweet FA chance of any future deal being as good. There's been a lot of talk of punitive deals to discourage any further break up.
> 
> No one knows and no one has a plan.
Click to expand...


Well, if the UK electorate vote to leave, they'll have to come up with one, won't they?

How about 10% tariff on BMW's coming into the UK? How's that sound, Germany?


----------



## MIGNAL

You mean a trade war? 
No thanks. Even if it lasted just 6 months it might be long enough for me to go under.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

MIGNAL":3cua2g1l said:


> You mean a trade war?
> No thanks. Even if it lasted just 6 months it might be long enough for me to go under.



Precisely - a trade war is in nobody's interests. Thus, it's more likely that common sense would prevail, and a way would be found to maintain current arrangements.

No guarantee of that of course - the future is unknown. In or out.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":1i4dl0vd said:


> ....... I'm afraid I must disagree.
> 
> The Westminster system has evolved over several centuries. ......


We are not getting rid of or changing the Westminster system.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":1aqyt6ll said:


> Cheshirechappie":1aqyt6ll said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....... I'm afraid I must disagree.
> 
> The Westminster system has evolved over several centuries. ......
> 
> 
> 
> We are not getting rid of or changing the Westminster system.
Click to expand...


If we stay in, we are. We're agreeing to give EU legislation primacy over Westminster legislation; eventually, as more and more 'competencies' (a misnomer if ever there was one!) transfer to Brussels, Westminster will end up have about as much power and authority as a parish council, responsible only for clearing up dog-mess and trimming roadside verges. Every aspect of your life - taxation, defence, health, education, you name it - will be decided in Brussels. That what the super-state is about, and it's happening already. They already decide such things as energy and environmental policy, for example.


----------



## MIGNAL

Cheshirechappie":2mt6flsy said:


> MIGNAL":2mt6flsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a trade war?
> No thanks. Even if it lasted just 6 months it might be long enough for me to go under.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely - a trade war is in nobody's interests. Thus, it's more likely that common sense would prevail, and a way would be found to maintain current arrangements.
> 
> No guarantee of that of course - the future is unknown. In or out.
Click to expand...


No, no guarantees. I'll stay with the certainty thanks. It's my living that might be at stake.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":3n9omfnp said:


> ..... They already decide such things as energy and environmental policy, for example.


But "we" are part of this group. 
There isn't a "they" - it's "we" (together with member states) deciding such things as energy and environmental policy. 
Some things are better agreed in the wider world, which is why we joined and need to stay in the EU. 
Some things are better decided locally, and will continue so to be.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":3ow2pqvl said:


> They already decide such things as energy and environmental policy, for example.


A good thing that is too. UK governments have been making a hash of it here in recent years.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

MIGNAL":isrewdob said:


> Cheshirechappie":isrewdob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MIGNAL":isrewdob said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a trade war?
> No thanks. Even if it lasted just 6 months it might be long enough for me to go under.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely - a trade war is in nobody's interests. Thus, it's more likely that common sense would prevail, and a way would be found to maintain current arrangements.
> 
> No guarantee of that of course - the future is unknown. In or out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no guarantees. I'll stay with the certainty thanks. It's my living that might be at stake.
Click to expand...

The best comments were from one of Obama's advisors - she maintained it wouldn't make more than a % or two of difference either way to GDP no matter what and that would take years rather than months.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":ac10bcxh said:


> Cheshirechappie":ac10bcxh said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already decide such things as energy and environmental policy, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> A good thing that is too. UK governments have been making a hash of it here in recent years.
Click to expand...


Making a hash of it BECAUSE it has to comply with EU directives. Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":1wdtaqop said:


> Rhossydd":1wdtaqop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":1wdtaqop said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already decide such things as energy and environmental policy, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> A good thing that is too. UK governments have been making a hash of it here in recent years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making a hash of it BECAUSE it has to comply with EU directives. Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).
Click to expand...

That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" which you seem to be unaware of. 
There's an urgent need to stop using all fossil fuels and yes energy will be expensive. 
This is a global problem not just EU, but common action via EU is going to be much more effective than nation by nation initiatives.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":1bq7iw74 said:


> That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?


 :lol: There yer go then: euro scepticism, climate change scepticism, I knew it! 
Do you also believe in astrology, creationism, homeopathic medicine, faked moon landings, etc etc. 
I ask because these things often seem to go together in some people's minds.

https://robertscribbler.com/ 

TBH I thought climate change sceptics had just about died out as the evidence mounts ever faster. There is masses of proof that we are causing it and there is still a remote chance that we could change it.


----------



## Rhyolith

phil.p":36piup3y said:


> That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?


The climate has been changing for billions of years, up and down to considerably higher temperature extremes than today (or the worst climate change predictions). The difference is that its always happend over hundreads of throusands to Millions of years in the past, not a couple of hundred like in the last 2 centuries.

Is there proof? Well there is proof that the temperature us rising globally and that this is happening way faster than in any other point in Earth's history. It is a well established scientific knowledge that CO2 has a green house effect. So the temperature has defintly been rising, and that rising marries up precisly to a period when we have been producing excesive quanities of a gas known to cause warming via the greenhous effect... thats certainly an aweful coincidence! 

Climate change is real and a problem. It requires a unified solution from ALL the worlds industrialised countries. Though I do not think the EU will solve this by any manner if means, we will certainly have more of a impact in it and with it, than on our own... not to mention Westminster does not seem to even have a basic understanding or willness to deal with enviromental problems.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Many of the CO2 spikes in the past have been larger than recent ones and happened with no human interference at all. Of course it makes sense to cut pollution where possible, but forcing us to build wind farms and limiting the power of our vacuum cleaners is not the way. The only perpetual, guaranteed source of energy we have is the one that is ignored most often - usually because it is expensive - is tidal. There were plans to use the Severnbore, but they were turned down apparently because it would affect bird life. The only reason for the proliferation of windmills is that very rich people get richer from them - precious little to with any efficiency or cost effectiveness.


----------



## Jacob

> Many of the CO2 spikes in the past have been larger than recent ones and happened with no human interference at all.


Yes but we are not talking about those spikes we are looking at the current one.


phil.p":2kpvvd50 said:


> ....The only perpetual, guaranteed source of energy we have is the one that is ignored most often - usually because it is expensive - is tidal. ....


Tidal energy isn't ignored at all. It's well established and in use in various places - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station and is been researched all over the place, from huge schemes to tiny archimedean screw devices to drop in rivers. Water power is ancient and developing still but is very site specific.
There is also solar energy, wind, biomass, and the reverse of these is energy demand reduction - hence the vacuum cleaner and a 1000 other similar little moves, and insulation.
Cost of wind power is high but falling rapidly


----------



## Phil Pascoe

It is largely ignored, otherwise we'd be surrounded by tidal power stations (that link is to one in France - I'm talking about this Country) Yes, water power is ancient - but tidal power isn't. I did say dependable - which counts out sunshine and wind. If wind power were free we'd still have to run 100% back up for when the wind dropped (in Cornwall they are very often static - either because there is not enough wind, or more often because there's too much. I believe the claims for imported Canadian biomass to be carbon efficient are dubious. As said before - when the EU stops moving monthly I'll think about the size of my hoover. Come to that I'll even start to worry about the standby on the TV if the County Council starts turning lights off in county hall at night.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":stzdnai5 said:


> It is largely ignored, otherwise we'd be surrounded by tidal power stations (that link is to one in France - I'm talking about this Country) Yes, water power is ancient - but tidal power isn't.


Tidal power is ancient too. There have been water mills set up on estuaries right back to the dark ages


> I did say dependable - which counts out sunshine and wind. If wind power were free we'd still have to run 100% back up for when the wind dropped


Tides turn from full power one way to zero and full power the other, every 12 1/2 hours, and vary from springs to neaps monthly. So you get the same continuity problem. Basically all sources are needed for continuity


> .....I believe the claims for imported Canadian biomass to be carbon efficient are dubious.


Not if cut from farmed sustainable forest


> As said before - when the EU stops moving monthly I'll think about the size of my hoover.


Don't worry they aren't going to stop you using the one you've got - but if it's a whopper you might not be able to replace it.


> Come to that I'll even start to worry about the standby on the TV if the County Council starts turning lights off in county hall at night.


Tell em! Become a good environmentalist!


----------



## dexter

I'm in, considering where I live out would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I'd be interested to know how much revenue will be generated if the vote is for out when we all have to change our passports which at the moment have European Union at the top of the front cover. Perhaps it will be done for free but I doubt it! Still at least I'll be able to continue dreaming about choosing the winning numbers on euromillions!


----------



## mind_the_goat

Cheshirechappie":1q9t8arp said:


> Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).



Sorry, What? Clearly missed something here, the EU are making us close coal fired power stations ?


----------



## mind_the_goat

phil.p":1u7j9typ said:


> That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?



I had thought some of your points were valid but but if you believe this then then I really have to doubt the validity of everything else you've said.


----------



## Jacob

mind_the_goat":3jlnhpe4 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3jlnhpe4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, What? Clearly missed something here, the EU are making us close coal fired power stations ?
Click to expand...

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/0 ... esome-map/

According to this the EU and especially UK and Germany are slacking badly with respect to coal use reduction, but the climate is changing (in more ways than one)

OTOH this is interesting http://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so-muc ... ectricity/


----------



## DennisCA

An interesting video on climate change and how many factors (including man!) work together and what might be coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws

I like PBS spacetime for the understandable way it talks about physics in general. Very interesting channel.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

mind_the_goat":3bkjuids said:


> Cheshirechappie":3bkjuids said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, What? Clearly missed something here, the EU are making us close coal fired power stations ?
Click to expand...


Yes, to comply with this - http://europa.eu/pol/ener/index_en.htm

and this - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 32001L0080

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... osing.html


----------



## DTR

Climate change aside, it is well documented that the rates of respiratory illness are much increased in the areas surrounding coal-fired power stations. It is certainly in our interests to invest in less polluting alternatives.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

mind_the_goat":2xyzdh7v said:


> phil.p":2xyzdh7v said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had thought some of your points were valid but but if you believe this then then I really have to doubt the validity of everything else you've said.
Click to expand...

I'm talking of scientific proof - there isn't any. It might be 100% obvious - but that doesn't make it proof. It would be far easier to do something about it if there were.


----------



## DennisCA

DTR":1gdlz867 said:


> Climate change aside, it is well documented that the rates of respiratory illness are much increased in the areas surrounding coal-fired power stations. It is certainly in our interests to invest in less polluting alternatives.



They also expell large amounts of uranium and thorium into the atmosphere, which are trace particles in coal.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

DTR":1ywp8fjm said:


> Climate change aside, it is well documented that the rates of respiratory illness are much increased in the areas surrounding coal-fired power stations. It is certainly in our interests to invest in less polluting alternatives.



If polluting power stations are to be closed (arguably a good thing) it would make sense to replace the capacity they offer before closing them, not later. The resulting shortfall in spare capacity could mean that demand exceeds available supply on occasions - we've been very close to that in the UK. Instead of replacing coal capacity with a generation method that delivers reliably all the time, we've had to comply with directives to install' renewable' capacity that isn't a reliable supplier (wind and solar). We also have to comply with directives on nuclear generation, which means we can't just make our own decisions on that.

The EU directives may be well-meaning, but collectively they tie us in so many knots, the UK ends up unable to take the decisions necessary to ensure energy security in the long term.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

DTR":dm9ctfm3 said:


> Climate change aside, it is well documented that the rates of respiratory illness are much increased in the areas surrounding coal-fired power stations. It is certainly in our interests to invest in less polluting alternatives.


Certainly. I read many years ago that if a man lived to be 57 years old there would have been more invented and discovered in his lifetime than in the whole of history before he was born. That figure must be lower now. This possibly tends to be forgotten in discussions like this. After the Chernobyl disaster people said we shouldn't use nuclear because it was so dangerous, but forgot that the Technology used there was thirty years old and had largely been superceded. Without wishing to go into a pro/anti nuclear argument, the point I was making is that anything developed today is going to be far, far superior to things done decades ago. There is to me a rather sensible suggestion that as coal power is largely not portable (where gas is) it would make sense to use coal first where possible. It would be nice to be able to go and buy for £19.99 a windmill for our garden that would supply all out needs - but it ain't going to happen.
As regards CC's point - If polluting power stations are to be closed (arguably a good thing) it would make sense to replace the capacity they offer before closing them, not later - I agree totally. One of the dangers is that things done in a hurry out of need tend not to be the best long term choices.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":2xynovr8 said:


> mind_the_goat":2xynovr8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":2xynovr8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had thought some of your points were valid but but if you believe this then then I really have to doubt the validity of everything else you've said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking of scientific proof - there isn't any. It might be 100% obvious - but that doesn't make it proof. It would be far easier to do something about it if there were.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't "prove" anything and doesn't claim to. It only theorises and amasses evidence. When there is enough evidence that is taken as "proof" but only until it is replaced or found faulty.
There is masses of evidence and theory about how and why climate change is due to human activity, and there is lots of scary evidence of it actually happening in various parts of the globe, and it will be happening here sooner or later.
Climate change sceptics are like creationists or flat earthers - you can't sensibly argue with people who simply deny any evidence. You can only point them at the info and suggest that they take their heads out of the sand.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Climate change sceptics? I've never met anyone who was skeptical about climate change. I've met loads of people who are unconvinced that mankind is the total cause of it. Twenty years ago we were heading for an ice age, and the Met Office can't forecast what will happen tomorrow.


----------



## mind_the_goat

Cheshirechappie":1ekwdost said:


> mind_the_goat":1ekwdost said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":1ekwdost said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, What? Clearly missed something here, the EU are making us close coal fired power stations ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to comply with this - http://europa.eu/pol/ener/index_en.htm
> 
> and this - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 32001L0080
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... osing.html
Click to expand...


Ok, thanks.
First, closing the most polluting (carbon and other by products) power plants is really a no brainier.
The first of those docs appears to be an attempt to coordinate efforts to meet our global obligations on greenhouse gasses, 
this document is only a couple of years old and it's not clear to me it's in even effect yet. 
The second one looks like a general 'reduce pollution' effort and again it's seems sensible to try and kill fewer people by reducing pollution.
Let's hope those regulations are not on the Leave campaigns secret list of regulations to drop, should they win.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":38zksubp said:


> ...... I've met loads of people who are unconvinced that mankind is the total cause of it. T....


They are the ones who need to do a bit of reading. If they really know better than the vast majority of the world's experts on the subject, they should let them into the secret. Could be famous!


----------



## mind_the_goat

phil.p":1m4c8spy said:


> mind_the_goat":1m4c8spy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":1m4c8spy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had thought some of your points were valid but but if you believe this then then I really have to doubt the validity of everything else you've said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking of scientific proof - there isn't any. It might be 100% obvious - but that doesn't make it proof. It would be far easier to do something about it if there were.
Click to expand...


What Jacob said. 
There is no proof, as in a mathematical proof but there is overwhelming evidence. If that level of evidence is not sufficient for you then I'm very surprised you are intending to vote leave.


----------



## iNewbie

Jacob":1iknrvcr said:


> phil.p":1iknrvcr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... I've met loads of people who are unconvinced that mankind is the total cause of it.
> 
> 
> T....
> 
> 
> 
> They are the ones who need to do a bit of reading. If they really know better than the vast majority of the world's experts on the subject, they should let them into the secret. Could be famous!
Click to expand...


But you just said: _Science doesn't "prove" anything and doesn't claim to. It only theorises and amasses evidence. When there is enough evidence that is taken as "proof" but only until it is replaced or found faulty._


Something faulty there, Basil. :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob

iNewbie":32qpwnz1 said:


> Jacob":32qpwnz1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":32qpwnz1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... I've met loads of people who are unconvinced that mankind is the total cause of it.
> 
> 
> T....
> 
> 
> 
> They are the ones who need to do a bit of reading. If they really know better than the vast majority of the world's experts on the subject, they should let them into the secret. Could be famous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you just said: _Science doesn't "prove" anything and doesn't claim to. It only theorises and amasses evidence. When there is enough evidence that is taken as "proof" but only until it is replaced or found faulty._
> 
> 
> Something faulty there, Basil. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The evidence is taken as "proof" in inverted commas - i.e. not "absolute truth" but the best we can come up with.
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.


----------



## stuartpaul

This is clearly going to rumble on until June 23  It's been mostly friendly which is a good thing!

The EU clearly has a lot of work to do to and there are aspects of it's activity that are impossible to justify (e.g. decamping en mass to Strasbourg is inexcusable). Of course getting 28 countries to work together is difficult and not all are going to agree. I bet you couldn't get 28 individual woodworkers to agree on sharpening so what's been achieved up to now isn't all bad surely?

Have to say I've learned quite a lot by having to go and read (and try and understand!) an awful lot of stuff.

Let me give you two options:

Option A:

Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will drop considerably as the financial markets hate uncertainty. The price of exports will drop and the price of imports will rise. The effects on all of us will be fairly immediate through a slow but inexorable rise in prices.

Prime Minster to be Johnson's face will be everywhere as he crows about how right he was. My television will be destroyed as a couple of bricks are launched at his buffoon like features.

The French will give a Gaelic shrug and walk away from 'the jungle' and the English will have to deal with a very difficult immigration situation.

Option B:

Remain vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise slightly as the markets will feel there is a degree of certainty. This means that the price of oil will drop as it's priced in $. We however will petrol prices rise as the greedy effing chancellor gets his sticky mits on more duty.

That **** Cameron's face will be everywhere as he crows on and on and on and on and on about how wonderful he is in leading us towards the promised land. My television will be destroyed as multiple bricks are launched at his grinning gob.

Outcome:

Win or loose I'm going to need a new television and be worse off financially. I'm still voting to remain though!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

If we do leave, it would of course be honourable for the government to immediately call a general election. Four million people who voted last would probably vote differently this time - besides any other swings.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooowwww ... see that flying pig?


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":2m3a0iq3 said:


> If we do leave, it would of course be honourable for the government to immediately call a general election. Four million people who voted last would probably vote differently this time - besides any other swings.
> Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooowwww ... see that flying pig?


Looking forward to it! Almost inclined to vote out if it gets Cameron out too!


----------



## iNewbie

Jacob":7ia2pp2e said:


> The evidence is taken as "proof" in inverted commas - i.e. not "absolute truth" but the best we can come up with.
> In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.



Oh Jacob. Its not worth _reading_ if its all still a miss-ter-ree... 

Oh, childbirth is a certainty.


----------



## gregmcateer

stuartpaul":2sevd1c7 said:


> This is clearly going to rumble on until June 23  It's been mostly friendly which is a good thing!
> 
> The EU clearly has a lot of work to do to and there are aspects of it's activity that are impossible to justify (e.g. decamping en mass to Strasbourg is inexcusable). Of course getting 28 countries to work together is difficult and not all are going to agree. I bet you couldn't get 28 individual woodworkers to agree on sharpening so what's been achieved up to now isn't all bad surely?
> 
> Have to say I've learned quite a lot by having to go and read (and try and understand!) an awful lot of stuff.
> 
> Let me give you two options:
> 
> Option A:
> 
> Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will drop considerably as the financial markets hate uncertainty. The price of exports will drop and the price of imports will rise. The effects on all of us will be fairly immediate through a slow but inexorable rise in prices.
> 
> Prime Minster to be Johnson's face will be everywhere as he crows about how right he was. My television will be destroyed as a couple of bricks are launched at his buffoon like features.
> 
> The French will give a Gaelic shrug and walk away from 'the jungle' and the English will have to deal with a very difficult immigration situation.
> 
> Option B:
> 
> Remain vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise slightly as the markets will feel there is a degree of certainty. This means that the price of oil will drop as it's priced in $. We however will petrol prices rise as the greedy effing chancellor gets his sticky mits on more duty.
> 
> That **** Cameron's face will be everywhere as he crows on and on and on and on and on about how wonderful he is in leading us towards the promised land. My television will be destroyed as multiple bricks are launched at his grinning gob.
> 
> Outcome:
> 
> Win or loose I'm going to need a new television and be worse off financially. I'm still voting to remain though!



That made me laugh - A LOT =D>


----------



## Sheffield Tony

Cheshirechappie":3iziw4ks said:


> If polluting power stations are to be closed (arguably a good thing) it would make sense to replace the capacity they offer before closing them, not later. The resulting shortfall in spare capacity could mean that demand exceeds available supply on occasions - we've been very close to that in the UK. Instead of replacing coal capacity with a generation method that delivers reliably all the time, we've had to comply with directives to install' renewable' capacity that isn't a reliable supplier (wind and solar). We also have to comply with directives on nuclear generation, which means we can't just make our own decisions on that.
> 
> The EU directives may be well-meaning, but collectively they tie us in so many knots, the UK ends up unable to take the decisions necessary to ensure energy security in the long term.



I don't think EU directives can be blamed here for our energy security, beyond the closure of coal plant perhaps.

Sucessive governments have dithered for years over new nuclear build; the dilemma has been between requirement for clean generating capacity (in so far as nuclear can ever be regarded as clean), and public acceptability. Basically until the situation was dire no decision of nuclear build was going to happen. Having missed the point at which the decision need be taken, wind / solar etc are a stopgap solution, allowing the unpopular decision to be deferred even longer. But now there is the question of whether we can afford to build it. And if it will be completed within any sort of useful timeframe.


----------



## Woodmatt

Jacob,you missed one other certainty out,as well as Death and taxes there is "That flat roofs leak".


----------



## Woodmatt

A friend of mine has recently closed his carpentry business doing mainly site work,first and second fix.The business was started by his grandfather and had been running for over 50 years.They took on and trained 5 apprentices a year and put them through part time college courses for three years.He say the reason he closed was he could no longer compete with new gangs of east european carpenters who always undercut him which is no suprise when they live 10 to a room have no real uk living cost and do not take on the cost of training yougsters (this countries future).And some still want to stay in the EU.Lets spend the savings on training the next generation of trades people,they can't all work in "media " or moving cash around the world for profit.


----------



## Jacob

We need better training schemes - a lot have been closed down. 
We also need higher minimum wages enforced so that cheapskate employers can't undercut the locals.
Oddly enough the few EU trades people I've met have been highly skilled, particularly in traditional stuff, so they must have good training in place over there. Also none of them want to work for lower wages than anybody else, believe it or not!


----------



## RogerS

Still waiting for a valid (emphasis on valid) reason why they keep shuttling between Brussels and Strasbourg. The MEPs voted to end it but were vetoed by the French. Just goes to show how much influence (not) the MEPs actually have.

And for a valid (again emphasis on valid) reason for that daft cookie law.


----------



## Rhyolith

phil.p":3r01uujn said:


> Many of the CO2 spikes in the past have been larger than recent ones and happened with no human interference at all....


Yes they have, such as the Cretaceous surge in volcanic activity or the Late Permian mass extinction. But as I said these happened over hundreds if thousands of years if not millions, there are *NO EXAMPLES* of a rise in global temperatures influenced by CO2 as fast as the present rate. 

In true science there is no such thing as 'proof'. A 'theory' is the term used to desribe the highest level of certainity in scientific terminology. 

The likelyhood Climate change being caused by humans is classfied as "higly likely" by the IPCC last time I checked. 
http://www.ipcc.ch


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":2exyolgj said:


> ....
> 
> And for a valid (again emphasis on valid) reason for that daft cookie law.


Was explained in a link earlier. Google it.
Basically we are entitled to be asked before anyone can plant stuff onto our computers. Seems fair enough to me.
Not daft but certainly trivial and not a game changer!


----------



## Eric The Viking

Sheffield Tony":1xnxrmaj said:


> I don't think EU directives can be blamed here for our energy security, beyond the closure of coal plant perhaps.
> 
> Sucessive governments have dithered for years over new nuclear build; the dilemma has been between requirement for clean generating capacity (in so far as nuclear can ever be regarded as clean), and public acceptability. Basically until the situation was dire no decision of nuclear build was going to happen. Having missed the point at which the decision need be taken, wind / solar etc are a stopgap solution, allowing the unpopular decision to be deferred even longer. But now there is the question of whether we can afford to build it. And if it will be completed within any sort of useful timeframe.



I agree with much that you said above, with some comments:

The trouble is that coal is ideally suited for base load generation. _It's typical of the EU to issue a directive that's more like a piece of polemic, without any real attempt to address unintended consequences_.

For decades we have understood coal-burning pollution, and we have had strategies to mitigate it. For example, fitting filters to generating stations is effective, particularly so as the pollution is concentrated in one place. It's a cost-effective approach.

We cannot sustain our present energy use (or anything close to our present energy use) without fossil fuel consumption. Right now, the vital base-load stations like Drax and Didcot are being replaced with gas-fired plants - hardly any greener, geo-politically dodgy (as the gas comes from Russia in the main, and is a vulnerable import), and no more effective against the greenhouse effect than the coal they replace. 

"Green" energy still only accounts for 1-5% of our supply, and this is unlikely to rise significantly in the next decade or so. It has bought us no time at all (I quite agree about politicians dodging the essential decisions about nuclear until it's too late). Worse, it has diverted scarce resources (cash, mainly), into inefficient and environmentally unfriendly stuff that basically doesn't deliver. _The EU has been a driver for much of this, because it feeds off the lobbyists (corruptly), and big profits have been made from the subsidies, land deals, etc._

One of the major problems with 'green' energy is that it's not very green. Solar farms have a predictable limited lifespan of around ten years (UV kills solar cells, cumulatively). This is probably not stressed when the rooftop versions are sold to naive householders! The chemicals involved are not friendly, and some are quite scarce resources themselves, and if you look at the cost-per-gigawatt of the capacity, it is quite enormous - far more than the proponents admit to, because the real-world efficiency is extremely low, and the infrastructure cost is huge.

How did we get here? You have to look at history - you can't ignore it if you want to understand the present. 

I mentioned earlier that the EU was conceived by Schuman and Monnet to have a Stalinist/Fascist command economy (they were admirers of Soviet Russia, which at the time appeared to be successful, and there are dark hints in the literature that they also admired the Nazi's and Fascists's ability to "just get things done").

The coal and steel community came first, and was intended to do two things - cover Europe's energy and raw materials needs to make Europe independent of global trade cycles, but also to make countries _dependent on each other_ (so they couldn't/wouldn't go to war again). This was to be achieved by removing the ability to do certain things from each country: so the Benelux countries and Germany got to mine coal and make steel, France got agricultural rules in its favour, and so on. The rest of the EU-to-be was to depend on them.

Unfortunately there weren't roles for everyone in the new utopia, and realpolitik played its part too, so we found ourselves with no fishing grounds any more, and signed-up to rules about government subsidies, affecting the big raw materials and energy industries in particular, that frankly weren't in our interests. 

It's subtle; it's all in the name of "competition law" and "preventing monopoly positions" etc., but it goes right back to the statist approach of the EU's founding fathers. Over decades, successive UK governments have become more compliant too (the biggest change was probably with John Major). Big industry loves all this, because lobbying has become highly cost-effective, and is also a good entry barrier to these markets, and unfairly discriminates against smaller players.

Control of energy policy has always been at the heart of EU policymaking.

We NEED green energy, very desperately, but there are presently no solutions to the problem - there simply isn't a "green" method of base load generation, and no commonly-agreed method of storing renewably-generated energy for it to be used as a base load substitute. We can't make "green" energy in sufficient quantity; we can't store it; and the technologies aren't actually green and are HUGELY expensive compared to what we've got used to.

The only currently public technologies that might offer hope for base load generation both exist in the EU already: thorium fission reactors, and fusion. Both are insufficiently funded, thorium reactors particularly so. 

The ITER project (being built in France - can you guess why?) is actually a fully international scheme (not just the EU), as a next step towards a practical fusion generator, although the first successful* fusion experiment was done at Culham, Oxfordshire (JET). The UK arguably had more and better Tokamak fusion expertise than anyone else (other fusion systems are available...).

The Germans had a functional production Thorium reactor, albeit a poor design. It came on-line very late, was very expensive, and has recently been shut down (or dramatically scaled back its output - can't remember which), largely on safety grounds, I think after the Japanese tsunami containment breaches (Germany is essentially trying to become non-nuclear).

The UK has university-based research teams with new Thorium designs. They remain very under-funded. 

*getting more energy out than was put in, albeit for a rather short time.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":21d6vwmv said:


> RogerS":21d6vwmv said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> And for a valid (again emphasis on valid) reason for that daft cookie law.
> 
> 
> 
> Was explained in a link earlier. Google it.
> Basically we are entitled to be asked before anyone can plant stuff onto our computers. Seems fair enough to me.
> Not daft but certainly trivial and not a game changer!
Click to expand...


I did ask for VALID reason. I looked at your link. Couldn't see any reason at all. Let alone a valid one.

Most websites won't work properly or deliver what you want if you don't use a cookie. besides, there are other better hi-tech solutions that does not involve wasting time clicking on that daft 'Do you want to accept cookies'. 

But you won't agree naturally.


----------



## stuartpaul

phil.p":252znioa said:


> If we do leave, it would of course be honourable for the government to immediately call a general election. Four million people who voted last would probably vote differently this time - besides any other swings.
> Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooowwww ... see that flying pig?


Why should they call an election? Much as I dislike the Tories they are just delivering against their manifesto (unusual I know but there you go!).

What will be interesting is to watch them try and put the Tory party back together again!


----------



## RogerS

Excellent synopsis, ETV...Succinctly put and, as per all your posts, free from grandstanding and soapboxes. Just plain hard facts.


----------



## RogerS

stuartpaul":4n777ysw said:


> This is clearly going to rumble on until June 23  It's been mostly friendly which is a good thing!
> 
> The EU clearly has a lot of work to do to and there are aspects of it's activity that are impossible to justify (e.g. decamping en mass to Strasbourg is inexcusable). Of course getting 28 countries to work together is difficult and not all are going to agree. I bet you couldn't get 28 individual woodworkers to agree on sharpening so what's been achieved up to now isn't all bad surely?
> 
> Have to say I've learned quite a lot by having to go and read (and try and understand!) an awful lot of stuff.
> 
> Let me give you two options:
> 
> Option A:
> 
> Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will drop considerably as the financial markets hate uncertainty. The price of exports will drop and the price of imports will rise. The effects on all of us will be fairly immediate through a slow but inexorable rise in prices.
> 
> Prime Minster to be Johnson's face will be everywhere as he crows about how right he was. My television will be destroyed as a couple of bricks are launched at his buffoon like features.
> 
> The French will give a Gaelic shrug and walk away from 'the jungle' and the English will have to deal with a very difficult immigration situation.
> 
> Option B:
> 
> Remain vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise slightly as the markets will feel there is a degree of certainty. This means that the price of oil will drop as it's priced in $. We however will petrol prices rise as the greedy effing chancellor gets his sticky mits on more duty.
> 
> That **** Cameron's face will be everywhere as he crows on and on and on and on and on about how wonderful he is in leading us towards the promised land. My television will be destroyed as multiple bricks are launched at his grinning gob.
> 
> Outcome:
> 
> Win or loose I'm going to need a new television and be worse off financially. I'm still voting to remain though!



Option C: 

Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise considerably as the financial markets have already priced this in as they realise the huge potential to the future growth of the UK now that it has freed itself from the fetters of the EU.


----------



## mind_the_goat

RogerS":n4wxg0jd said:


> Option C:
> Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise considerably as the financial markets have already priced this in as they realise the huge potential to the future growth of the UK now that it has freed itself from the fetters of the EU.



The price of Exports will go up and imports go down, hammering in the final nail in the coffin of UK manufacturing.
Stuart will still need a new TV though.


----------



## RogerS

mind_the_goat":2l4z0spo said:


> RogerS":2l4z0spo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Option C:
> Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise considerably as the financial markets have already priced this in as they realise the huge potential to the future growth of the UK now that it has freed itself from the fetters of the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The price of Exports will go up and imports go down, hammering in the final nail in the coffin of UK manufacturing.
> ......
Click to expand...


Some economists say they will go up.

Some economists say it they go down.

Heads or tails anyone ?


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":1axzs70o said:


> Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise considerably as the financial markets have already priced this in as they realise the huge potential to the future growth of the UK now that it has freed itself from the fetters of the EU.


Along with the collapse of the bacon industry as all the pigs fly away.


----------



## Sheffield Tony

RogerS":tmoqjmf6 said:


> mind_the_goat":tmoqjmf6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":tmoqjmf6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Option C:
> Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise considerably as the financial markets have already priced this in as they realise the huge potential to the future growth of the UK now that it has freed itself from the fetters of the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The price of Exports will go up and imports go down, hammering in the final nail in the coffin of UK manufacturing.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some economists say they will go up.
> 
> Some economists say it they go down.
> 
> Heads or tails anyone ?
Click to expand...


... And remember that you lot in the Leave camp are the ones who would gamble your future and everyone else's on that toss of the coin.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":oyqh9fyf said:


> Some economists say they will go up.
> Some economists say it they go down.
> Heads or tails anyone ?


But it's not so simple is it ? It's far more like;
9 economists say leaving is very likely to be bad
1 says it might be good.

Skews the odds a little doesn't it ?


----------



## RobinBHM

Most of the remain camp base predictions on economic growth based on an EU in its present state. 

The euro zone doesnt look particularly stable with Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy all with economic problems.

There is much talk about trade deals, whilst we have free trade with europe now as we are a significant importer from Europe It must be in Europe interest to negotiate a sensible deal.

Europe does not have trade deals with the largest growing economies, Chine, India, Brazil -out of Europe there is an opportunity to do so.

Polls seem to be about 51 to 49 so its quite close.........


----------



## Eric The Viking

Sheffield Tony":3avn7ixa said:


> ... And remember that you lot in the Leave camp are the ones who would gamble your future and everyone else's on that toss of the coin.



Right back at ya!

We know, with certainty, that there are huge structural problems across the EU, both economic and political:

1. The euro will fail, collapsing some local economies as it goes down, and seriously damaging lenders too (which includes some of our own banks, incidentally, and pension funds, and so on. It makes no difference if we're in or out, EXCEPT that we can yet be tapped up to fund more pointless bailouts of lending institutions in the eurozone. 

Cameron (well Osborne) claims we have negotiated an exemption from this, but in truth we haven't. There is now a mechanism whereby we can "indicate our reasoned opposition" to a fresh bailout after which the European Council "shall discuss the issue". Nice of them to be so considerate.

Remember the Irish referendum on the euro, and the French referendum on the European Constitution (when Cameron wouldn't give us one)? When the lies didn't work on the French, it was passed anyway. The Irish were just told to stay behind after school until they'd done their referendum properly. So good luck with that one!

2. The migration crisis will continue to get a LOT worse. This in itself is enough to topple some of the less stable governments. Without proper control of our borders, good luck with that one too.

3. The EU parliament starts debating a new European Army the day after our referendum (24th June, as reported in The Times, over the w/e). Surely no accident, with timing specifically intended to rub our noses in it. It will pass, if Germany and France want it to. So, if you don't want some grey bureaucrat in Brussels deciding to square up to Putin one Thursday afternoon, putting British troops on the front line... well good luck with that one.

4. The accession countries will continue to want to accede, obviously. That includes delightful places like Albania and Turkey (who continues to use force of criminal law against critics of its politicians and even comedians who make fun of them!). They will continue the dilution of our very limited influence within the EU, and some of them have an Islamic agenda quite foreign to Europe since the gates of Vienna.

These things are not speculation. They are serious downside risks to remaining in the EU. The Remain camp needs to explain what its plan is to address them. So far I haven't heard anything cogent whatsoever.

We shouldn't be frightened of leaving the EU - most of the world comprises sovereign independent nations, after all - we should be frightened of what will happen to these islands if we stay in.

E.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Just to add one to Eric's list - if the Leave vote wins, the UK will be governed by an institution elected by ordinary people, and if that government is not acting as the electorate think is in the best interests of the country, it can be elected out and other people given authority. If the Remain vote prevails, the UK will be governed (eventually) by people appointed, not elected. Only the EU commission has authority to propose or change legislation under the Lisbon treaty, and if any electorate in any of the 28 countries don't like it, there's absolutely nothing short of insurrection they can do about it.

Another one that's on the way - the universal EU tax identification number. Once they've got that in place, your taxes will be taken from you by Brussels, not HMRC.....

http://www.taxand.com/taxands-take/thou ... ion-number


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The main problem with staying in is staying in what? It will never be the same again, regardless what happens on June 23rd. It's all very well to say oh, we'll be ok, we're exempt from that ... it'll be fine, we don't have to take part in that ... We'll always have the pound, we're outside any requirement to adopt the Euro ... We're OK - we won't have to put troops in a European army ... Of course we won't have to take more immigrants ...
And the best of all - We'll always be OK, we've got a veto. How long does anyone think that'll last? One fine morning they'll ask the representatives from the other 27 Countries if the British veto is OK by them, and what will the answer be? That will be changed - anyone who thinks differently is naive.
Incidentally Europhiles are pleased to point out that Cameron did use the veto (to reinforce the point that we have it) - he didn't, he refused to vote on that occasion, and pretended that he'd vetoed something.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":3ka01kre said:


> RogerS":3ka01kre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some economists say they will go up.
> Some economists say it they go down.
> Heads or tails anyone ?
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not so simple is it ? It's far more like;
> 9 economists say leaving is very likely to be bad
> 1 says it might be good.
> 
> Skews the odds a little doesn't it ?
Click to expand...


Please name them. I'd be interested.


----------



## stuartpaul

And so it begins? Souce - BBC News

'The pound has weakened after new polls suggested an increased chance of a vote in the referendum to leave the European Union. 
Sterling did subsequently recover some of the losses. 
But there is certainly a view that the currency would decline if Britain were to decide to leave. 
Some analysts expect the fall in the value of sterling in the event of a Brexit vote would be very sharp.'


----------



## stuartpaul

Sorry Roger no names but does this help?

'A poll commissioned for the Observer and carried out by Ipsos MORI, which drew responses from more than 600 economists, found 88% saying an exit from the EU and the single market would most likely damage Britain’s growth prospects over the next five years.

A striking 82% of the economists who responded thought there would probably be a negative impact on household incomes over the next five years in the event of a Leave vote, with 61% thinking unemployment would rise.'


----------



## RogerS

stuartpaul":3a6hz1n5 said:


> And so it begins? Souce - BBC News
> 
> 'The pound has weakened after new polls suggested an increased chance of a vote in the referendum to leave the European Union.
> Sterling did subsequently recover some of the losses.
> But there is certainly a view that the currency would decline if Britain were to decide to leave.
> Some analysts expect the fall in the value of sterling in the event of a Brexit vote would be very sharp.'



Normal day-to-day minimal fluctuations. Pound goes up and down like a yo-yo. As do the other currencies.


----------



## Eric The Viking

I posted a LONG list of pro-Brexit economists earlier.

What's the matter with all of them???


----------



## gregmcateer

And so the debate rumbles on. And on. And on. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.

I'm still undecided and to be honest not sure I'll ever have enough 'facts' to be sure what's best - for the UK, its constituent parts and or Europe as a whole.

I think that whatever happens I'm going to keep going out to my shed and half finishing projects just like before.


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":37amjqpj said:


> Jacob":37amjqpj said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The various empires or successful nations which have come and gone have succeeded on the basis of centralised power, tight rule and regulation, bureaucracy and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to take a look at the Roman empire. Edward Gibbon's six volumes would be a good place to start. Honestly, anything by Mary Beard would be an easier read/watch though.
> 
> You may get rather a shock.
Click to expand...

Mary Beard says 212BC was the most significant date in the growth of the Roman Empire when Caracalla granted citizenship to all the free inhabitants of the empire, from Scotland to Syria. Not simple, not the slaves, but the biggest grant of citizenship in the history of the world and massively empowering/consolidating to the empire and its inhabitants.
Lesson here for the EU?
Equal citizenship - free movement, far from being a problem could be a radical driver of improvements for the lives of all of us in ways we are yet to appreciate. Free movement of Bulgarian tinkers is set off by free movement of scientists, industrialists etc. Woodworkers even!
Protectionism, selective rights of movement and tight borders could strangle the whole enterprise.
Brexit seems to be all about fear of change, insecurity, timidity, lack of imagination and being eaten by bears: "always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse"


----------



## stuartpaul

Eric The Viking":3pn18ypr said:


> I posted a LONG list of pro-Brexit economists earlier.
> 
> What's the matter with all of them???


Nothing at all Eric but I though the MORI poll was a bit more encompassing. https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpubl ... rexit.aspx

639 respondents (probably 640 opinions though!) makes it a bit more thorough and dare I say a bit less one sided (from either side) although I suspect some will believe otherwise.


----------



## Woodmatt

I think when it comes to the vote most will go with their gut feeling rather than any so called facts they are told by either side.It seems that every "fact"that is broadcast by which ever side is countered by an equally truthful sounding "fact" by the opposite side.I don't think any of us can and will know the truth.
I for one have spent a fair amount of time reading,listening and researching the pro's and con's and are none the wiser,so although from the start and even now are happy to be persuaded by the "facts" to change my view I still feel I am just where I started.


----------



## NikNak

Just as a 'sideways' look at all of this.... does anyone remember the Y2K debacle.? 

There was going to be computer crashes, pensions glitches, bank accounts being hacked, microwaves going berserk (according to the Sun  ), wrist watches going into time warps, toasters refusing to work...... 

I have a friend who was (he's retired now) a pensions manager for IBM. And he made an absolute 'packet' in the 18 months up to Y2000 trying to keep 'the suits' happy that everything was going to be fine....

I seem to remember there were 'experts' on both sides then telling us what would/could happen....

Can you remember what happened come midnight on December 31st 1999...?? NOTHING....!! everything carried on as normal.

When i was still working (i gave up last year... couldn't stand the politics of that anymore..!!) i was constantly told "you must embrace change.... learn new skills.... if you stand still you move backwards...." the only people that benefited from all my (and others) efforts were the managers and boss's.....

Thats it.... i've said my piece  



Nick


----------



## Rhossydd

NikNak":2ribzu9b said:


> Just as a 'sideways' look at all of this.... does anyone remember the Y2K debacle.?
> Can you remember what happened come midnight on December 31st 1999...?? NOTHING....!! everything carried on as normal.


Mainly because people were made aware of the problems and possibilities and acted to prevent them happening.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I did see one letter signed by innumerable "experts" on the dangers of Britain leaving. Where it lost credibility as one commenter pointed out was that every single one of them belonged to an organisation or worked for company that was known to get money (in some cases a lot of money) from the EU. My daughter is voting in - primarily because her university (a Russell group) has received tens upon tens of millions from the EU, and she doesn't think our government would have spent it. At least with the leavers there are few with a vested interest.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":2qf83nij said:


> I did see one letter signed by innumerable "experts" on the dangers of Britain leaving. Where it lost credibility as one commenter pointed out was that every single one of them belonged to an organisation or worked for company that was known to get money (in some cases a lot of money) from the EU. My daughter is voting in - primarily because her university (a Russell group) has received tens upon tens of millions from the EU, and she doesn't think our government would have spent it. At least with the leavers there are few with a vested interest.


Vested interests is fine. 
We want to know what benefits people get. 
There's no point in listening to people who have no interest in the EU at all and nothing to gain - they are bound to say leave things as they are.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I'd sooner listen to someone who said we should leave because it would be better for the Country than I would to someone who said we should remain because they make money out of it (irrespective of whether it costs other people) - which appears to be the case for an awful lot of people.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":jqrssst6 said:


> every single one of them belonged to an organisation or worked for company that was known to get money (in some cases a lot of money) from the EU.


Exactly, almost everyone in the UK gets some benefit from the EU! Living in Cornwall you should know that better than most. The EU pump billions into deprived rural areas in development aid.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Yes, a few of the billions we give them are given back and we spend them as we are told to. We've a nice new £35,000,000 road - that goes goes effectively from nowhere to nowhere. Everyone in the UK gets some benefit from the EU- I should bl00dy hope so, we pay dearly enough for it.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":16veoxzr said:


> phil.p":16veoxzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> every single one of them belonged to an organisation or worked for company that was known to get money (in some cases a lot of money) from the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, almost everyone in the UK gets some benefit from the EU! Living in Cornwall you should know that better than most. The EU pump billions into deprived rural areas in development aid.
Click to expand...


Where does the EU get it's money from?

There's been a lot of huffing and puffing about the UK's contribution to the EU, but some sort of agreement seems to settling at about £18bn per annum contributions, of which about £9bn is either rebated or comes back in the form of various grants. Thus, the EU money going to Cornwall could be said to come from the UK Treasury via a rather tortuous route.

There are only three real contributors to the EU coffers - Germany, the UK and the Netherlands. Everybody else takes out rather than putting in - indeed, some do very well out of it - French agriculture, for example.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rhossydd":3oorfxr9 said:


> phil.p":3oorfxr9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> every single one of them belonged to an organisation or worked for company that was known to get money (in some cases a lot of money) from the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, almost everyone in the UK gets some benefit from the EU! Living in Cornwall you should know that better than most. The EU pump billions into deprived rural areas in development aid.
Click to expand...


Yes but that's money we've paid to the EU originally. I don't see how that can be a relevant argument, they aren't giving us money. 

What they are doing is taking some money, keeping a huge amount on their own expensive administration then giving some back in a way of their choosing.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

gregmcateer":2ny9es6w said:


> And so the debate rumbles on. And on. And on. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
> 
> I'm still undecided and to be honest not sure I'll ever have enough 'facts' to be sure what's best - for the UK, its constituent parts and or Europe as a whole.
> 
> I think that whatever happens I'm going to keep going out to my shed and half finishing projects just like before.



I think that because we're dealing with what might happen in the future, with the UK either in or out of the EU, there are no facts. There are plenty of opinions, forecasts (any of which may or may not be close to accurate), and quite a few with vested interests plugging their own position.

For me, it comes down to a choice of what sort of government is preferable. We can either have the nation's decision-makers elected by us ordinary people, or we can be governed by people we don't elect and can't hold to account through the ballot box. It may be that it doesn't make much difference in the short term, but in the long term - the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren - it could make a huge difference. History shows that nations with democratically-elected governments (the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand for example) tend to more stable, more peaceful and more prosperous in the long run than those governed by people not accountable through the ballot box.

Thus, for me, it's a Leave vote.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":lsux0oqz said:


> we pay dearly enough for it.


Do we ? Just how much do YOU actually pay ?

Your tax statement will tell you how much of your income tax and NI goes to the EU, assuming you pay income tax at all.
The other way you pay into the EU is via VAT. So anything with full rate VAT about 0.06% of the total price including VAT goes to the EU.
VAT on lower rate items like domestic fuel will be commensurately smaller, similarly insurance tax, air duty etc.
You'll also contribute via other 0.37% of other duties, eg on car fuel, diesel, alcohol, tobacco etc.

There are other taxes like Capital gains tax, corporation tax that also indirectly deliver to the EU, but I'd guess you won't be paying those.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

You have no idea what I do or don't pay. If the 0.06% (of the total price) we pay is nearly a fifth of the EU's total income from VAT there must be far more Countries in the EU than we knew - or a lot of Countries paying no VAT.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The net cost of the EU is £10bn pa equivalent to about £160 per head on average. It represents approx 0.6% of GDP.

It would be wrong to describe this as completely trivial - but neither is it of any real consequence in an economic sense - in context:

- less than most would save simply by changing energy or telecoms/broadband or insurance provider
- 1/3rd of normal annual economic growth: economic impact is probably far more important than contribution saved
- about 1.2% of total public spending: this is not remotely a game changer - although it could be targeted
- probably less than most on this forum spend on consumables for our chosen hobby/trade

It is entirely reasonable to have views on democracy, sovereignty, economy, security etc, but the cost of membership is just a distraction.


----------



## clk230

But would you let someone else tell you how you have to spend your £160 on consumables for your hobby ?


----------



## MIGNAL

Meanwhile Hitachi have stated it will have to rethink it's UK future investment if Brexit were to happen.


----------



## RogerS

MIGNAL":yi8bw2ij said:


> Meanwhile Hitachi have stated it will have to rethink it's UK future investment if Brexit were to happen.



Another example of FUD.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":k5ciujv8 said:


> You have no idea what I do or don't pay.


Maybe this exactly the sort fact you need to know before making wild comments like that you 'paid dearly' for membership to the EU, but haven't a clue how much it _actually_ cost you.

It also sounds like you don't understand what VAT fundamentally is or where the revenue it collects goes to. Clue: It doesn't all go to the EU.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":2zbqjupr said:


> Another example of FUD.


It's exactly FUD that is causing companies to wait on making investment decisions in the UK. It's not just Hitachi either.
If the country is foolhardy enough to vote to leave, it will stall most major inward investment into the UK until the situation is very much clearer with respect to what trade deals we'll have. That will take many years to establish and that failure to invest will give the UK economy major problems, which trickles down to hurting the people fast, but even if the most optimistic brexit forecast is correct the short term loss will take a decade or two to recover, if ever.


----------



## MIGNAL

RogerS":3bir5hqr said:


> MIGNAL":3bir5hqr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile Hitachi have stated it will have to rethink it's UK future investment if Brexit were to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of FUD.
Click to expand...


Yes, along with the Japanese PM. The numbers are mounting.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":rziuvox7 said:


> RogerS":rziuvox7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of FUD.
> 
> 
> 
> It's exactly FUD that is causing companies to wait on making investment decisions in the UK. It's not just Hitachi either.
> If the country is foolhardy enough to vote to leave, it will stall most major inward investment into the UK until the situation is very much clearer with respect to what trade deals we'll have. That will take many years to establish and that failure to invest will give the UK economy major problems, which trickles down to hurting the people fast, but even if the most optimistic brexit forecast is correct the short term loss will take a decade or two to recover, if ever.
Click to expand...


Pretty well exactly the same arguments were made (by pretty well exactly the same institutions and corporations) when we dropped out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, and again when we didn't join the Euro. Since those events, the UK's economy has done better than the Eurozone's.

Nobody can foretell the future, but the past is sometimes a useful guide.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rhossydd":2ye03ixe said:


> phil.p":2ye03ixe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I do or don't pay.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this exactly the sort fact you need to know before making wild comments like that you 'paid dearly' for membership to the EU, but haven't a clue how much it _actually_ cost you.
> 
> It also sounds like you don't understand what VAT fundamentally is or where the revenue it collects goes to. Clue: It doesn't all go to the EU.
Click to expand...

For one, I said "we" not "I", for two, what it costs me is nothing to do with you, and three -
"Over the seven years from 2007-13, the UK paid over £15.4 billion in VAT contributions
to the EU, an average of £2.2 billion a year. This amounts to just under 18 per cent of
the EU’s annual VAT revenue, despite the UK population being only 13 per cent of the
EU whole.1
 The VAT contribution per capita in the UK is £246 in total in 2007-13. This is £78 more
than the average for the EU population.
 The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the UK’s VAT contributions to
the EU budget will rise by 32 per cent from 2013-14 to 2019-20."

As 18% is nearly a fifth and the other figure was supplied by you, and I suppose we must make allowances for Countries like Greece, where they pick and choose whether to pay VAT or not. Why was it a wild comment when it is common knowledge how much this inefficient, corrupt political union costs us?


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":3u1jzdbr said:


> what it costs me is nothing to do with you,


If you want your views and opinions to be taken seriously, demonstrating that you understand how the issue resolves down to a personal level would give you more credibility.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I don't really mind whether you take my views and opinions seriously or not - given that I always ignore yours.


----------



## stuartpaul

It would be nice if the thread didn't get locked due to a failure to be civil to each other and respect points of view even if we don't agree?


----------



## mind_the_goat

Rhossydd":1avriev3 said:


> NikNak":1avriev3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as a 'sideways' look at all of this.... does anyone remember the Y2K debacle.?
> Can you remember what happened come midnight on December 31st 1999...?? NOTHING....!! everything carried on as normal.
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly because people were made aware of the problems and possibilities and acted to prevent them happening.
Click to expand...


Yes, NikNak, you explained why 'nothing' happened in your post. Many people, myself included, spent a lot of time fixing it. There was a known problem which was understood and it could be tested and fixed, similar to a recall on a car. No comparison to this discussion as there is no tangible thing that can be fixed to give a known result.


----------



## mind_the_goat

clk230":ggx3zq7v said:


> But would you let someone else tell you how you have to spend your £160 on consumables for your hobby ?



It would be nice if everyone got to choose where al their taxes were spent, but the country would be a complete mess if we could. You are certainly not going to get that £160 back in your pocket and, in my view, will likely have less to spend your hobby if we leave.


----------



## Jacob

stuartpaul":34izbk2k said:


> It would be nice if the thread didn't get locked due to a failure to be civil to each other and respect points of view even if we don't agree?


Don't want to make it worse but I have to say - having been out canvassing and on a stall giving out info - the outers are by and large an angry bunch. Many grievances real or imaginary which leads them to think change of any sort could be an improvement. There's a bit of logic in this of course, but generally, decisions are better made with a cool head!

PS also have to say - this thread has been very interesting and has made me think (and others too I would hope!)


----------



## RobinBHM

This article,

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/b ... -a-brexit/

Had calculated Brexit will affect UK gdp by between -2.2 to + 1.6 in 2030. The range is largely based on how well the UK reform and become a deregulated, free trading economy.

It suggests the best possible scenario would be to remain in and put its effort into reforming the EU and reduce eu interference. Reforming the EU would be to the benefit of both UK and Europe.

To me, therein lies the fundamental problem, the european parliament doesnt want to reform, they want further integration as that increases their wealth, power and size. The UK, has never had any success in influencing EU decisions, we conceded fishing rights on day one and its been downhill since then. A huge barrier to reform or any form of change is getting 20 or so countries to actually reach any agreement.

My feeling is that both remain and Brexit options will be painful. Brexit could be good, but reform will probably be too slow. Remain and no doubt Europe will resist reform and greater integration will continue making a later exit more and more difficult. Probably any reform of Europe will only be reactive driven by economic catastrophy in the euro zone, perhaps combined with a future recession.


----------



## mind_the_goat

Been thinking about value the costs of membership and looking at some other things the UK is thinking of spending money on

EU contribution 8bn/Year
HS2 42bn
Hinkley 25bn
Trident 170bn

Maybe there are other ways to save money and invest in all the things the brexiters have promised to spend near found wealth on.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":27ed0kzx said:


> The VAT contribution per capita in the UK is £246 in total in 2007-13.


The problem with this figure plucked out of the net is the 'per capita' fallacy.

Membership of the EU isn't some sort of individual fee chargeable to every citizen, it's a percentage of it's overall tax haul. Hence why successful counties, like the UK pay more than the less successful ones like Greece.

So as an individual you may not pay much at all, especially so if you don't pay much tax.
Someone paying high rate tax, or a LOT of high rate tax and being able to spend more on taxable luxuries will consequently pay a lot more to the EU.

Furthermore a lot of the tax haul won't come from UK citizens at all.
To give two examples;
Overseas sales
I run a small internet based service business that charges VAT regardless of location. About 40% of the orders come from offshore and all of the VAT charged is passed straight back to HMRC.
Tourism
The UK tourism industry is reckoned to bring in over ten billion pounds from overseas. A very big part of that will spent in the UK on goods and services that charge VAT, hotels, hot food etc.

So don't let them delude you into thinking you're paying more that you actually are.



> how much this inefficient, corrupt political union costs


 To you ? probably not a lot. To someone more able to pay ? probably more ?
Go on work out your own numbers and surprise yourself.

As a high rate tax payer I paid £70 to the EU for a year from tax & NI. Not a lot.
If I had to spend an extra two hours sorting out paperwork or VISAs when selling or working abroad I'd be loosing money.


----------



## Sheffield Tony

One of the things that puzzles me is that there seems to be an assumption that, if we chose to remain now, we will be locked in forever. We could surely chose to leave at a later date, if things get less tolerable. But if we leave and later decide it to be a mistake, the EU are not likely to rush to welcome us back with open arrms, I suspect ? In which context, remain is a much safer choice, as it keeps options open.


----------



## clk230

mind_the_goat":3l9mvosh said:


> clk230":3l9mvosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> But would you let someone else tell you how you have to spend your £160 on consumables for your hobby ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if everyone got to choose where al their taxes were spent, but the country would be a complete mess if we could. You are certainly not going to get that £160 back in your pocket and, in my view, will likely have less to spend your hobby if we leave.
Click to expand...


Come on you know EXACTLY what I was getting at !! i.e a non elected bunch of euro's spending the money .


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Sheffield Tony":tbc63cro said:


> One of the things that puzzles me is that there seems to be an assumption that, if we chose to remain now, we will be locked in forever. We could surely chose to leave at a later date, if things get less tolerable. But if we leave and later decide it to be a mistake, the EU are not likely to rush to welcome us back with open arrms, I suspect ? In which context, remain is a much safer choice, as it keeps options open.



We're rather into 'what if' territory here, however....

As I understand it, if we do vote to leave, nothing much happens for two years, presumably including our continuing to make our current financial contribution to EU coffers. After that, presumably at some point, our contribution will cease. That's a chunk of money the EU will have to find somewhere else, or prune it's activities accordingly. Thus, if at some point down the line, we find we wish to rejoin, and assuming the EU then still exists in its present form, they'd be delighted to have our contribution back.

There are all sorts of things that could happen if we vote for Brexit. It's possible that other countries might demand similar referendums, and it's possible that some may end up with a leave vote - there is disquiet about the EU among the populations of several countries. That may encourage the EU to become more democratic, or to abandon it's integrationist strategy and instead become an association of independent, self-governing sovereign nations, something nearer to the free-trade area we were told we were voting for in 1975.

Thus, if we did decide in (say) twenty years time that we wished to rejoin, we may be joining something more acceptable to the enthusiasts for democracy amongst us.

It's also possible that the EU's answer to Brexit is to accelerate integration; in that case, I suspect it would become less palatable to a majority of the UK's electorate.


----------



## stuartpaul

If we do leave and decide to rejoin the cost will be a real killer. Those who think it's bad now can wave goodbye to any rebate.

I can't see any way the French or Germans would allow a rebate (again). We'd pay even more than the number on the side of the Brexit bus (which is wrong) plus whatever else they want to screw us for.

Staying or leaving are both something of a leap in the dark and whichever way it goes we're going to need very high calibre politicians to manoeuvre us carefully through a maze of different issues. We are therefore screwed!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Oh, they'll give us a rebate - £25billion a year, please - and we'll give you £5billion off. See how generous we are to you.  
It won't make any difference - the EU is already in the merde and the Euro will collapse long before we think we need to return. I would have to be on my knees dying of starvation before I voted to go back in.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":2cz1u9ub said:


> we find we wish to rejoin, and assuming the EU then still exists in its present form, they'd be delighted to have our contribution back.


Highly unlikely.
It's already been hinted at that any exit would be regarded very badly by the other EU states, hence the worry about punitive trade deals etc. memories of an insult like leaving won't be forgotten.
The idea we would be welcomed back seems deeply flawed. It would only happen if leaving was proving to be bad for our country and the economy was failing. Why would they be welcoming to a failing economy ?

What ever happens it would be on much worse terms too.

It's no safety fall back when things go wrong.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

So if they're that pathetically small minded and petty we're better off without them.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":i87alsui said:


> So if they're that pathetically small minded and petty


Don't let your prejudices get in the way.
It's simple common sense.
You wouldn't re-admit a failing state unless it would be beneficial to the overall community.

I also think that they would see us as "pathetically small minded and petty" to have left in the first place.


----------



## paulm

Trying to decide long term, major, strategic issues such as this based on points of detail or forecast outcomes is to descend into a spiral of ever decreasing circles and paralysis by analysis !

The only way to sensibly deal with it is considering the fundamentals at a strategic level, and then deal afterwards with the details and inevitable bumps in the road that will arise whichever way you jump.

Seems to me that fundamentally it is an exceedingly poor idea to mortgage your trust and future well being of yourselves and future generations to an unelected, unaccountable massive quango with a heavily socialist agenda, that has a substantial track record of serial incompetence, corruption and wide ranging and self serving agendas and heavily biased and exceedingly poor political decision making.

It will never be in our best interests to tie ourselves to such an organisation with such an appalling track record and every prospect of falling apart at the seams in the not too distant future.

Those with a short term agenda of personal and corporate enrichment as part of the EU gravy train will of course claim it is the only way forwards, that is to be expected, but it doesn't mean they are objective, independent, truthful, or correct !

Those worried souls who want certain outcomes and forecasts and guarantees and won't get out of their beds in the morning in case the sky falls on their heads, and those who seek the opportunity for short term personal enrichment at the expense of the long term, will likely never be persuaded to vote to take control and vote leave, while those with a degree of real world experience and the ability and experience to see the way forwards through the clouds of FUD thrown up by the vested, self serving interests, will hopefully continue their efforts to drag the UK away from the failing and flawed EU model that has been hijacked and corrupted out of all recognition from it's early and simplistic ideals. 

Look at the appalling EU track record in fraud, awful political decision making, and complete inepitude in major practical issues, and ask yourself why you would want more of the same for the foreseeable future !


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":2r2rfyrg said:


> Cheshirechappie":2r2rfyrg said:
> 
> 
> 
> we find we wish to rejoin, and assuming the EU then still exists in its present form, they'd be delighted to have our contribution back.
> 
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely.
> It's already been hinted at that any exit would be regarded very badly by the other EU states, hence the worry about punitive trade deals etc. memories of an insult like leaving won't be forgotten.
> The idea we would be welcomed back seems deeply flawed. It would only happen if leaving was proving to be bad for our country and the economy was failing. Why would they be welcoming to a failing economy ?
> 
> What ever happens it would be on much worse terms too.
> 
> It's no safety fall back when things go wrong.
Click to expand...


My view, informed by a study of Britain's history, is that we would do quite well - or more likely very well - outside the EU in it's current integrationist form. Thus, we would not be looking to rejoin. (It's very unlikely that we'd become an economic basket case. The things that caused that in the 1970s no longer apply.)

If Brexit caused a reform of the EU along more democratic and less integrationist lines, the need for large sums of public money would cease, and membership fees if we did choose to rejoin would not be a significant factor.

If Brexit caused the EU to accelerate integration, the chances of a UK electorate voting to rejoin would diminish significantly, so there would be no need to consider financial contribution.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Looking at Europe at the moment, they've got better things to worry about than us - and even better things again when we cease to to pay their bills.
" the failing and flawed EU model that has been hijacked and corrupted out of all recognition from it's early and simplistic ideals. " Sorry, Paul, I agree with your post except for that - the EU is going the way it was always intended to, it's on track it's not been hijacked.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":1qtr7r6d said:


> phil.p":1qtr7r6d said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they're that pathetically small minded and petty
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let your prejudices get in the way.
> It's simple common sense.
> You wouldn't re-admit a failing state unless it would be beneficial to the overall community.
> 
> I also think that they would see us as "pathetically small minded and petty" to have left in the first place.
Click to expand...


Actually, they're terrified that if the UK leaves, others may want to, and the whole thing might come tumbling down - taking their cushy, highly-paid sinecures and generous pensions with it.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":2ts6p857 said:


> phil.p":2ts6p857 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they're that pathetically small minded and petty
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let your prejudices get in the way.
> It's simple common sense.
> You wouldn't re-admit a failing state unless it would be beneficial to the overall community.
> 
> I also think that they would see us as "pathetically small minded and petty" to have left in the first place.
Click to expand...


Oh please...spare me the heart-rending. 

"Overall community" ? Do you really think that your average German, Frenchman or Italian is thinking this ?


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":5x8gmsv7 said:


> Actually, they're terrified that if the UK leaves, others may want to, and the whole thing might come tumbling down - taking their cushy, highly-paid sinecures and generous pensions with it.


A perfectly reasonable response really. The EU doesn't want to see the whole European economy sent into turmoil and decline.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"The EU doesn't want to see the whole European economy sent into turmoil and decline."
Bit late in the day to worry about that.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":1hj04une said:


> "Overall community" ? Do you really think that your average German, Frenchman or Italian is thinking this ?


Actually yes. Work with Europeans and you'll find they like the idea of being a "European" whilst still having their own regional identity.

This seems to be core of the issue; Can you be English* and European ?
Most mainland Europeans I've talked to seem happy with it, not so sure about people here though.

*Insert regional identity of choice English/Scottish/Cornish/Tuscan/Basque etc. etc.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":2c5tw8c7 said:


> Cheshirechappie":2c5tw8c7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they're terrified that if the UK leaves, others may want to, and the whole thing might come tumbling down - taking their cushy, highly-paid sinecures and generous pensions with it.
> 
> 
> 
> A perfectly reasonable response really. The EU doesn't want to see the whole European economy sent into turmoil and decline.
Click to expand...


European economies would be better off without the EU - especially Spain (currently 40% youth unemployment), Greece (50% youth unemployment), Portugal, Italy and Ireland. If the EU wants to avoid economic turmoil and decline, the best thing it could do is disband itself.


----------



## RogerBoyle

Well we are now up to 20 pages and just like the rest of the country we are going around in circles just trying to point score against anybody with an opposing view 
Regardless of which camp you are in. there is no one and I do mean no one that knows for certain what will happen if we stay or leave. 
Its all best guess and speculation and at the end of the day we as a people will just have to endure the rubbish and scaremongering from both sides about what may or may not happen. In my immediate circle of family some 32 adults all eligible to vote we are all voting to leave.


----------



## Jacob

Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack. 
Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088


----------



## Grahamshed

Sheffield Tony":13ao42n2 said:


> One of the things that puzzles me is that there seems to be an assumption that, if we chose to remain now, we will be locked in forever. We could surely chose to leave at a later date, if things get less tolerable. But if we leave and later decide it to be a mistake, the EU are not likely to rush to welcome us back with open arrms, I suspect ? In which context, remain is a much safer choice, as it keeps options open.



That makes a lot of sense to me.

The other thing that bothers me is all the people telling us what the money we save will be spent on. None of them have the ability to make that kind of decision.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Curious. That's pretty much how I feel when I read about Cameron, Kinnock, Benn, Sturgeon and company - but it's reality that makes me want out, not personal dislikes.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":3k4tjb27 said:


> Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
> Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:
> 
> https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088



Convincing to you, maybe, but looking at his political views, the article can hardly be said to be objective.


----------



## Sheffield Tony

Jacob":36fuk1p9 said:


> Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
> Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:
> 
> https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088



Yes, indeed. It is worth considering who you are aligning yourself with. Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.


----------



## MIGNAL

Lol!


----------



## Rhossydd

Sheffield Tony":4u9losqp said:


> Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.


As listening to Gove who famously wanted 'every school to be above average' ..... with that grasp of mathematics he's now talking about finance ??? <shudder>


----------



## RobinBHM

Jacob":x4zz7j3e said:


> Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
> Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:
> 
> https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088



I don't find that to be a very professional article, it doesnt provide any convincing argument, more of a unsubstantiated rant.


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":3btcf1f7 said:


> .........
> "Green" energy still only accounts for 1-5% of our supply, and this is unlikely to rise significantly in the next decade or so. .......


It is rising significantly year by year.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Sheffield Tony":g8ufqhjy said:


> Jacob":g8ufqhjy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.
Click to expand...


http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html

Quite often, things are not all they appear.

The site above has been around for at least ten years. See also "the little book of Bell" - much of which seems to be available on the above link.

I'm in no position to know for certain, either way, but I have met both of the Hamiltons on a few occasions in the past and I like them as people. Mr. H. has always and consistently protested his innocence, and I think Christine Hamilton's tenacity speaks volumes for her own character in particular.

Contrast that with Mandelson's "Yeah, so what?" approach over his mortgage application, and the Kinnocks turning the EU into a well-paid family business (and so on)...

E.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":1px1wwfn said:


> Eric The Viking":1px1wwfn said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> "Green" energy still only accounts for 1-5% of our supply, and this is unlikely to rise significantly in the next decade or so. .......
> 
> 
> 
> It is rising significantly year by year.
Click to expand...


The sole reason that the UK is installing so much 'green' electricity generation capacity is to comply with an EU directive. Everybody knows that both wind and solar are poor (and expensive) answers to the problem of reliable electricity generation - solar doesn't work when it's dark and works inefficiently when it's cloudy, wind is intermittent and may not be delivering at times of high demand, making back-up capacity from other sources necessary. Both have to be subsidised because the electricity they generate costs significantly more than coal, gas or nuclear. The people who pay for this madness are the ordinary electricity consumer and the taxpayer.

The answer to cleaner energy supply has been obvious to all for many years - nuclear for baseload, with gas CCHP stations to supply peaks. The reason we have not followed this route is solely because we have to comply with the arbitrary target of 20% electricity from 'green' sources, imposed without regard to local conditions. It may be well-meaning, but it costs everybody hundreds of pounds a year on their domestic electricity bill, and by making energy a commodity more expensive than it needs to be, makes UK industry less competitive than it could be, thus being a drag on the economy.

http://europa.eu/pol/ener/index_en.htm


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":3d5ak1v8 said:


> ....The people who pay for this madness are the ordinary electricity consumer and the taxpayer.......


Yes true. But better to pay for this madness now rather than giving in to climate change and doing nothing. 
The world is changing rapidly and energy is going to increase in price enormously - unless we can get green sustainable systems in place.


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":2iq9r8od said:


> ....
> I'm in no position to know for certain, either way, but I have met both of the Hamiltons on a few occasions in the past and I like them as people.


Oh thats OK then! :lol: :lol:


> Mr. H. has always and consistently protested his innocence,


Well he would wouldn't he. But it certainly looks as though he was guilty.


----------



## Sheffield Tony

Cheshirechappie":b9azlhd3 said:


> The answer to cleaner energy supply has been *obvious to all* for many years - nuclear for baseload, with gas CCHP stations to supply peaks. The reason we have not followed this route is solely because we have to comply with the arbitrary target of 20% electricity from 'green' sources, imposed without regard to local conditions. It may be well-meaning, but it costs everybody hundreds of pounds a year on their domestic electricity bill, and by making energy a commodity more expensive than it needs to be, makes UK industry less competitive than it could be, thus being a drag on the economy.



Not so obvious to all, I don't think. 

So nuclear for baseload is cheap heh ? How much did we agree to pay EDF for electricity generated at Hinkley C (if they build it) ? Just over twice the wholesale price IIRC. And I presume we get to keep the waste. I never can figure how they can price the full cost of nuclear energy. How do you cost keeping the waste safe and secure for 1000 years ? And that's just the expected duration for low level waste. Moreover, we import both gas and uranium, so there is still a security of supply issue.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":1cumrt1i said:


> Cheshirechappie":1cumrt1i said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The people who pay for this madness are the ordinary electricity consumer and the taxpayer.......
> 
> 
> 
> Yes true. But better to pay for this madness now rather than giving in to climate change and doing nothing.
> The world is changing rapidly and energy is going to increase in price enormously - unless we can get green sustainable systems in place.
Click to expand...


Maybe humanity should stop breeding like rabbits.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":1u25c8qf said:


> Cheshirechappie":1u25c8qf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The people who pay for this madness are the ordinary electricity consumer and the taxpayer.......
> 
> 
> 
> Yes true. But better to pay for this madness now rather than giving in to climate change and doing nothing.
> The world is changing rapidly and energy is going to increase in price enormously - unless we can get green sustainable systems in place.
Click to expand...


The problem is that we have to invest huge amounts of taxpayers' money in methods of generation that don't deliver much (and that intermittently) instead of methods of proven reliability and effectiveness because the former are defined by the EU as 'renewable' and the latter are not. Nuclear generation is as 'carbon-free' as wind and solar, but is not defined as 'renewable' by the EU.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Sheffield Tony":2bppy7w2 said:


> Cheshirechappie":2bppy7w2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to cleaner energy supply has been *obvious to all* for many years - nuclear for baseload, with gas CCHP stations to supply peaks. The reason we have not followed this route is solely because we have to comply with the arbitrary target of 20% electricity from 'green' sources, imposed without regard to local conditions. It may be well-meaning, but it costs everybody hundreds of pounds a year on their domestic electricity bill, and by making energy a commodity more expensive than it needs to be, makes UK industry less competitive than it could be, thus being a drag on the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so obvious to all, I don't think.
> 
> So nuclear for baseload is cheap heh ? How much did we agree to pay EDF for electricity generated at Hinkley C (if they build it) ? Just over twice the wholesale price IIRC. And I presume we get to keep the waste. I never can figure how they can price the full cost of nuclear energy. How do you cost keeping the waste safe and secure for 1000 years ? And that's just the expected duration for low level waste. Moreover, we import both gas and uranium, so there is still a security of supply issue.
Click to expand...


Nuclear is cheap relative to wind and solar, mainly because it is fairly reliable (Sizewell 'A' had a lifetime load factor of 66% at closure, compared with typical wind turbine load factors of about 25%, and the big coal stations at around 75%) and generates a lot of electricity. Wind and solar don't generate much.

It's very hard to find unbiased data on generating costs. The nearest I found was a paper by the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2004, which put the costs at coal 2.8p/Kwh, gas 3.0p/Kwh and nuclear at 3.2p/Kwh (including waste and decommissioning costs). Wind cost 7.2p/Kwh (which is why it has to be subsidised). Since then, coal and gas prices have fluctuated, but are currently low, so they may well be cheaper.


The main point is that the UK is no longer able to set it's own energy policy. UK energy policy must comply with EU directives. The consequence is that our energy security is very close to being compromised, and our domestic and commercial electricity bills are higher than they otherwise should be.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Sheffield Tony":31v2j44y said:


> Jacob":31v2j44y said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
> Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:
> 
> https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed. It is worth considering who you are aligning yourself with. Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.
Click to expand...

Certainly - but I wouldn't much want to associate with Cameron either - he is an out and out liar. "If I don't get get what I'm asking for, I'll lead the out campaign" - he didn't get what he was asking for, and all of sudden he's telling us that bankruptcy and starvation beckons.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Eric The Viking":3gexlr4r said:


> Sheffield Tony":3gexlr4r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":3gexlr4r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html
> 
> Quite often, things are not all they appear.
> 
> The site above has been around for at least ten years. See also "the little book of Bell" - much of which seems to be available on the above link.
> 
> I'm in no position to know for certain, either way, but I have met both of the Hamiltons on a few occasions in the past and I like them as people. Mr. H. has always and consistently protested his innocence, and I think Christine Hamilton's tenacity speaks volumes for her own character in particular.
> 
> Contrast that with Mandelson's "Yeah, so what?" approach over his mortgage application, and the Kinnocks turning the EU into a well-paid family business (and so on)...
> 
> E.
Click to expand...

And the Blairs taking out mortgages that their income couldn't possibly support?


----------



## Jacob

> Nuclear is cheap relative to wind and solar, mainly because it is fairly reliable


Not if you factor in the cost of waste disposal and the risk of accidents. 
In any case the green alternatives are getting cheaper and more efficient by the minute.


Cheshirechappie":24ztji7e said:


> ....
> The main point is that the UK is no longer able to set it's own energy policy. UK energy policy must comply with EU directives. ....


That's OK by me. These issues are critical and global - bigger than the EU.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":3u3kgrnl said:


> ....
> In any case the green alternatives are getting cheaper and more efficient by the minute.


.

Regrettably Jacob, just because you say this is true does not necessarily make it so. Yes, they might be getting cheaper and more efficient but by how much exactly? 0.001% ?


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":m3d1i39u said:


> Jacob":m3d1i39u said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> In any case the green alternatives are getting cheaper and more efficient by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Regrettably Jacob, just because you say this is true does not necessarily make it so. Yes, they might be getting cheaper and more efficient but by how much exactly? 0.001% ?
Click to expand...

Google it. Let us know the outcome.


----------



## RogerS

So the Cookie Law is trivial, eh? Well, popped into my local the other night and asked one of the young lads behind the bar if he was In or Out ....half expecting him to say In as that is what the Remain crowd would have us believe. To my surprise he said that he couldn't make up his mind and neither could his friends. So I explained the Cookie Law to him.

I popped in this lunchtime and asked him if he'd made his mind up. 'Yes' he replied. 'I hate clicking that damn cookie button and so do my mates so that's as good a reason to vote Out that any that we can think of.' They're going to stick the idea up on their Facebook and Twitter pages.

I call that a result


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":2pdkw7xy said:


> RogerS":2pdkw7xy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":2pdkw7xy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> In any case the green alternatives are getting cheaper and more efficient by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Regrettably Jacob, just because you say this is true does not necessarily make it so. Yes, they might be getting cheaper and more efficient but by how much exactly? 0.001% ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google it. Let us know the outcome.
Click to expand...



Troll. Troll. Troll. You claimed it. Down to you to prove it. Or stop trolling.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":2fu3qrxx said:


> Nuclear is cheap relative to wind and solar, mainly because it is fairly reliable
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you factor in the cost of waste disposal and the risk of accidents.
> In any case the green alternatives are getting cheaper and more efficient by the minute.
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":2fu3qrxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> The main point is that the UK is no longer able to set it's own energy policy. UK energy policy must comply with EU directives. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's OK by me. These issues are critical and global - bigger than the EU.
Click to expand...


Problem is - nuclear is reliable and delivers a lot of electricity to the grid. Wind and solar don't - wind doesn't deliver when the wind isn't blowing, and solar doesn't work when it's dark - and no amount of 'improvements' are going to solve those fundamental drawbacks. So on a cold winter's night when there's no wind, what keeps the lights on?


----------



## RogerS

Cheshirechappie":w0x7hvmo said:


> .... So on a cold winter's night when there's no wind, what keeps the lights on?



All that Hot Air from a certain quarter ? :wink:


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":1ovzvouc said:


> ... So on a cold winter's night when there's no wind, what keeps the lights on?


We shall see (or not as the case may be). Times they are a changin' whether you like it or not.
One thing is certain and that is that a lot of lights will have to go off but there's a huge amount of waste at present so there's plenty of room for reduction.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":10s395cp said:


> Cheshirechappie":10s395cp said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... So on a cold winter's night when there's no wind, what keeps the lights on?
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see (or not as the case may be). Times they are a changin' whether you like it or not.
> One thing is certain and that is that a lot of lights will have to go off but there's a huge amount of waste at present so there's plenty of room for reduction.
Click to expand...


There's absolutely no technical reason why the lights will have to go off. The only reasons for it being a present and growing risk are political - the EU dictating how the UK can generate its electricity.

Vote Leave to make keeping the lights on more likely in the medium to long term.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":4lp5k8za said:


> Jacob":4lp5k8za said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":4lp5k8za said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... So on a cold winter's night when there's no wind, what keeps the lights on?
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see (or not as the case may be). Times they are a changin' whether you like it or not.
> One thing is certain and that is that a lot of lights will have to go off but there's a huge amount of waste at present so there's plenty of room for reduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's absolutely no technical reason why the lights will have to go off. ...
Click to expand...

There is urgent need for (CO2 generating) energy use reduction due to the risks of climate change - caused almost entirely by fossil fuel use. 
I thought everybody knew this?


----------



## MIGNAL

Solar efficiency is increasing at around 0.3% per year, so around 3% in the last 10 years. There are some higher efficiency panels by the likes of Panasonic, so likely those improve on that 3%.
Biggest savings are to be had from better standard of houses. My sisters yearly heating bill barely touches £250 per year. Modern high standard flat. Mine is more like £2,000 per year, old Victorian house.


----------



## RobinBHM

Renewable energy sources seem a great idea, free energy and all that. 

But they are far from free. 

They have huge set up costs to produce a very small amount of energy. 

They cant be used all the time, or produce when power isnt needed so a full back up is required.

Efficiency is skewed as renewables have large subsidies. Also some of the contractors involved in setting up wind farms seem to make large pay packets from it.


----------



## Jacob

Yes insulation is priority. We've spent a bomb on it in our chapel conversion but you can feel the benefit!

Solar energy efficiency may be slow to improve but cost of installation is going down fast and expected to hit 10% per annum. Prospects look good, it's not all bad news!



> Renewable energy sources seem a great idea, free energy and all that.
> 
> But they are far from free.


 Nobody says they are free - they are expected to be expensive, but the cost of _not_ using them looks likely to be far greater.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":3lowb2al said:


> There is urgent need for (CO2 generating) energy use reduction due to the risks of climate change - caused almost entirely by fossil fuel use.
> I thought everybody knew this?



Even if you assume that to be true, it makes nuclear generation a sensible option. Unfortunately, since the EU don't class nuclear as a renewable, we still have to spend far too much of other people's money installing kit that doesn't really deliver, just to satisfy an EU directive.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

MIGNAL":1ydff76u said:


> Solar efficiency is increasing at around 0.3% per year, so around 3% in the last 10 years. There are some higher efficiency panels by the likes of Panasonic, so likely those improve on that 3%.



It still doesn't work when it's dark, which during a UK winter is most of the time. It doesn't work at peak efficiency when it's cloudy, which during a UK winter is most of the time. The highest demand for electricity in the UK is also during the winter.

All in all, solar is not really the best option for electricity generation in the UK, except as a very small occasional niche contributor.


----------



## mind_the_goat

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ent-continues-to-resist-onshore-a6685326.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...g-more-electricity-than-coal?CMP=share_btn_tw

Wind power getting cheaper all the time, onshore is less than price agreed for Hinkly power (which does include the build cost)
Does anyone here actually believe that fossil fuel generation is not benefiting from subsidies?

The was an earlier comment about waste, yes absolutely, this is called low efficiency and is exactly the reason the EU are creating directives to encourage manufacturers to increase it. this applies to many things, hoovers and kettles included and makes absolute sense. How many people here are using less fuel because EU regulations forced manufacturers to focus effort on this. I seem to remember some manufacturers claimed the limits were unreasonable but they all (maybe not VW) managed to achieve the limits very quickly.

Seems Ironic that both Wind and Solar capacities may be boosted by the climate change they are helping to limit, more wind, more sun, at least in the short term, till the Gulf Stream stops.

I still don't understand why new houses are not built with solar panels and efficient heating systems, we clearly need an EU directive on this


----------



## Rhossydd

mind_the_goat":2od8yzcd said:


> (maybe not VW)


VW still are very good at low CO2 emissions, it's NO2 pollutants that are/were the issue.
They got caught, others get away with it. (See the Panorama last year that investigated the issue. VW three times over the claimed NO2 emission, Vauxhall so bad it was off the scale)


----------



## Phil Pascoe

If all new builds and re purposed development had solar panels and all commercial developments had to cover their roofs completely with them by law, it would make sense as the prices would really tumble and it would also end the stupidity of first class farm land being used for solar farms because of subsidies. At present there is not one commercial system that makes economic sense without subsidies. There is an argument for primitive home made solar thermal - it's not rocket science, nor need it be expensive to warm up warm up water with sunshine.
My friend, who was fortunate he could afford it at the time, is now raking the money at our expense - his 16Kw system is past its payback time with ten years more life expectancy and he's still getting nearly 42p a unit.


----------



## mind_the_goat

Cheshirechappie":1xsglzlr said:


> All in all, solar is not really the best option for electricity generation in the UK, except as a very small occasional niche contributor.



It's a great way to cover the increased load caused by air conditioning units on hot days.
Seriously though, no one thinks we can run the whole country on Solar and wind power (although we do have a lot of wind) (quite a lot on this thread too  ) Heavy reliance on nuclear would give the opposite problem in that it's hard to adjust quickly. Tides seem an obvious predictable solution but that technology is still too expensive, or causes other environmental impacts to shorelines. There are some interesting storage options being looked at, these make more sense with solar and wind as there may well be effectively free spare capacity at certain times. There is certainly no single solution to this but it's a no brainer to make the best use of the 'free' energy when it's available and only bring in fossil fuel options when absolutely necessary. Yes it may cost more in the short term, but unless you don't have kids that should not be your primary concern.

One other thing, if we ever come up with some new non polluting and cheap energy source, we can just dismantle the wind turbines and solar installations, not quite so simple with current nuclear technology, or it's waste storage systems.


----------



## RogerS

Wuffles on another thread reminded me of yet another piece of duff EU legislation - namely mucking about with the Credit Card reward schemes - rendering some schemes virtually worthless overnight (including ours) - thanks a bunch, EU, and for what ?


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":1gtbttvg said:


> Wuffles on another thread reminded me of yet another piece of duff EU legislation - namely mucking about with the Credit Card reward schemes - rendering some schemes virtually worthless overnight (including ours) - thanks a bunch, EU, and for what ?


So that's two utterly trivial (but probably quite reasonable for all I know) EU rules you've come up with so far Roger. 
Is that it? 
Are there really no really terrible EU rules/directives that should encourage us to quit? There must be something! :lol:


----------



## mind_the_goat

phil.p":1ngj8668 said:


> My friend, who was fortunate he could afford it at the time, is now raking the money at our expense - his 16Kw system is past its payback time with ten years more life expectancy and he's still getting nearly 42p a unit.



One thing that really annoys me with government grant schemes is they often fund new mini-industries set up to profiteer from them. Basically marketing companies that are just middlemen and convince a consumer of the huge benefit of the grant, charge exorbitant sums and pocket a sizeable percentage of the fees. Without them the original subsidies could have been smaller for the same benefit to the consumer.


----------



## mind_the_goat

Rhossydd":dz7r0wxc said:


> VW still are very good at low CO2 emissions, it's NO2 pollutants that are/were the issue.



Ah yes, I stand corrected, thank you.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

mind_the_goat":1xv8wpgp said:


> phil.p":1xv8wpgp said:
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, who was fortunate he could afford it at the time, is now raking the money at our expense - his 16Kw system is past its payback time with ten years more life expectancy and he's still getting nearly 42p a unit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that really annoys me with government grant schemes is they often fund new mini-industries set up to profiteer from them. Basically marketing companies that are just middlemen and convince a consumer of the huge benefit of the grant, charge exorbitant sums and pocket a sizeable percentage of the fees. Without them the original subsidies could have been smaller for the same benefit to the consumer.
Click to expand...

Green Deal? I looked into that quite seriously when we moved - the world and its cousin seemed to be making money out of that.


----------



## RobinBHM

At the time people started to realise the feed in tariff was a much better investment than an ISA or savings account.

All paid for through energy bills by everybody......


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":2bvx9ode said:


> ....
> Are there really no really terrible EU rules/directives that should encourage us to quit? There must be something! :lol:



Yes. As I have already said...the fact that you are voting to stay IN is the best reason for voting OUT


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The referendum is a once in a lifetime (or at least generation) chance to vote. It is potentially life changing for ourselves and our children. We should not be distracted by what is really trivia - often the sort of stuff politicians and media focus on to the exclusion of what is actually important.

EU intrusion in day to day life is mostly trivial. Schools and health services can be fixed by the government if they have the will and a bouyant economy to fund it. I don't care about the shape of tomatoes or cucumbers - although regulations on vegetable size create waste. I am not worried about immigration. Their work is of value in the community and competition drives prices down and quality up. 

The big things are the economy, sovereignty and security.

I have no doubt that the economy will suffer materially if we leave. Despite glib assertions, we will not quickly sign new trade deals etc. At best we will have a rough ride for 5 years+ as inward investment falls and new deals (hopefully) set up. Thereafter its just guesswork.

Sovereignty is emotive - but ask yourself whether (a) you really have greater trust in a Westminster elite and (b) how is your life materially adversely impacted by being 1 of 28.

Security is partly a NATO function, but I see no real benefits in leaving and a lot of risks. Jaw-jaw and trade-trade is far better than war-war. Membership can only make the chance of a repeat performance of 1914 and 1939 much less likely.

In the 1970's the UK was the basket case of Europe. Even rose tinted spectacles don't make the memory any sweeter. I am strongly in - although I accept that some may have seen serious personal consequences of membership. But be objective - this is far more important than simply an opportunity to vent frustration with the current government or annoying EU trivia.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Terry - Somerset":spuzgaxx said:


> The referendum is a once in a lifetime (or at least generation) chance to vote. It is potentially life changing for ourselves and our children. We should not be distracted by what is really trivia - often the sort of stuff politicians and media focus on to the exclusion of what is actually important.
> 
> EU intrusion in day to day life is mostly trivial. Schools and health services can be fixed by the government if they have the will and a bouyant economy to fund it. I don't care about the shape of tomatoes or cucumbers - although regulations on vegetable size create waste. I am not worried about immigration. Their work is of value in the community and competition drives prices down and quality up.
> 
> The big things are the economy, sovereignty and security.
> 
> I have no doubt that the economy will suffer materially if we leave. Despite glib assertions, we will not quickly sign new trade deals etc. At best we will have a rough ride for 5 years+ as inward investment falls and new deals (hopefully) set up. Thereafter its just guesswork.
> 
> Sovereignty is emotive - but ask yourself whether (a) you really have greater trust in a Westminster elite and (b) how is your life materially adversely impacted by being 1 of 28.
> 
> Security is partly a NATO function, but I see no real benefits in leaving and a lot of risks. Jaw-jaw and trade-trade is far better than war-war. Membership can only make the chance of a repeat performance of 1914 and 1939 much less likely.
> 
> In the 1970's the UK was the basket case of Europe. Even rose tinted spectacles don't make the memory any sweeter. I am strongly in - although I accept that some may have seen serious personal consequences of membership. But be objective - this is far more important than simply an opportunity to vent frustration with the current government or annoying EU trivia.



Terry, I agree that this is more important than the trivia some seem concerned about.

However, I disagree strongly on two points. Firstly, you don't need a trade deal in order to trade, you just go and trade (under WTO rules, tariffs are quite small anyway compared to the days of old). At least one nation, New Zealand, has already expressed interest in a free trade deal, and negotiating one-with-one trade deals will be much quicker than, for example, the TTIP deal between the USA and 28 other countries all with their own issues. The UK has a very long history of trade and enterprise, and freed of some of the constraints we currently have because of EU trade rules, we could do very well indeed. I'd go further, and say that freedom to act is very much in the UK's trading interests.

More importantly, the matter of Parliamentary democracy. The Westminster government is elected by the ordinary people to act on their behalf, and if they feel that it isn't, the government can be elected out and another given a chance, as happened in 1979, 1997 and 2010. The people making the decisions are drawn from the elected MPs, so if they wish to retain their seats, they do have to take some account of public opinion. Brussels is different - we do not elect those who propose legislation (the Commission), and in consequence they do not have to take any notice of public opinion - note how they forced austerity on Greece despite a clear electoral mandate for a government opposing it. the only thing we're allowed to vote for is the European Parliament, which has no authority to propose or repeal legislation; it's in effect just a toothless talking shop. Any legislation passed by Brussels must automatically be entered onto member states' statute books without the benefit of scrutiny or amendment by national parliaments. Democratic it ain't.

We won't be returning to the 1970s, because we no longer have to burden private enterprise with high taxes in order to pay for loss-making nationalised industry (40% of public spending in 1979).

In summary - if you value democracy, only a sovereign Westminster government can deliver. On trade, the UK will be better off free to do it's own deals.


----------



## Chippyjoe

OUT OUT OUT, that would be OUT then for me.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":2e4tcvzy said:


> In summary - if you value democracy, only a sovereign Westminster government can deliver.


Sadly, first past the post really doesn't offer democracy, just a pale substitute for it.
Try asking any younger people that voted Liberal the election before last what they think of FPtP democracy and see how they were betrayed.
Or the million people who voted for the Green party and only got a single MP for a house of 650 representatives.
Or why legislation is changed and amended by an unelected second chamber.

The 'democracy' issue doesn't cut it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

You seem to have forgotten all the MPs UKIP should have had after the last one ...


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Rhossydd":2pozqayv said:


> Cheshirechappie":2pozqayv said:
> 
> 
> 
> In summary - if you value democracy, only a sovereign Westminster government can deliver.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, first past the post really doesn't offer democracy, just a pale substitute for it.
> Try asking any younger people that voted Liberal the election before last what they think of FPtP democracy and see how they were betrayed.
> Or the million people who voted for the Green party and only got a single MP for a house of 650 representatives.
> Or why legislation is changed and amended by an unelected second chamber.
> 
> The 'democracy' issue doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...


In Westminster, the decision makers - members of the government, Cabinet and junior ministers - are drawn from the ranks of elected MPs. Thus, those elected are accountable through the ballot box. 

There are a number of checks and balances that have evolved through the centuries to see that UK legislation is as fair as it can be when it goes onto the statute book. Government Bills have two debates and votes in the Commons, and between them, scrutiny by a cross-party committee of MPs. The Lords also debate each Bill, and scrutinise it in committee before voting on it, but they cannot reject a Bill passed by the Commons, only amend or delay it. Nor can they propose legislation.

There are also provisions for back-benchers to propose legislation, and for decisions to be made very fast if needs be (to take military action in defence of UK interests, for example, or to extend the deadline for voter registrations).

EU legislation does not receive scrutiny in Westminster. Since EU legislation has primacy over domestic legislation, EU laws just go straight onto the statute book.

UK democracy isn't perfect, and is constantly evolving - but it's a heck of a lot more accountable to the electorate than Brussels is.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":3ejiu54i said:


> , and is constantly evolving


<sounds of hollow laughter>


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":19osl9bo said:


> You seem to have forgotten all the MPs UKIP should have had after the last one ...


Not forgotten, just not mentioned. Yes, they didn't get their representation either.
It's wrong and a part of the evidence that current UK democracy is deeply failed and shouldn't be held as a better example than that of the EU.


----------



## MIGNAL

Well that's it then. Simple. We don't need no trade deals nor do we need to negotiate. The little % that is levied as import duty is such a small amount it's hardly worth worrying about. 
Maybe CC can give me 6% of £2,500 every other month. That's effectively what might be levied on my exports.(it is to the US).


----------



## Cheshirechappie

MIGNAL":3d33dbr3 said:


> Well that's it then. Simple. We don't need no trade deals nor do we need to negotiate. The little % that is levied as import duty is such a small amount it's hardly worth worrying about.
> Maybe CC can give me 6% of £2,500 every other month. That's effectively what might be levied on my exports.(it is to the US).



Firstly - you are quite right; we don't need a trade deal in order to trade. The EU currently does not have a trade deal with the US, so presumably your customers are currently paying import duties of whatever percent every other month. If we leave, nothing changes for two years, so that would presumably continue unchanged. After that, rates may change to WTO recommended ones, or we may (despite O'barmas threats) negotiate a free trade deal, which given that one country would be negotiating with one other, wouldn't be the protracted episode TTIP has turned into.

So, for you, surrendering the right to elect the people who govern us in favour of an unelected and unaccountable self-selecting 'government' in Brussels is worth it for 6% of £2500 every other month? Must admit, I'd set my price for that higher. A lot higher.


----------



## Jacob

We should be leading in Europe, not leaving it.
Brexit is for the timid.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":2jyk43uj said:


> We should be leading in Europe, not leaving it.



We've been trying that for 40 years with absolutely no effect whatever.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing time after time expecting a different result.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

We should be leading in Europe .. Jeez ... we've been told that with monotonous regularity for forty three years. How much longer?


----------



## RobinBHM

First past the post may be judged not democratic, but countries that have proportional representation dont do better, they end up with a government changing all the time and no stability.

My biggest overiding concern with remaining is that the eu needs reforming, but those in power within the e parliament have no will do so and they want to continue towards a federal europe as a goal. History shows we have almost no influence in the eu and to me that indicates the UK will not have any democratic power to yield, so It is a legitimate point to be considered.


----------



## MIGNAL

Cheshirechappie":mip7vu5a said:


> MIGNAL":mip7vu5a said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's it then. Simple. We don't need no trade deals nor do we need to negotiate. The little % that is levied as import duty is such a small amount it's hardly worth worrying about.
> Maybe CC can give me 6% of £2,500 every other month. That's effectively what might be levied on my exports.(it is to the US).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly - you are quite right; we don't need a trade deal in order to trade. The EU currently does not have a trade deal with the US, so presumably your customers are currently paying import duties of whatever percent every other month. If we leave, nothing changes for two years, so that would presumably continue unchanged. After that, rates may change to WTO recommended ones, or we may (despite O'barmas threats) negotiate a free trade deal, which given that one country would be negotiating with one other, wouldn't be the protracted episode TTIP has turned into.
> 
> So, for you, surrendering the right to elect the people who govern us in favour of an unelected and unaccountable self-selecting 'government' in Brussels is worth it for 6% of £2500 every other month? Must admit, I'd set my price for that higher. A lot higher.
Click to expand...


No doubt you are financially in a comfortable position. I am not. There's many like me. I can't risk losing my job, at my age I'm very unlikely to have the opportunity to get another.
What you have tellingly failed to understand is it's not just the 6% of £2,500. It's the real possibility of a slump in orders due to that 6%. In fact it could quite easily be more than 6% due to possible import duties on raw materials coming the other way. Doesn't seem to me that you understand how a business works and certainly not a small craftsman business like mine. 
You are welcome to donate 6% of £2,500 every other month to me though. I might consider Brexit if you agree to do that.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jacob":395r2vx0 said:


> We should be leading in Europe, not leaving it.
> Brexit is for the timid.




That really is the crux of the matter.

We should be leadjng Europe absolutely correct, but we cant, havent and wont......


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM":2iqfdwo2 said:


> Jacob":2iqfdwo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should be leading in Europe, not leaving it.
> Brexit is for the timid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That really is the crux of the matter.
> 
> We should be leadjng Europe absolutely correct, but we cant, havent and wont......
Click to expand...

Not whilst we are feebly wallying about, half in half out, wittering about trivial details, with useless UKIP MEPs who take the salaries and expenses but don't turn up to do their job.
If our attitude to the EU is so feeble and defeatist do we really think we are suddenly going to get positive and proactive out on our own? No chance!
I don't know why we are having this referendum - it just seems to be about manifesto promises mollifying the weak spirited, and if they get their way it could be disastrous and a huge missed opportunity.


----------



## DiscoStu

Half in half out? So I assume that you'd want us to have the Euro and pour our cash into Greece etc? I for one am very glad we're not in the euro. 

I was on the fence for a long time. The known vs the unknown but for me two things became clear:

Firstly and most importantly we get to elect our government every 5 years. We have no say in who our European Commissioner is and we have very little say in the laws that get passed. So the lack of democracy is enough alone to make me want out. 

I want us to control our borders. Let me be clear I am not against immigration or the freedom of movement (in principal it's a great thing), but it has to be balanced. At the moment we have a huge net gain yet we have a housing crisis and when did you last see a new hospital built? The net gain has to be housed, have health services, roads, schools and infrastructure and currently I don't see any of these expanding to cope. 

I also don't like the fact that we can have foreigners in this country who are actively speaking out against UK citizens and saying that we need to be slaughtered yet we cannot deport them because the European Court of Human rights says so, even after our own high courts have said that they can be. 

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not against the many thousands of peaceful Muslims (and other religions) that live in this wonderful multicultural society of ours, just the ones that want to kill my children. 

Going back a few years our politicians use to talk about us as a great nation and speak about national pride but I can't remember the last time I heard any of them do that. I'd like to see us become a little bit proud of our own nation once again. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rafezetter

stuartpaul":d7oqr89r said:


> I find it interesting how each 'side' has its particular spin. For example, that article makes much of the dastardly EU reduction in vacuum cleaner power. On the face of it a good example of an overbearing approach from that damned Jonny foreigner!
> 
> However, if you take a more considered approach then surely an attempt to reduce power consumption and hence a reduction in greenhouse gases overall is to be welcomed?
> 
> Incidently, the latest Which tests show no reduction in efficiency despite this reduced power.
> 
> Its not all bad, - despite what some want us to think.



Oh my deus....

Are you seriously suggesting that the reduction in power of a vaccum cleaner is going to have ANY measurable impact on power consumption? 

I don't wish to be insulting, but if you do I am forced to assume you live in an earth ship (a house made mostly of "waste materials", with a negative energy bill (you provide your own electricity through solar power and sell your excess back to the grid), grow ALL your own food and have a zero carbon footprint and consider your once weekly vaccuum as a high drain "necessary evil".

One possible legislation they could force on us and that would be welcomed by many regarding excess power usage would be to force all office buildings across the land to cut the power between set hours - except that server farms and all computer networks would have to remain on... and a bunch of other stuff like lights so the security can see on their rounds and, and, and....

So legislating the power consumption of a vaccum cleaner compared to the incredibly high wastage of power in commercial use seems like a terribly bad april fools - and yet there are obviously those that fall for it; and not only that but hold it aloft as a good reason to stay within the EU.

Can you honestly not see that this is a measure taken to level the playing field regarding vaccum cleaner choice? That this was probably backed by one or more companies that cannot produce a machine equal in power or quality to those of a higher rating? (which regularly happens)

That's very likely the true reason behind it because nothing else makes even remote sense when compared to power wasted elsewhere.


----------



## rafezetter

Terry - Somerset":3dwxv0lf said:


> The referendum is a once in a lifetime (or at least generation) chance to vote. It is potentially life changing for ourselves and our children. We should not be distracted by what is really trivia - often the sort of stuff politicians and media focus on to the exclusion of what is actually important.
> 
> EU intrusion in day to day life is mostly trivial. Schools and health services can be fixed by the government if they have the will and a bouyant economy to fund it - you said it brother. I don't care about the shape of tomatoes or cucumbers - although regulations on vegetable size create waste. ( some crops are running at 40% waste because of EU legislation, costing the farmers tens of thousands in lost revenue )I am not worried about immigration. Their work is of value in the community and competition drives prices down and quality up.  (you mean the ones that are actually working, right?)
> 
> The big things are the economy, sovereignty and security.
> 
> I have no doubt that the economy will suffer materially if we leave. Despite glib assertions, we will not quickly sign new trade deals etc. At best we will have a rough ride for 5 years+ as inward investment falls and new deals (hopefully) set up. Thereafter its just guesswork. Our economy, while not buoyant as you have clearly stated is still far healthier than many other EU countries, so what part of an EU based companies ethos to benefit from this and make profitable sales within the UK do you think will suddenly stop because we are no longer members of the EU? Money is the great overrider and companies will ALWAYS find a way to supply to a willing market - oh and pay attention again to the bit about how our farmers / fisheries are seriously suffering because of unnecessary / almost criminally biased EU legislation
> 
> Sovereignty is emotive - but ask yourself whether (a) you really have greater trust in a Westminster elite and (b) how is your life materially adversely impacted by being 1 of 28.  Most people don't know just how adversely - you included it seems, but here's a thing, when you went to school how many were there in class and if you have children how many are there in class now, and did you check that figure before sending your child to that school? Do you think it's more beneficial that there are more now than before, and do you think that the schools that boast having small class numbers and better education standards are all lying? Why do you think private schools exist at all? Maybe you think that a school classroom should have 100 children - all of whom have a voice, all of them with conflicting interests and all of them wanting to get the teachers attention.
> 
> And it's only 1 of 28 for now - there's already 5 in the wings; broke, corrupt and barely hanging onto what meagre posession they have, all of whom will have their hands out for money before the ink is even dry - try and call me a liar.
> 
> Security is partly a NATO function, but I see no real benefits in leaving and a lot of risks. Jaw-jaw and trade-trade is far better than war-war. Membership can only make the chance of a repeat performance of 1914 and 1939 much less likely. You honestly think this is even a remote possibility between the current EU member states even if the whole of EU fell apart? you need to get a better grip on the realities of the 21st C mate - every single one of the current member states might not agree on much but on this they all agree - none of them are a threat to each other, and even if they ever were they all know that N Korea, china, india, pakistan, iran, iraq, possibly even russia (with all this ukraine nonsense) along with a *whole bunch* of non affiliated radical militant groups all have a far bigger potential to start WW3 than anything in Europe. The fact that you think WW3 may well originate from inside europe as a possibility shows just how little grasp you have of the facts. Oh and syria and possibly some african nations who may be on the brink of becoming a nuclear power.
> 
> In the 1970's the UK was the basket case of Europe. Even rose tinted spectacles don't make the memory any sweeter.  (Show evidence that it was SOLELY the EU membership that brought about the change of the 80's and not the extremely hardlined measures of the Thatcher years (bloody hell, never in my life did I ever think I'd say that  along with other factors and I'll consider it) I am strongly in - although I accept that some may have seen serious personal consequences of membership. But be objective - this is far more important than simply an opportunity to vent frustration with the current government or annoying EU trivia. Boy oh boy....



You are clearly NOT being objective, or informed, because as my coloured answers attest you have no foundation on which to base your beliefs that we are better off IN.

Oh and err Norway - yeah just saying - they refused membership in 1994 and look at them now, no seriously, look - thier standard of life is significantly higher than ours, yes it was before the refusal to be fair; but the salient point is it didn't suddenly nosedive after the refusal, evidence suggest quite the opposite in fact, and they have even less population for foreign companies to trade with and less exports.

And Switzerland.


----------



## DennisCA

I want Finland out as well. Just now I got to read how the EU has foisted another of it's laws on us and is forcing the Finnish transport business to open up to other countries with shady practices. The way a lot of foreign transport companies are run is basically modern time slavery in the west today. And the EU is defending this vile pile of dung and foisting it on us and ruining our economy and loads of jobs.

Brexit please and then Fixit and why not Grexit too and a load of other *xits.


----------



## DennisCA

RobinBHM":2th7nsyh said:


> Jacob":2th7nsyh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should be leading in Europe, not leaving it.
> Brexit is for the timid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That really is the crux of the matter.
> 
> We should be leadjng Europe absolutely correct, but we cant, havent and wont......
Click to expand...


No, no, you shouldn't. The days of empire are over. I'd rather not have an EU lording over us, but I'd rather it be the germans then.


----------



## RogerS

Cheshirechappie is not alone in saying that or implying that all this 'doom and gloom' talk about lack of trade agreements post-Brexit is just so much hot air and FUD from the Remain camp. In an excellent article in The Times yesterday, Lord Young of Graffam - who amongst many other roles - was enterprise advisor to Cameron 2010-2015 - argues that in todays modern world trade agreements are not even necessary and that some economists that he respects (from Roger Bootle to Patrick Minford) believe that the UK would boost its GDP by 4% in the long term if it abolished all trade agreements.

OK..that is then but what about now ?

The last WTO round was never concluded and yet we're all happily trading with each other.
The EU-US trade deal remains incomplete after a decade. We're still selling and buying stuff there.

The day we leave the EU, we become its largest trading partner. Germany sells 90 billion Euros worth of cars and other manufactured goods to the UK. Is Merkel going to turn round to Mercedes and say 'You must increase your prices by 10%' ? No.

The EU is trying to negotiate a trade deal with the Mercosur group that will let us export £2.5 billion a year to them. It is being held up by France and more than half of EU member states because they fear competition. So the day we leave the EU is the day that we can arrange our own trade agreements.

If we really need them.


----------



## RogerS

I'd also add that there is a fundamental difference between the EU way of doing things which is based on the Napoleonic Code and our way. The EU ethos is that you can only do the things that we say you can. Our approach is to say you can do what the hell you like unless it has been legislated against. The EU way stifles creativity and competition.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":3lignd0p said:


> RogerS":3lignd0p said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Overall community" ? Do you really think that your average German, Frenchman or Italian is thinking this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually yes. Work with Europeans and you'll find they like the idea of being a "European" whilst still having their own regional identity.
> 
> This seems to be core of the issue; Can you be English* and European ?
> Most mainland Europeans I've talked to seem happy with it, not so sure about people here though.
> 
> *Insert regional identity of choice English/Scottish/Cornish/Tuscan/Basque etc. etc.
Click to expand...


This well-respected survey would suggest that you are so wrong in saying this.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/eur ... nd-brexit/


----------



## RobinBHM

I see a majority of Italians think we should Brexit and they may be having a referendum.

So alll is not rosy in the euro camp.


----------



## Jacob

rafezetter":2dmapq51 said:


> ....
> Oh my deus....
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the reduction in power of a vaccum cleaner is going to have ANY measurable impact on power consumption? .....


No of course not on it's own; but it's part of a huge range of other energy saving measures applied across the board which all add up and make a big difference. 
The EU isn't all about vacuum cleaner motors and bent cucumbers.


----------



## Jacob

The referendum question could be re- phrased; 

"Should the UK remain as part of the free market, or leave the free market?"

https://medium.com/@calum.moore/brexit- ... .fdzqjxafh


----------



## stuartpaul

rafezetter":1l4pymwh said:


> stuartpaul":1l4pymwh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how each 'side' has its particular spin. For example, that article makes much of the dastardly EU reduction in vacuum cleaner power. On the face of it a good example of an overbearing approach from that damned Jonny foreigner!
> 
> However, if you take a more considered approach then surely an attempt to reduce power consumption and hence a reduction in greenhouse gases overall is to be welcomed?
> 
> Incidently, the latest Which tests show no reduction in efficiency despite this reduced power.
> 
> Its not all bad, - despite what some want us to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my deus....
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the reduction in power of a vaccum cleaner is going to have ANY measurable impact on power consumption?
> 
> I don't wish to be insulting, but if you do I am forced to assume you live in an earth ship (a house made mostly of "waste materials", with a negative energy bill (you provide your own electricity through solar power and sell your excess back to the grid), grow ALL your own food and have a zero carbon footprint and consider your once weekly vaccuum as a high drain "necessary evil".
> 
> One possible legislation they could force on us and that would be welcomed by many regarding excess power usage would be to force all office buildings across the land to cut the power between set hours - except that server farms and all computer networks would have to remain on... and a bunch of other stuff like lights so the security can see on their rounds and, and, and....
> 
> So legislating the power consumption of a vaccum cleaner compared to the incredibly high wastage of power in commercial use seems like a terribly bad april fools - and yet there are obviously those that fall for it; and not only that but hold it aloft as a good reason to stay within the EU.
> 
> Can you honestly not see that this is a measure taken to level the playing field regarding vaccum cleaner choice? That this was probably backed by one or more companies that cannot produce a machine equal in power or quality to those of a higher rating? (which regularly happens)
> 
> That's very likely the true reason behind it because nothing else makes even remote sense when compared to power wasted elsewhere.
Click to expand...

My turn to not insult ........

Are you not capable of extrapolating the usage of several million vacuum cleaners across Europe and seeing how power consumption can be reduced? Whilst many bemoan it as yet another pointless 'law' at least there is some attempt to reduce consumption. 

Add in reductions to kettles, toasters etc. and there could be significant savings. There are many other areas (as you suggest) that can also yield valuable savings. The UK government right on top of it all isn't it?

But of course feel free to believe any conspiracy theories you wish.


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":3iapx9mo said:


> ...... the EU way of doing things which is based on the Napoleonic Code ......


Modern law worldwide is influenced by the Napoleonic Code which is generally regarded as a good thing.

"The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in replacing the previous patchwork of feudal laws. Historian Robert Holtman regards it as one of the few documents that have influenced the whole world."


----------



## Sheffield Tony

Jacob":1b891whp said:


> The referendum question could be re- phrased;
> 
> "Should the UK remain as part of the free market, or leave the free market?"
> 
> https://medium.com/@calum.moore/brexit- ... .fdzqjxafh



Brexiters, if you haven't read the above, please do. And this one too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36457120

If we leave the EU, we'll most probably stay in the single market, paying our dues, keeping free movement of people and a lot of EU law. We'll keep most of the downsides, but lose any say in the EU.

There's another interesting figure in that BBC story. Sovereignty remaining with the Westminster government seems to be a fiercely made argument by the leave campaign. But of the MPs sitting in the Westminster parliament, there is a majority of 454 MPs to 147 supporting *remain*. They obviously regard the erosion of their powers as an acceptable price.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":5qna7d86 said:


> RogerS":5qna7d86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... the EU way of doing things which is based on the Napoleonic Code ......
> 
> 
> 
> Modern law worldwide is influenced by the Napoleonic Code which is generally regarded as a good thing.
> 
> "The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in replacing the previous patchwork of feudal laws. Historian Robert Holtman regards it as one of the few documents that have influenced the whole world."
Click to expand...


Why don't you quote your sources? We can all read Wikipedia ...and we all know just how accurate and unbiased their articles can be. 

So...let's take a closer look at historian Robert Holtman. For his view to have any credibility, one would hope that he has written an extensive range of books. So how many has your 'expert' written? Two.

I can't be bothered to check the Page History of this article but I bet money that he inserted that sentence himself.

And where do you get 'generally regarded as a good thing' from ? Where are you quoting that little snippet from? Or is this something from the Bottomless Pit of Waffle and Contrariness aka Trolling from JacobWorld ?


----------



## RogerS

Sheffield Tony":2t7ngppc said:


> Jacob":2t7ngppc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The referendum question could be re- phrased;
> 
> "Should the UK remain as part of the free market, or leave the free market?"
> 
> https://medium.com/@calum.moore/brexit- ... .fdzqjxafh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
Click to expand...


Sorry but he is just plain wrong. Read the excellent article in The Times that I referred to.


----------



## RobinBHM

Sheffield Tony":8exluzvm said:


> Jacob":8exluzvm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The referendum question could be re- phrased;
> 
> "Should the UK remain as part of the free market, or leave the free market?"
> 
> https://medium.com/@calum.moore/brexit- ... .fdzqjxafh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brexiters, if you haven't read the above, please do. And this one too:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36457120
> 
> If we leave the EU, we'll most probably stay in the single market, paying our dues, keeping free movement of people and a lot of EU law. We'll keep most of the downsides, but lose any say in the EU.
Click to expand...


That seems like a good solution. Clearly starting new trade agreements with Europe would be a lot of work and time.

Staying in the single market will ensure continuity of trade and market confidence.

Being out of Europe keeps us away from being driven into further integration leading to a federal Europe.

'but lose any say in the EU' -we dont have any say in the EU, never had, never will'


----------



## whiskywill

stuartpaul":z0v25bxd said:


> Sorry Roger no names but does this help?
> 
> 'A poll commissioned for the Observer and carried out by Ipsos MORI, which drew responses from more than 600 economists, found 88% saying an exit from the EU and the single market would most likely damage Britain’s growth prospects over the next five years.
> 
> A striking 82% of the economists who responded thought there would probably be a negative impact on household incomes over the next five years in the event of a Leave vote, with 61% thinking unemployment would rise.'



That sums it up for me. They don't know.


----------



## mind_the_goat

whiskywill":1oe1z9g4 said:


> That sums it up for me. They don't know.



Predicting the future has proved difficult to do in many fields  
All we can do is look at the assumptions made for each prediction and try to figure out which we think are most likely. As there are so many uncertainties feeding in then we expect a massive range of possible outcomes. This isn't hard to understand which is why I find both sides being really condescending by assuming we can't understand that and thinking they need to give us definitive answers when none exist. They are also picking results at the far ends of the ranges to try and support their arguments.


----------



## MIGNAL

But we have a far better idea of what happens with remain than with Brexit. Just by virtue of the fact that we've been in for a number of years.


----------



## Eric The Viking

@Jacob:

I believe the most widely adopted legal framework, by far and for the obvious reason is English Common Law. 

Many of its concepts, such as Habeas Corpus, trial by jury (i.e. the facts of the case determined by common people, one's peers), and separation between the judiciary and investigators/police, are unknown to the Napoleonic code.

If you don't think those are important, fine. But I know someone who spent almost a calendar year in a Spanish jail _without charge and without appearing before a judge_, because there is no habeas corpus law there. 

He wasn't even told why he was being detained. When his case finally did get into a courtroom (it took diplomatic intervention amongst other things), the arresting police officer was unable to identify him**, and no case of any description was presented. This happened in the early 2000s, not in the 1960s. Exactly the same "process" has been applied to British lorry drivers doing continental runs. 

The European arrest warrant now makes the same process work across international boundaries too. People, such as you or me, can be arrested by British police and deported, without us having committed any offence recognised here, nor even ever having set foot in the EU country in question. The magistrate here presiding over the deportation is not even allowed to examine charges, or evidence. They merely have to check the forms are filled-in properly.

Imagine Turkey gets admitted to the EU: they have a long and miserable track record of locking up critics of the government and those who criticise elements of Islam or are camapigners to maintain the old Attaturk secularist state. Say I criticise Erdogan in a standup routine, or I'm rude about Islamists. Assuming I annoy the Turkish authorities enough, UNDER EXISTING EU LAW they can have me arrested and deported to Turkey: they don't have to make any case here, nor do they have to put me on trial in Turkey either.

When you hear Cameron claiming any "further loss of sovereignty" would be put to a referendum, bear that in mind. The EU arrest warrant is with us now and under the acquis would be automatically adopted by any accession country.

Similarly, Europol officers have delegatory powers of arrest* here, are armed, and carry diplomatic passports (making them, by the Vienna Convention, exempt from British criminal law, even if they shoot someone), and have the authority to order the deportation of British subjects using pretty much the same process as above and the same standard of "proof".

If you don't think all that is a travesty of natural justice, I would be surprised. I happen to think it's highly dangerous for society as a whole. And yes, I know about the USA agreement we have, and no, I don't like that either. But at least in that case (small consolation), there has to be an application to a court in the USA, where, _because they use English common law_, habeas corpus applies and charges must be laid before a warrant is issued.

Be under no illusions, the EU is quietly but determinedly putting into place all the apparatus for a police state, and has been doing so for decades, obvious to those who had their eyes open wide enough to notice it.

E.

PS: And for goodness' sake go do some research before coming back at me on this - I HAVE done my homework and I DO know of which I speak.

*Europol do not have direct powers of arrest here presently, which was a last minute softening of the treaty wording to make its creation palatable to some biddable critics, however they can "instruct" national police forces to carry out arrests on their behalf, with just the same rules otherwise applying. So you'd be arrested by a British bobby, and presumably handed over to the Europol person at the airport -- again, no court appearance, nor warrant, nor charges laid.

**I have been told that one way the police in Spain are measured is their arrest rate, not their crime clear-up rate.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jacob":30i79bnn said:


> The referendum question could be re- phrased;
> 
> "Should the UK remain as part of the free market, or leave the free market?"
> 
> https://medium.com/@calum.moore/brexit- ... .fdzqjxafh


It's anything but free - it's bl00dy expensive.


----------



## Jacob

> .......Be under no illusions, the EU is quietly but determinedly putting into place all the apparatus for a police state, and has been doing so for decades, obvious to those who had their eyes open wide enough to notice it......


The more I hear of these sinister plots the less I believe them. 
Brexit arguments seem all to be about sinister plots, fear of the "occult" :lol: paranoia, fear of immigrants. 
I've lost interest in Brexit arguments to be honest.

I'm looking forwards to meeting our new immigrant neighbours when they arrive, I hope they aren't too disappointed by the UK!

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eu- ... as-corpus/
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/obs ... n-to-fact/

Quite interesting these Euromyth pages. No doubt they are all lies are composed by sinister ex-nazis working in a cave somewhere in deepest Europe, with the intention of making us feel safe! Cue - manic laughter and the sound of cell doors creaking shut and the guillotine blade whistling down with a horrible squidgy thump at the end. :shock: :shock:


----------



## Phil Pascoe

whiskywill":avfy8813 said:


> stuartpaul":avfy8813 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Roger no names but does this help?
> 
> 'A poll commissioned for the Observer and carried out by Ipsos MORI, which drew responses from more than 600 economists, found 88% saying an exit from the EU and the single market would most likely damage Britain’s growth prospects over the next five years.
> 
> A striking 82% of the economists who responded thought there would probably be a negative impact on household incomes over the next five years in the event of a Leave vote, with 61% thinking unemployment would rise.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sums it up for me. They don't know.
Click to expand...

At best it's opinion from people who in the main have been wrong about every major financial event in decades. It's rather surprising in an EU whose business and trade is declining - the only continent doing so - that 39% of economists don't expect unemployment to rise. Notice also they don't choose to mention the thousands of economists asked who would not commit themselves.


----------



## BearTricks

I was in Barcelona recently and it surprised me how many people were willing to make an attempt, without looking put upon, to speak English when my terrible Spanish failed. I had people apologise profusely for not knowing certain words, when I was in their country and it was clearly my fault for being an ignorant foreigner. The same was true in Vienna; if anything, their English was better. I think everyone I met under 35 was fluent, and everyone else was putting their best foot forward.

I think there'd be riots, or at least badly constructed facebook rants, if somewhere like Debenhams decided to list product descriptions in another language besides English. In Spain, their version of Debenhams has English above Spanish or Catalan and it actually made me feel a bit guilty that they had to do that. It's a center of tourism, but so are London and Edinburgh. I find it a bit sad that we, as a culture, are so unwilling to make any kind of effort that other countries have to adapt so that our stubbornness doesn't grind everything to a halt.

I'm guilty too. I learned languages at school and I stopped putting in any effort once I left. Many foreigners that I have met have been brought up to be multi-lingual or have had to learn it later in life, just to get by. I don't know many Brits, who weren't second generation immigrants, who can speak more than one language. I once went for a job interview in journalism and was up against a Spanish (or maybe South American) lady who spoke eight languages. I knew I wouldn't get the job and I wasn't really angry because she had clearly been brought up in a education system that realises that we're not a planet of little islands sending ships across the sea to fill each other with arrows any more.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Certainly - but the majority of us do not need European languages (with the possible exception of Spanish) - the English notice above the Spanish in the store was not there for the benefit of the British so much as for the English speaking billions in the rest of the world. " I find it a bit sad that we, as a culture, are so unwilling to make any kind of effort ..." - in many ways I'd sooner my children learned something of use such as to drive or to type properly than spend time on things they will most probably never use. (Speaking as someone with O level German, O level Latin and A level French - actually the Latin has been useful.) Their commercial businesses and tourist centres may publish info. in other languages (why not?) - but I bet their services and utilities don't. We, natives of the world's lingua franca see fit to waste £millions p. a. translating NHS, legal, education authority etc. documents into umpteen minor foreign languages. Every time I get a letter from the hospital with translations into sixteen different languages it seriously pissses me off.


----------



## Eric The Viking

BearTricks":318dxxyj said:


> I was in Barcelona recently and it surprised me how many people were willing to make an attempt, without looking put upon, to speak English when my terrible Spanish failed. I had people apologise profusely for not knowing certain words, when I was in their country and it was clearly my fault for being an ignorant foreigner. The same was true in Vienna; if anything, their English was better. I think everyone I met under 35 was fluent, and everyone else was putting their best foot forward.
> 
> I think there'd be riots, or at least badly constructed facebook rants, if somewhere like Debenhams decided to list product descriptions in another language besides English. In Spain, their version of Debenhams has English above Spanish or Catalan and it actually made me feel a bit guilty that they had to do that. It's a center of tourism, but so are London and Edinburgh. I find it a bit sad that we, as a culture, are so unwilling to make any kind of effort that other countries have to adapt so that our stubbornness doesn't grind everything to a halt.
> 
> I'm guilty too. I learned languages at school and I stopped putting in any effort once I left. Many foreigners that I have met have been brought up to be multi-lingual or have had to learn it later in life, just to get by. I don't know many Brits, who weren't second generation immigrants, who can speak more than one language. I once went for a job interview in journalism and was up against a Spanish (or maybe South American) lady who spoke eight languages. I knew I wouldn't get the job and I wasn't really angry because she had clearly been brought up in a education system that realises that we're not a planet of little islands sending ships across the sea to fill each other with arrows any more.



I understand what you're saying and to some extent agree with you (I was a lousy linguist at school, and I wish I'd tried harder). I think you're assuming that the Spanish store is aiming at Brits (obviously I wasn't there so have to guess). It's very common elsewhere, possibly with the exception of South America, to use English as the "international" language. Most people have it as second (or third!) language.

The frustrating thing I find when travelling is that people want to try their English on me, and I rarely get to try their languages out properly, beyond ordering in restaurants etc. It doesn't help that I worked in the computer industry, where the default language and all technical literature is in English.Yes, you get lazy. No, that doesn't mean you hate foreigners or foreign cultures.

If you're suggesting that Brexit proponents, such as me, want some return to Nelson's day, I"d have to disagree with you (albeit very politely!). I've tried to post facts on here, not speculation. Despite the raspberries being blown by Jacob (metaphorically), I CAN back up what I've written with detail, for example Corpus Juris (I've seen the source documents, shown to me by someone who actually attended the Seminar where it was launched). 

Napoleonic Law comes from a different Weltanschauung to English law, one in which citizens serve the state, and not the other way round. We had that once; after a civil war and some other nastiness we dumped it. Before the EU, we had a robust constitution that protected the freedoms of the individual; now we do not.

I don't dislike continental Europe - it's where I holiday and I love its diversity and its culture. But we were lied to about the EU from the very outset (see Lord Kilmuir's advice to Heath right back in 1960), and we are still being lied to today - Cameron can't even be honest about how little he got from his "renegotiation" that kicked all this off, and he's not explained why, right up until mid March 2016, he was so keen for Turkey to join the EU as quickly as possible, but now, er, he isn't.

The European arrest warrant does exactly what I said. Europol officers have exactly the status and powers I described. The 'big names' lined up to push the EU all have vested interests, especially Blair (who once wanted to be EU president, don't forget), and lie habitually (surely not!). We don't need or want a police state, and we can do better than this!

One of the recent Brexit leaflets pointed out that if we weren't in the thing already, we'd never contemplate signing up in the present circumstances. It's a reasonable point. 

Iceland was hit harder than most by the banking crisis in 2008, yet now it's economy has almost completely recovered. In contrast, eurozone countries are getting more and more enmired, either in debt (Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy), or in ownership of bad debts (everyone else). It's hurt every major economy that participates in it.

But we should have joined the euro! Thus said Clarke, Heseltine, Blair, Major, the Kinnock Empire (TM), and so on and so on. There's a long list of "economic experts" with a really dodgy history of forecasts.

We've been promised referendums on EU constitution, then denied them. Those countries that got them were ignored (France). Ireland was told to go on voting until it learned what the right answer was. The constitution itself, being rejected, was simply forced through as a new treaty (they can get those through, even if the electorate gives them what-for in referendums). It's the same blooming document, word-for-word in places. What hubris!

Time and again, the EU top brass have shown themselves to lie, deceive and behave as deviously as necessary to further their agenda. That really isn't (or shouldn't be) the British way.

Like many others, I want honest, accountable straightforward and OPEN government in the UK. And I want the state to be as small as possible and big as it needs to be AND NO MORE. Most importantly, I want our government to decide where every penny of taxpayers' money is spent, for subsidies to go directly from the British government to regions and activities that need them, and for the whole thing to be open, auditable and accountable.

but you knew all that, I'm sure.


----------



## dexter

There are four doctors working from three surgerys that cover my local area here in rural France. All of them are Rumanian, they all speak excellent French and English.


----------



## Eric The Viking

phil.p":mnnpf86t said:


> Certainly - but the majority of us do not need European languages (with the possible exception of Spanish) - the English notice above the Spanish in the store was not there for the benefit of the British so much as for the English speaking billions in the rest of the world. " I find it a bit sad that we, as a culture, are so unwilling to make any kind of effort ..." - in many ways I'd sooner my children learned something of use such as to drive or to type properly than spend time on things they will most probably never use. (Speaking as someone with O level German, O level Latin and A level French - actually the Latin has been useful.) Their commercial businesses and tourist centres may publish info. in other languages (why not?) - but I bet their services and utilities don't. We, natives of the world's lingua franca see fit to waste £millions p. a. translating NHS, legal, education authority etc. documents into umpteen minor foreign languages. Every time I get a letter from the hospital with translations into sixteen different languages it seriously pissses me off.



I did some number crunching on the Welsh Assembly's accounts several years back. Welsh government (the Ass. plus local councils under it) spends approx. five thousand pounds per native Welsh speaker* every year providing translation services and documents in Welsh. Wales runs at a thumping net loss, incidentally, like Scotland, meaning English taxpayers are paying for this.

That's OK, possibly - at least it's a democratic choice, but I understand the EU has 'recognised' Cornish as a 'minority language' - heck! It was a dead language in the 1980s - I made radio programmes with one of the last ever Cornish speakers, and she's long gone! The British government had the good sense to pull the plug on teaching it (on the basis that nobody wanted to learn it and Cornish schools didn't want to teach it), but watch out for an EU "cultural programme" coming to Redruth or Camborne real soon now (obviously, that's a totally unsubstantiated assertion, based solely on no understanding whatsoever!). And someone will make a nice sum 'supporting' it.

Remember the Cornish film studio? Few do, but it got £4m** in grants...

E.

*People for whom Welsh is their native language and English isn't.
**EDIT: Apparently only 1.8m was "EU" funding (i.e. taxpayer's money from which the EU has taken its admin cut). I think the £4m figure was its total investment. It's now being turned into a housing estate (Google maps).


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":2r0zsvts said:


> ......
> Napoleonic Law comes from a different Weltanschauung to English law, one in which citizens serve the state, and not the other way round. .......


Completely the reverse of the truth. 
Napoleonic Code was born of the revolution and was about justice and freedom from tyranny. It was about power to the people. It seriously scared the British ruling classes and like much about revolutionary Europe (Tom Paine etc) was largely written out of English history
Napoleon and the revolution may have gone sh|tshaped later but the Nap code is highly respected still.

"Weltanschauung" means "world view" for those who can't be bothered to decipher Eric's picturesque (and often occult? :lol: ) rambling rhetoric.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Cornish is an odd one. There is apparently evidence that there was a pocket of children near Zennor in the 1920s that still spoke some Cornish, and the modern revival started at that time so there is an argument that it never completely died. Dolly Pentreath is variously reported as being the last speaker and the last fluent speaker, but in fact she was the last MONOGLOT speaker - it was spoken long after that. I can remember as a child my grandmother using words and expressions I doubt many people east of St. Ives would have understood (the farm she was born on was between St. Ives and Zennor) I don't approve of £millions being spent on it, neither do I believe should it be forgotten for no reason - for instance road signs were being translated and the cost was questioned, and the answer came back that they were replaced with bilingual ones as and when they were due for replacement anyway so the cost was minimal. That sort of thing is fine. A friend of mine made an apposite comment - Cornish vernacular will die out long before the Cornish language. You're more likely in most of Cornwall to hear estuary English in a pub than a Cornish accent, and in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle the second language is Polish. By the bye. S4C is apparently the most subsidised (per capita) TV network in the world, and the second language of Dublin is Mandarin. I remember the guy who ran the first major EU subsidised regeneration scheme meeting a friend he hadn't seen for 20+ years one lunchtime in a bar. He asked him if he wanted a drink, the chap said he'd have an orange juice as he was working and it was written down to CPR regeneration - we couldn't believe it. This was a man earning phenomenal money and he charged out an orange juice for his friend. These schemes make a lot of money for the people that work within them and ultimately achieve very little for the rest of us.
The "cultural programme" coming to Cornwall isn't so much led by the EU as by up country city councils owning large parts of our social housing estates so they can ship out people they don't want.


----------



## Paul Chapman

Eric The Viking":372csg88 said:


> the Kinnocks turning the EU into a well-paid family business



Probably the best and most accurate quote in this whole thread and one of the most compelling reasons to vote Leave.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jacob":eaxzz66n said:


> ... much about revolutionary Europe (Tom Paine etc) was largely written out of English history.


 You really have lost it there. Are you actually serious, or just trying another wind-up?




For what it's worth (can't remember - the flyleaf says I bought it ten years ago), Paine is one of my favourite thinkers, although I'll concede some of the later essays in TRoM are a bit rambly. He is highly regarded still in France, the USA, and here too (and probably all over the world). Anyway he didn't spend much of his time making 'English History' compared to American and French.

But thinking on it... you do seem to have a lot in common with him, at least temperamentally.



> "Weltanschauung" means "world view" for those who can't be bothered to decipher...


 It's in common use in Sociology literature. And Napoleon was far from Libertarian, as you surely know (in both cases) - by the time the Revolution threw up Bony, it might have been a battlefield chant, but the new elite was already establishing itself, and the worldview was decidedly statist, as it has remained to this day. Napoleonic law reflects this, as you'd expect.


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":2xenh70b said:


> ..... the worldview was decidedly statist, as it has remained to this day. Napoleonic law reflects this, as you'd expect.


Democracies are unavoidably "statist" almost by definition - the "state" is _our_ institution through which we run _our_ common affairs, as distinct from _them;_ monarchy, church, landed interests, business, despots, dictators etc. 
Those who argue for less state control want to take power from you and me and give it back to them (in general).
Those who think there was a golden age before "the state" took so much power, live in cloud cuckoo land.
The EU is "statist" of course but is also democratic (in spite of all the propaganda) and is crammed with people who would wish to keep it that way.
If we stay in it will be _our_ state/alliance. 
One of the most interesting and under-appreciated details is the idea of free movement throughout the EU. This is democracy on the hoof. This is the EU, far from controlling personal lives, doing exactly the opposite and making people free.
The Brexiters don't want this, don't want a powerful democratic state, and presumably would have is back in the middle ages at the earliest opportunity. 
Free movement of capital but controlled movement of labour amounts to slavery.

Just a few thoughts for the day! Off down the road for a bottle, back shortly!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":30i7zhyu said:


> The EU is "statist" of course but is also democratic (in spite of all the propaganda) and is crammed with people who would wish to keep it that way.



That idea that the EU is democratic is flat wrong. In the UK, we, the ordinary people, elect to Parliament those who make laws and take the decisions that affect us all, and we can therefore hold them to account through the ballot box. In the EU, the people who make laws and take the decisions (the Commissioners) are appointees and are in no way accountable through the ballot box - and that's not democratic.

By the way - the roots of English Common Law go back a very long way, probably being first codified by Alfred the Great. It suffered a bit of a setback in 1066, but was steadily rebuilt starting with Magna Carta in 1215. Basic tenets of Common Law are trial by jury (so the final decision is made not by an agent of the state but by twelve ordinary people) and habeas corpus, and it develops by experience - case law - so that the decision found just under one set of circumstances shall also apply should the same set of circumstances arise again. A basic tenet of Common Law is that it is common to all (hence the name), and thus nobody, even the Sovereign, is above it.

Napoleonic Law is far more recent (1804), does not include trial by jury (so the accused is at the mercy of an agent of the state) or habeas corpus, and judges may make whatever decision they see fit (so different results are possible for cases with the same circumstances). The basic tenet of Napoleonic law is that the state is above all citizens - so if those at the top of the state choose to ignore the law, they can do with impunity (until their successors retrospectively apply the law to them). 

If we become part of the developing EU super-state, we would gradually lose our right to trial by jury and habeas corpus (already happening as Eric showed earlier), since EU law has primacy over domestic law.

Vote Leave - and keep democracy and the Common Law, two of the cornerstones of freedom.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":31fpei9l said:


> Jacob":31fpei9l said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU is "statist" of course but is also democratic (in spite of all the propaganda) and is crammed with people who would wish to keep it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That idea that the EU is democratic is flat wrong. In the UK, we, the ordinary people, elect to Parliament those who make laws and take the decisions that affect us all, and we can therefore hold them to account through the ballot box. In the EU, the people who make laws and take the decisions (the Commissioners) are appointees ......
Click to expand...

So is the civil service here - ministers (and many other functionaries) are appointed. Ultimately the power rests with MEPs, MPs, head of government, and hence ourselves. 
Brexiters seek to disparage, undermine and devalue the democratic process. Similarly they are opposed to free movement. So many turkeys voting for christmas! Who is pulling their strings? I see cunning plots (Eric's not the only one!)

NB Opposing free movement is the thin end of a wedge , with slavery at the other end - economic if not yer actual chain gang. Cui bono? (ask Eric what it means).



> we would gradually lose our right to trial by jury and habeas corpus


Who is putting about these untruths?
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eu- ... as-corpus/
Cui bono again? There's a lot of dodgy people trying to pull wool over our eyes and one of their meanest tricks is to make people alarmed about immigration. Divide and rule.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":387sg8g7 said:


> So is the civil service here - ministers (and many other functionaries) are appointed. Ultimately the power rests with MEPs, MPs, head of government, and hence ourselves.
> Brexiters seek to disparage, undermine and devalue the democratic process. Similarly they are opposed to free movement. So many turkeys voting for christmas! Who is pulling their strings? I see cunning plots (Eric's not the only one!)
> 
> NB Opposing free movement is the thin end of a wedge , with slavery at the other end - economic if not yer actual chain gang. Cui bono? (ask Eric what it means).



Sorry Jacob, but that's flat wrong.

The Civil Service has no authority to propose or enact legislation, only Ministers can do that. Ministers instruct, civil servants advise. The Ministers are drawn from the ranks of elected MPs, so are accountable to the electorate. There are also Parliamentary mechanisms for back-benchers to propose legislation - again, the elected.

In the EU, ONLY the Commission can propose or repeal legislation - and Commissioners are not elected and are unaccountable to the electorate. MEPs have no power to propose or repeal legislation, and have insufficient time to scrutinise it properly (deliberately so I suspect), so much of it goes through 'on the nod'.

Free movement - some immigration is good, too much causes problems. I'd like the right balance to be decided in Parliament, by people we elect ad can hold to account if we think they've got it wrong, and not be dictated to by people we didn't elect and can't hold to account.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":3kxgabdr said:


> we would gradually lose our right to trial by jury and habeas corpus
> 
> 
> 
> Who is putting about these untruths?
> http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eu- ... as-corpus/
> Cui bono again? There's a lot of dodgy people trying to pull wool over our eyes and one of their meanest tricks is to make people alarmed about immigration. Divide and rule.
Click to expand...


Eric debunked this one earlier in the thread.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":2swtgapv said:


> ......The Ministers are drawn from the ranks of elected MPs, so are accountable to the electorate. ......


So are MEPs and all the other heads of govts in the EU.

If the worst comes to the worst we do have an option always available - we can withdraw by holding a democratic referendum. We can have one every other week if we so wish!

I'm warming to Eric's cunning plot scenario: there is a massive amount of negative and divisive propaganda about -we are having our strings pulled by agencies who do not wish us well. 
The anti immigrant ticket is a big and unpleasant propaganda tool: learn to dislike and distrust your neighbours, think small, keep your head down. 
Cui bono? Not you and me to be sure. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ave-the-eu


----------



## Phil Pascoe

If Varoufakis wants the EU saved, that's an extremely good reason for allowing it to die its natural death.


----------



## RobinBHM

Brexiters are not opposed to free movement, the reality is that the UK is a small island with a high population density and some restrictions do need to be made.

Our infrastructure is struggling and we have a considerable housing shortage.

There is also a massive issue with the migration of refugees across Europe.


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM":31usz1mp said:


> ....
> Our infrastructure is struggling and we have a considerable housing shortage.


This is government policy and you can't blame the immigrants. Blame is a popular game - convenient for the govt to shift the responsibility. 
In fact the infrastructure would struggle even more if it were not for the immigrants employed therein.
They are a bit tired these anti immigrant arguments - I think almost everybody has realised they are grossly exaggerated and that the net benefit is highly positive. It's a drum which has been banged too often.


> There is also a massive issue with the migration of refugees across Europe.


And a massive duty of care. Being in the EU means a better coordinated approach.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

At what point do you suggest we stop building houses?


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":37kvtng9 said:


> At what point do you suggest we stop building houses?


We need to start building more houses - and possibly look at the empty building situation.


----------



## DiscoStu

I don't think you can blame the government for the large net gain of immigration. We have no control on that so I'm not sure how they are meant to cope with an increase in population the size of Newcastle every year. It's not easy to build that level of infrastructure that quickly even if you have the funds. It's not just houses, but Schools, Roads, Hospitals, Police and Other public services all have to grow to cope. Even things like midwives are required and they need training which all takes time. There is no magic wand to some of this stuff. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Pascoe

That doesn't answer the question - when do we stop building them? After another million? Five million? Twenty million?


----------



## DiscoStu

I wasn't really answering that question, but to answer it. 

You can't, you can't have people without a roof over their head. So if your supply can't cope then you have to reduce the demand. At the moment there is no way to do either. Exit is the only way to control it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Sorry, Stu - that was directed at Jacob rather than you.
I've just heard yet again (QT) this time from Hillary Benn that the Australian immigration system does't work as their numbers are going up ... but not a mention of the fact that 1/ they wish to increase their population. 2/ they have a third of our population and 3/ they have thirty two times the space.


----------



## DiscoStu

I think that for us the issue is space and infrastructure. I don't have an issue with immigration but the current rate is not sustainable and we can't do anything to stop it. At least the Australians could change their points system if it wasn't working for them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RobinBHM

Jacob":2cuchxe7 said:


> RobinBHM":2cuchxe7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Our infrastructure is struggling and we have a considerable housing shortage.
> 
> 
> 
> This is government policy and you can't blame the immigrants. Blame is a popular game - convenient for the govt to shift the responsibility.
> In fact the infrastructure would struggle even more if it were not for the immigrants employed therein.
> They are a bit tired these anti immigrant arguments - I think almost everybody has realised they are grossly exaggerated and that the net benefit is highly positive. It's a drum which has been banged too often.
> 
> 
> 
> There is also a massive issue with the migration of refugees across Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a massive duty of care. Being in the EU means a better coordinated approach.
Click to expand...


I do realise it is easy to blame immigrants for housing shortages, NHS problems etc. The opening up of Eastern Europe has certainly been a great benefit to the UK, our strong economy would be seriously held back without foreign workers.

But it is still true, the UK is very densely populated and infrastructure is seriously stretched. An open border policy cant continue forever.

The eu isnt dealing with the migrant crisis, if it was the problem at Calais would exist.


----------



## BearTricks

Paul Chapman":1vyg1qpd said:


> Eric The Viking":1vyg1qpd said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Kinnocks turning the EU into a well-paid family business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the best and most accurate quote in this whole thread and one of the most compelling reasons to vote Leave.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul
Click to expand...

I'd counter that by saying I've met Michael Gove and he was one of the most vile people I've ever had the displeasure of speaking to, not that he paid me much attention. Usually, the way he came across would have a serious bearing on whether I sided with him on a voting issue. 

It does annoy me that the people heading the charge on both sides are generally ones I would never want to associate myself with politically. 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob

DiscoStu":2ixba4y0 said:


> I wasn't really answering that question, but to answer it.
> 
> You can't, you can't have people without a roof over their head. So if your supply can't cope then you have to reduce the demand. ...


Or increase the supply. 
It's a very artificial problem - given the acceptance that a solution is urgent (say it was a natural catastrophe and no-one could be blamed) then a solution would quickly be found. There's a good deal of inertia on this and deliberate foot dragging. Council house building more or less stopped in 1979 and there are vast numbers of empty properties, let alone 2nd homes etc.
Underlying the supposed immigration problem is the fact that we actually need these people and the country benefits. It's simple - if there's work to be done you need people to do the work.
The anti immigration propaganda is a serious shot in the foot for the country - it's the blame game.

http://www.cornishpastyassociation.co.u ... on-europe/


----------



## Phil Pascoe

http://www.cornishpastyassociation.co.u ... on-europe/
Of course - they've a vested interest. Half of its members are bakers of pasty shaped objects and need all the protection they can get - what would you expect them to say? 
Incidentally, a good friend of mine is a baker who's a member of that - and he loathes the EU with a vengeance.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":3u63ssmc said:


> http://www.cornishpastyassociation.co.u ... on-europe/
> Of course - they've a vested interest. Half of its members are bakers of pasty shaped objects and need all the protection they can get - what would you expect them to say? ..............


So many people with vested interest in the EU. The EU must be working for them then. :lol: 
Glad to hear it, and pleased to hear there aren't any loony pasty EU directives - or have they banned bent pasties? 
Only a matter of time. 8)


----------



## thetyreman

we aren't spending £350 million a week, can't believe they are trying to make this lie into a so called 'fact', for that alone they have lost all respect from me.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater


----------



## dexter

Perhaps on the immigration issues we should take a look at factors that influence them. It seems that on the whole, people in the UK are quite happy to have non UK doctors and other highly trained,( at another country's expense) people as immigrants to the UK. They do seem to object to those who come into the UK who want to work but would be classed as " unskilled labour", such as those who work in processing plants or agriculture picking crops and the like.
What about the heaven knows how many UK citizens who don't want to or can't be a---d to do manual work because it's easier to claim benefits or resort to crime rather than do a days work? 
Why not MAKE these people work in these jobs? There are clearly enough jobs for them rather than bleeding the state dry. Pay them the living wage, perhaps some of them might even end up with a feeling of self worth and go on to better things. If these people were in work then the oppertunities for migrants to work in the UK would diminish substantially. It's not rocket science, look to the causes of the problems.
If the vote goes for in or out, these people who don't want to or can't be a---d to work because it's easier to claim benefits or resort to crime rather than do a days work will still be there. Let's not blame everyone else for problems of our own making.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Precisely. I have nothing but admiration for the Poles etc. in our area, but I doubt they pay enough tax to keep some idle barsteward sitting on his arrse. It's our system that's wrong. Part of the problem of course is a system so convoluted that it makes no sense once on benefits to take a short term job - it takes forever to get back to the status quo ante when things change, then a few weeks later it might all change again. The ludicrous bit about only being allowed to work 16 hours a week doesn't do any favours, either.
New Zealand went effectively bust (which to all intents and purposes we are) some years ago and the government announced one day that as of such and such a date there would be no social security payments of any type. Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Sorry, says the government, it's not a political decision - we haven't got any money. A year later 90% of the jobless had jobs. They do have a job surplus, but they (as do Canada and Australia) make sure they don't import people to do a job any native can do.
I was there about 18 years ago when they had just done a deal with that allowed the Japs to to export whole cars to them rather than have assembly plants in NZ.hence the closure of the biggest assemby plant, which was welcomed by many as it was the last heavily unionised industry. I heard the employment minister and the shop steward on the radio at about 10am one day - it went thus :
What are you going to do about all my unemployed members?
What do you expect me to do?
Well, sort out jobs.
There are plenty of jobs out there, if they want a well paid one they'll have to find one.
None of them are the sort of jobs my members want.
If they want an income they'll take them - I'll have them out with putty knives lifting ******* chewing gum from the pavements of Auckland before we pay them for doing nothing ...

Which is as it should be.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":2vx3zt3v said:


> .....
> If they want an income they'll take them - I'll have them out with putty knives lifting ******* chewing gum from the pavements of Auckland before we pay them for doing nothing ...
> 
> Which is as it should be.


Well yes - investing in public services is win, win all round. It powers the economy - it pays wages, takes people off the dole (away from crime and social problems etc), provides public services, the wages get spent and benefit other businesses and their employees, if the wages are higher enough there is also a tax take, and so on. 
Even if immigrants are doing the work we all gain.

Conversely, austerity and/or anti-immigration policies are incredibly stupid, a wasted opportunity and solve nothing.

Access to work, free movement of workers, generates wealth. One of the daftest economic notions of the last 30 years is "trickle down" theory - that the wealthy somehow generate more wealth. The truth is exactly the opposite - wealth comes from below, from the people doing the work.


----------



## MIGNAL

Yet again. People who know very little about the reasons but seem to have a simple cure. It's the _employers_ who want these 'unskilled' workers. They aren't employing those who reluctantly want to do their jobs, would you and why should they? It's the free market. They are choosing who they consider to be the most suitable candidates. The rules are there in respect of claiming any benefits, 

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/articl ... x1dmkd2_Me


----------



## t8hants

All migrants should do 3 years of some form of unpaid National Service, be taxed at a higher rate of income tax, unless there is a strict strategic need for their skills and employers should pay a foreign employee tax.
I want us out and to work hard to engineer the brake up of the EU.


----------



## MIGNAL

:roll: I suppose that should also apply that to all citizens of the UK who go to work abroad then? 
Farage perhaps? Why not just close all borders permanently. No one allowed in, no one allowed out. That would solve your fear and paranoia issues.


----------



## RobinBHM

MIGNAL":2xqtpfcw said:


> Yet again. People who know very little about the reasons but seem to have a simple cure. It's the _employers_ who want these 'unskilled' workers. They aren't employing those who reluctantly want to do their jobs, would you and why should they? It's the free market. They are choosing who they consider to be the most suitable candidates. The rules are there in respect of claiming any benefits,
> 
> http://indy100.independent.co.uk/articl ... x1dmkd2_Me



I remember seeing a benefits programme, where a groip of unemployed people traipse down to the cash machine wearing pyjamas, shortly after midnight to draw out their benefit payment minutes after it hits their account. I know some of the unemployed are circumstances, grographic etc but there is a hard core of those on benefits that no employer woild want to choose.

Immigrants are not taking our jobs, mostly they are the best candidate, and rightly so they are often hardworking and cheerful.

Immigration for me is not the reason I want to exit.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

MIGNAL":3nfbnzve said:


> Yet again. People who know very little about the reasons but seem to have a simple cure. It's the _employers_ who want these 'unskilled' workers. They aren't employing those who reluctantly want to do their jobs, would you and why should they? It's the free market. They are choosing who they consider to be the most suitable candidates. The rules are there in respect of claiming any benefits,
> 
> http://indy100.independent.co.uk/articl ... x1dmkd2_Me


I haven't as yet read of anyone disagreeing with that. It's the system that makes it the case that's wrong. people would be happier to work if the choice between a lousy job and an income was no income, rather than an extra 40 hours a week to watch Sky TV and an often higher income.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

MIGNAL":3bmh2hm6 said:


> :roll: I suppose that should also apply that to all citizens of the UK who go to work abroad then?
> Farage perhaps? Why not just close all borders permanently. No one allowed in, no one allowed out. That would solve your fear and paranoia issues.


And closing all borders was suggested by whom?


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM":shxsfu12 said:


> ......
> I remember seeing a benefits programme, where a groip of unemployed people traipse down to the cash machine wearing pyjamas, shortly after midnight to draw out their benefit payment minutes after it hits their account. .....


Yes but is this common and do you know their back story? Almost certainly not.
"Benefits programmes" are designed to titillate viewers and encourage a malevolent view of their neighbours. It's part of the big propaganda machine - divide and rule.


----------



## MIGNAL

phil.p":jlmjbg6n said:


> MIGNAL":jlmjbg6n said:
> 
> 
> 
> :roll: I suppose that should also apply that to all citizens of the UK who go to work abroad then?
> Farage perhaps? Why not just close all borders permanently. No one allowed in, no one allowed out. That would solve your fear and paranoia issues.
> 
> 
> 
> And closing all borders was suggested by whom?
Click to expand...


Trump? You? Anyone. It's the next logical step for product fear. Product fear should have an export tariff imposed on it.
Do you do any work Phil? You seem to be sat responding to this thread practically all day long, day in day out!
Afraid I've got to go do my bit!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

MIGNAL":3drjo17u said:


> phil.p":3drjo17u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MIGNAL":3drjo17u said:
> 
> 
> 
> :roll: I suppose that should also apply that to all citizens of the UK who go to work abroad then?
> Farage perhaps? Why not just close all borders permanently. No one allowed in, no one allowed out. That would solve your fear and paranoia issues.
> 
> 
> 
> And closing all borders was suggested by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump? You? Anyone. It's the next logical step for product fear. Product fear should have an export tariff imposed on it.
> Do you do any work Phil? You seem to be sat responding to this thread practically all day long, day in day out!
> Afraid I've got to go do my bit!
Click to expand...

I'm retired and disabled, if that's OK with you.  For someone working you've rather a lot of free time?


----------



## MIGNAL

Tea break! 
Any excuse! I'm self employed, work from home. Frequent breaks due to RSI, so I do long days. Still doing my bit for exports though. I'm happy to report that I'm a net exporter. Not by much but I'm doing more than Farage for UK PLC!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

MIGNAL":ijcz6kcm said:


> Tea break!
> Any excuse! I'm self employed, work from home. Frequent breaks due to RSI, so I do long days. Still doing my bit for exports though. I'm happy to report that I'm a net exporter. Not by much but I'm doing more than Farage for UK PLC!



That's interesting. What sort of nets do you export?


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":20m5l6t1 said:


> phil.p":20m5l6t1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> If they want an income they'll take them - I'll have them out with putty knives lifting ******* chewing gum from the pavements of Auckland before we pay them for doing nothing ...
> 
> Which is as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Access to work, free movement of workers, generates wealth. ....and £11 billion of it a year leaves the UK and so does little for the UK economy.
Click to expand...


----------



## lurker

fancy that!

http://uk.businessinsider.com/deutsche- ... ?r=US&IR=T


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":2jpjjkll said:


> Jacob":2jpjjkll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":2jpjjkll said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> If they want an income they'll take them - I'll have them out with putty knives lifting ******* chewing gum from the pavements of Auckland before we pay them for doing nothing ...
> 
> Which is as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Access to work, free movement of workers, generates wealth. ....and £11 billion of it a year leaves the UK and so does little for the UK economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I didn't write that, Roger is misquoting me.
Workers abroad send money home. Whether it's Brits in Germany, Poles in UK etc. You think they should spend it all where they earned it and not support their families or take anything home with them?
What an incredibly silly suggestion!
Possibly the silliest comment to come out of this long and interesting thread.
Wooden spoon for Roger!

The work they do here makes a profit for somebody, most of their earnings will be spent here and will be taxed, and the goods/service they provide benefits us and the economy.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":3cwolofw said:


> RogerS":3cwolofw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":3cwolofw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Access to work, free movement of workers, generates wealth. ....and £11 billion of it a year leaves the UK and so does little for the UK economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't write that, Roger is misquoting me.
Click to expand...


I inserted it to bring in some badly needed qualification to your post.


Jacob":3cwolofw said:


> ....
> 
> The work they do here makes a profit for somebody, most of their earnings will be spent here and will be taxed, and the goods/service they provide benefits us and the economy.



Wrong. A very large percentage £11 billion as I have stated and referenced elsewhere as to the source, leaves the country.


----------



## RogerBoyle

BearTricks":227grla4 said:


> Paul Chapman":227grla4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric The Viking":227grla4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Kinnocks turning the EU into a well-paid family business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the best and most accurate quote in this whole thread and one of the most compelling reasons to vote Leave.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd counter that by saying I've met Michael Gove and he was one of the most vile people I've ever had the displeasure of speaking to, not that he paid me much attention. Usually, the way he came across would have a serious bearing on whether I sided with him on a voting issue.
> 
> It does annoy me that the people heading the charge on both sides are generally ones I would never want to associate myself with politically.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Well said =D> =D>


----------



## stuartpaul

If it's (accurately) known that £11 billion leaves is it also (accurately) known how much stays in tax, spending etc?


----------



## mind_the_goat

RogerS":29495qrq said:


> Wrong. A very large percentage £11 billion as I have stated and referenced elsewhere as to the source, leaves the country.



Say 2M EU citizens are currently working the UK, some simple math tells us each person sends 5.5K out of the country. You'd have to guess an average wage but I'm not sure that seems like a VERY LARGE percentage.


----------



## RogerS

mind_the_goat":3dr7q5bv said:


> RogerS":3dr7q5bv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. A very large percentage £11 billion as I have stated and referenced elsewhere as to the source, leaves the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say 2M EU citizens are currently working the UK, some simple math tells us each person sends 5.5K out of the country. You'd have to guess an average wage but I'm not sure that seems like a VERY LARGE percentage.
Click to expand...


Don't forget this is ex-tax for a start. The amount per head is irrelevant. Far better if that money stayed in the UK, spent in local shops and businesses.


----------



## RogerS

stuartpaul":3jck5oxt said:


> If it's (accurately) known that £11 billion leaves is it also (accurately) known how much stays in tax, spending etc?



I'll repeat the source for this figure - International Fund for Agricultural Development. I think you will find that they are apolitical and that their goals meet with your approval.


----------



## stuartpaul

RogerS":1f3duax8 said:


> stuartpaul":1f3duax8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's (accurately) known that £11 billion leaves is it also (accurately) known how much stays in tax, spending etc?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat the source for this figure - International Fund for Agricultural Development. I think you will find that they are apolitical and that their goals meet with your approval.
Click to expand...

I wasn't having a pop, - I genuinely want to know what the amount that stays here is reckoned to be. I simply cannot be arrsed to roll back through 30 pages to try and find your initial reference!


----------



## Jacob

> Far better if that money stayed in the UK, spent in local shops and businesses.


Nobody at all would work abroad if they had to leave it all behind or spend it in one last binge before they left! 
It's a completely insane idea.
Brits abroad don't do it. I doubt it's ever crossed anybodies mind. 
Imagine coming home and saying sorry I couldn't send you any dosh or bring anything much back, but here's a bottle of schnapps and a bratwurst (and I've got a horrible hangover and a STD!).


----------



## clk230

The pesky Arab's spending all their oil money in London must go some way to counter balance the money going out.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":dfhdo38e said:


> Far better if that money stayed in the UK, spent in local shops and businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody at all would work abroad if they had to leave it all behind or spend it in one last binge before they left!
> It's a completely insane idea.
> Brits abroad don't do it. I doubt it's ever crossed anybodies mind.
> Imagine coming home and saying sorry I couldn't send you any dosh or bring anything much back, but here's a bottle of schnapps and a bratwurst (and I've got a horrible hangover and a STD!).
Click to expand...


Pointless even trying to rebut any of these ramblings.


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":10g8sb4p said:


> Jacob":10g8sb4p said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far better if that money stayed in the UK, spent in local shops and businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody at all would work abroad if they had to leave it all behind or spend it in one last binge before they left!
> It's a completely insane idea.
> Brits abroad don't do it. I doubt it's ever crossed anybodies mind.
> Imagine coming home and saying sorry I couldn't send you any dosh or bring anything much back, but here's a bottle of schnapps and a bratwurst (and I've got a horrible hangover and a STD!).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointless even trying to rebut any of these ramblings.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Roger. 
This does not happen very often - well done lad!


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":2dmik01w said:


> RogerS":2dmik01w said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless even trying to rebut any of these ramblings.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you Roger.
> This does not happen very often - well done lad!
Click to expand...

Whatever.


----------



## dexter

Let's face it, whatever happens on the 23rd June a political blood bath will take place starting on the 24th June where attempts to seize power or scores to settle will be made in Westminster by the political elite.
Having done their duty, the people of the U K will, as usual be disregarded by those who,over the past months have sought to sway you to their agenda be it in or out. If remain are successful, expect phrases like,"working together with our allies to change the way things are done" or similar to be spouted by them. The leave campaign I expect will use the term, "compromise" quite a bit when negotiations for an exit strategy are being made unless someone with balls of steel takes charge of the U.K. and I don't see that.
The sad thing is, having read all of the posts on this forum and many others on other social media sites the general consensus of the public seems to be that, despite wanting to vote in or out, very few people actually have confidence or trust in those championing their cause, how sad is that?

Which then leads me to Mr Farage, the leader of a party with just one UK MP, who likes to spout that he is the turkey that is voting for Christmas thereby rendering himself with no political clout if the decision is made to leave the EU. What is he up to? I personally wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, but sure as eggs are eggs, he's got his eye on something in the Future.

There's a lot at steak for all our futures and those who at the moment have no say. I know that I've been on this Earth longer than I've got left and I hope that the decision that is made is a good one for those who will follow on.


----------



## mind_the_goat

dexter":13zornk5 said:


> Let's face it, whatever happens on the 23rd June a political blood bath will take place starting on the 24th June ....... very few people actually have confidence or trust in those championing their cause, how sad is that?



Yes, I think the only potential winners here are a few people trying further their career, and even then, if they succeed I think it will be a very short term gain for them.

There are actually more than 2 sides campaigning on this and I'm certainly not supporting the two that the media have chosen as their favourites.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":nn4n3m5i said:


> ..... One of the daftest economic notions of the last 30 years is "trickle down" theory - that the wealthy somehow generate more wealth. The truth is exactly the opposite - wealth comes from below, from the people doing the work.



Jacob, can you expand a little on how you see this "trickle up" theory working in practice ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"Which then leads me to Mr Farage, the leader of a party with just one UK MP"
That in itself is a bl00dy disgrace in a so called democracy - the SNP and Libdems between them have sixty two MPs for fewer votes.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

So when relatively wealthy people buy Jacob's furniture that's not trickle down creating employment? :?


----------



## RobinBHM

RogerS":2wgqw68d said:


> Jacob":2wgqw68d said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... One of the daftest economic notions of the last 30 years is "trickle down" theory - that the wealthy somehow generate more wealth. The truth is exactly the opposite - wealth comes from below, from the people doing the work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, can you expand a little on how you see this "trickle up" theory working in practice ?
Click to expand...



More realistic is that a healthy economy creates the best opportunities for people at all levels of income. A low tax economy coupled by a government that curtails public spending encoursges inward investment. If wealthy people stay in this countty then they pay UK taxes.

Im not sure wealth trickles down or up. Wealthy people buy expensive things, probably made by less wealthy people. To become more wealthy oneself requires enterprenuership.

Wealthy people buy fancy hand made furniture


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Interesting to see how this pans out - Sunday Times, this morning - 


British diplomats secretly discussed granting visa-free travel to the UK for more than 1m Turks, according to leaked diplomatic cables seen by The Sunday Times.

The cache of five documents also suggests that EU officials are attempting to keep any visa deal with Turkey under wraps until after the referendum on June 23.

According to the telegrams, senior diplomats have advised ministers that the proposed EU deal with Turkey on visa-free travel within the Schengen area could lead the UK to consider extending the same privilege to up to 1.5m “special passport holders” from Turkey.


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM":17cf9y2r said:


> RogerS":17cf9y2r said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> More realistic is that a healthy economy creates the best opportunities for people at all levels of income. A low tax economy coupled by a government that curtails public spending encoursges inward investment.
Click to expand...

Exactly the opposite of the truth. High tax and high public spending generate wealth. Taxation drives economies. What goes around comes around. Low tax economies - think "banana republic" :lol: All the wealthiest nations are high taxers.
If by "inward investment" you mean selling off our assets to foreign buyers, this has been a disaster. Funny how these daft notions hang about in spite of all the contrary evidence. Whatever happened to ICI?


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":2i8lwhyv said:


> RobinBHM":2i8lwhyv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":2i8lwhyv said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> More realistic is that a healthy economy creates the best opportunities for people at all levels of income. A low tax economy coupled by a government that curtails public spending encoursges inward investment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly the opposite of the truth. High tax and high public spending generate wealth. Taxation drives economies. What goes around comes around. Low tax economies - think "banana republic" :lol: All the wealthiest nations are high taxers.
> If by "inward investment" you mean selling off our assets to foreign buyers, this has been a disaster. Funny how these daft notions hang about in spite of all the contrary evidence. Whatever happened to ICI?
Click to expand...


Jacob, can you please amend your post as it is misquoting me. Thank you.

Still interested to hear what you mean by "trickle up"


----------



## Phil Pascoe

All the wealthiest nations are high taxers? The USA?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Another from the Sunday Times -

"A Syrian refugee who recently arrived in Britain under David Cameron’s high-profile resettlement programme has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Omar Badreddin, 18, who is originally from Damascus but fled as the country descended into civil war, was one of four Syrians to appear in court last week following the attack in a park in Newcastle upon Tyne.

He pleaded not guilty along with Mohammad Allakkoud, 18, and Mohammed Alfrouh, 20, who has also been charged with sexual assault of a second 14-year-old girl, which he also denies.

All have been bailed. A 16-year-old boy has also been charged with sexual assault, but it is not clear whether he has entered a plea.

Badreddin was deemed to be vulnerable by the UN refugee agency and was given a new home on his arrival in Britain last November."



Plenty more to come ... and even more if we stay in.


----------



## iNewbie

They need a holiday in Russia...

http://toprightnews.com/muslim-refugees ... regret-it/


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Best of the day, so far.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jacob":qxpdf8bj said:


> RobinBHM":qxpdf8bj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":qxpdf8bj said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> More realistic is that a healthy economy creates the best opportunities for people at all levels of income. A low tax economy coupled by a government that curtails public spending encoursges inward investment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly the opposite of the truth. High tax and high public spending generate wealth. Taxation drives economies. What goes around comes around. Low tax
> economies - think "banana republic" :lol: All the wealthiest nations are high taxers.
> If by "inward investment" you mean selling off our assets to foreign buyers, this has been a disaster. Funny how these daft notions hang about in spite of all the contrary evidence. Whatever happened to ICI?
Click to expand...


High tax and high public spending generate wealth -thats an interesting concept. 

The reality is that high public spending generates massive national debt which is like saying Im going to max out my credit cards as its going to make me more wealthy......

In theory high taxes on high earners is a good idea, why not make the very well off pay. The reality is that the wealthy then move abroad so no tax at all is generated. A low tax economy encourages businesses to set up and grow in this countty -which is why the economy is currently strong and interest rates low.


----------



## mind_the_goat

phil.p":1wafoj9v said:


> Another from the Sunday Times -
> "A Syrian refugee who recently arrived in Britain under David Cameron’s high-profile resettlement programme has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
> Plenty more to come ... and even more if we stay in.



If this had been a native white Newcastle man (unlikely to make national news) would you be advocating banning all Tyne and Wear residents from crossing the boarder? 

Given one of your main arguments is that anyone with a 'vested interest' cannot have a valid opinion I'm disappointed you read the UK press at all.



iNewbie":1wafoj9v said:


> They need a holiday in Russia...


Yes, perhaps once the brexiters have abolished the human rights act they could legalise vigilantes and set up local militia groups, may as well legalise gun ownership too.


----------



## RogerS

mind_the_goat":2tarsf53 said:


> .... may as well legalise gun ownership too.



Um, we already have firearm and shotgun licences.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

If this had been a native white Newcastle man (unlikely to make national news) would you be advocating banning all Tyne and Wear residents from crossing the boarder? 
Nor even the border. We can reasonably expect Newcastle people to live by our laws - we cannot expect the same of immigrants who have no intention of so doing, throw kindness back in our faces and laugh at our unwillingness to clamp down on them. Malmo per capita is second only to Lesotho in the number of rapes - you wish that in the UK? Would you feel the same if it were your wife or daughter? I presume that's OK with you?
We will of course need guns with night sights on the 24th if we leave as the sun will no long rise.

Ps - it's OK, Roger, he's safe - I surrendered mine.


----------



## Wildman

no doubt...OUT


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"In theory high taxes on high earners is a good idea, why not make the very well off pay. The reality is that the wealthy then move abroad so no tax at all is generated. A low tax economy encourages businesses to set up and grow in this countty -which is why the economy is currently strong and interest rates low."
Interesting to see that the tax take goes up when the rates are lowered.


----------



## mind_the_goat

phil.p":epg72t95 said:


> Nor even the border. We can reasonably expect Newcastle people to live by our laws - we cannot expect the same of immigrants who have no intention of so doing,


I do expect anyone in this country to live by our laws



phil.p":epg72t95 said:


> throw kindness back in our faces and laugh at our unwillingness to clamp down on them.


They are currently awaiting trial



phil.p":epg72t95 said:


> Malmo per capita is second only to Lesotho in the number of rapes - you wish that in the UK?


Ok, this is starting to address the point I was trying to make. One example does not make a case. I don't know the statistics comparing sex crime, or any crime between Muslims and white UK nationals, I do know that I can't draw any conclusions from a few newspaper reports.



phil.p":epg72t95 said:


> Would you feel the same if it were your wife or daughter? I presume that's OK with you?


Were did I say it was okay ? It's not okay for anyone to behave like this.



phil.p":epg72t95 said:


> We will of course need guns with night sights on the 24th if we leave as the sun will no long rise.
> Ps - it's OK, Roger, he's safe - I surrendered mine.



I'll be safe as I'll be out of the country that day, I should perhaps pack a bigger bag in case I'm not allowed back in


----------



## iNewbie

Don't forget your lifejacket...


----------



## RogerS

mind_the_goat":1vygt7xa said:


> ......
> 
> 
> phil.p":1vygt7xa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Malmo per capita is second only to Lesotho in the number of rapes - you wish that in the UK?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, this is starting to address the point I was trying to make. One example does not make a case. I don't know the statistics comparing sex crime, or any crime between Muslims and white UK nationals, I do know that I can't draw any conclusions from a few newspaper reports.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...


That is one of the difficulties because, in the UK at least, and precisely because the PC brigade wish to suppress this information just in case it supports the views of the anti-immigration lobby, as far as I am aware religion is not recorded as a demographic of criminals.

I have no view apart from wishing to know the metrics so that this can be put to bed once and for all.

The Guardian has reported that there has been an increase in Sweden linked to immigration. " The news that the Swedish authorities covered up widespread sexual assaults by immigrant gangs on teenage girls at a Stockholm music festival, and possibly other incidents too, is immensely damaging for race relations in Sweden because it conforms so precisely to two stereotypes." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... c-festival

Typical hand-wringing by the Guardian, naturally, and best expressed by one of the comments there 

_Why is it so concerned with racism against alleged sexual predators but not at all concerned about those who've been abused? Have we entered some kind of strange, parallel universe???_

Spot on with that comment, I say and why I despise the Guardian.


----------



## rafezetter

RobinBHM":36s1q6op said:


> Jacob":36s1q6op said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RobinBHM":36s1q6op said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Our infrastructure is struggling and we have a considerable housing shortage.
> 
> 
> 
> This is government policy and you can't blame the immigrants. Blame is a popular game - convenient for the govt to shift the responsibility.
> In fact the infrastructure would struggle even more if it were not for the immigrants employed therein.
> They are a bit tired these anti immigrant arguments - I think almost everybody has realised they are grossly exaggerated and that the net benefit is highly positive. It's a drum which has been banged too often.
> 
> 
> 
> There is also a massive issue with the migration of refugees across Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a massive duty of care. Being in the EU means a better coordinated approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do realise it is easy to blame immigrants for housing shortages, NHS problems etc. The opening up of Eastern Europe has certainly been a great benefit to the UK, our strong economy would be seriously held back without foreign workers.
> 
> But it is still true, the UK is very densely populated and infrastructure is seriously stretched. An open border policy cant continue forever.
> 
> The eu isnt dealing with the migrant crisis, if it was the problem at Calais would exist.
Click to expand...


There is not and has NEVER been a situation (since we joined the EU) whereby it's made all but impossible for a foreign worker from any other nation on earth to take a job in the UK. I live in a shared house of 6 rooms, and half of them have at one time or another been taken by foreign nationals working at HP, Rolls Royce and the MoD sites nearby and of the couple of dozen of those I have personally met in the 11 years I have lived here, not a single one has ever ever complained bitterly that getting access to the UK for work was so ridiculously hard, so as to give them pause to consider accepting the job.

And of the dozens and dozens of those I would say quite easily 95% of them were NON EU NATIONALS. Asians (the majority being Indian), South Africa (3), Sri Lankan's (2), Uganda (1), Brazilian (1), Egyptian (1), Rumanian (3), Bulgarian (1 or was it two).... Shall I go on? (I could even give you the names if so prompted)

So claiming that it's just the freedom of movement within the EU that's bolstering the UK economy is utter BS - and I'm guessing the ONLY reason why there are not more non EU nationals working here is because it's always the well paid technical type jobs that are advertised overseas or otherwise considered so desirable to warrant such a relocation. However I'm also willing to guess that if so moved a great deal more "ordinary" employers could also employ those who require work visa's to enter the country; one's with salaries sub £25k, probably even sub £20k for some of the poorer countries. It's just easier for them not to have to go through that hoop and is what's behind the whole "our economy will collapse if we leave" BS.

They will just have to work a bit harder and take a bit less profits or..... maybe increase their pay a bit and give the jobs to UK citizens.... now there's a thought.

Oh and here's another thing that the majority know to be a truth, but that I've personally witnessed; every single one of those foreign nationals sent a significant portion of their wages back to their home country (one of whom even clamied he should be exempt from paying for the house extras like broadband because he was sending money home and couldn't afford to pay for it - but happily used it regardless - Bulgarian that was), quite a few claimed back PAYE paid upon leaving, and lived as meagre lifestyle as they could get away with during their time at the house.

And I'm betting a lot of the EU based nationals working here are also not spending 100% of their income in the UK either, so that isn't an economy boost but the equivalent of a slightly left on tap, slowly pouring UK pounds out of the economy.


----------



## BearTricks

RogerS":3g4w7n4p said:


> mind_the_goat":3g4w7n4p said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> phil.p":3g4w7n4p said:
> 
> 
> 
> Malmo per capita is second only to Lesotho in the number of rapes - you wish that in the UK?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, this is starting to address the point I was trying to make. One example does not make a case. I don't know the statistics comparing sex crime, or any crime between Muslims and white UK nationals, I do know that I can't draw any conclusions from a few newspaper reports.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is one of the difficulties because, in the UK at least, and precisely because the PC brigade wish to suppress this information just in case it supports the views of the anti-immigration lobby, as far as I am aware religion is not recorded as a demographic of criminals.
> 
> I have no view apart from wishing to know the metrics so that this can be put to bed once and for all.
> 
> The Guardian has reported that there has been an increase in Sweden linked to immigration. " The news that the Swedish authorities covered up widespread sexual assaults by immigrant gangs on teenage girls at a Stockholm music festival, and possibly other incidents too, is immensely damaging for race relations in Sweden because it conforms so precisely to two stereotypes." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... c-festival
> 
> Typical hand-wringing by the Guardian, naturally, and best expressed by one of the comments there
> 
> _Why is it so concerned with racism against alleged sexual predators but not at all concerned about those who've been abused? Have we entered some kind of strange, parallel universe???_
> 
> Spot on with that comment, I say and why I despise the Guardian.
Click to expand...


I worked in prisons for years and have relatives that still do.

I can't quote any exact statistics, but in my experience the proportion of criminals in for sex crimes who were immigrants or from minority groups mirrored the proportion of immigrants and minorities in the prison system as a whole. As with most crimes except maybe offenses related to terrorism, white British men far outweighed every other group. I can't say that I saw an increase in immigrant offenders coming in to the system while I was there.

I did definitely see an increase in offenders from outside Britain being deported. Unfortunately, I felt like this increase focused on young men without a support system in place to help them. In short they went for the easy targets first. I saw several former child soldiers sent back to Africa, for example, where they would probably face certain death at the hands of whichever warlord they deserted in the first place.

In addition, religion is definitely recorded as a demographic for criminals.


----------



## rafezetter

Jacob":27oudnde said:


> DiscoStu":27oudnde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't really answering that question, but to answer it.
> 
> You can't, you can't have people without a roof over their head. So if your supply can't cope then you have to reduce the demand. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Or increase the supply.
> It's a very artificial problem - given the acceptance that a solution is urgent (say it was a natural catastrophe and no-one could be blamed) then a solution would quickly be found. There's a good deal of inertia on this and deliberate foot dragging. Council house building more or less stopped in 1979 and there are vast numbers of empty properties, let alone 2nd homes etc.
> Underlying the supposed immigration problem is the fact that we actually need these people and the country benefits. It's simple - if there's work to be done you need people to do the work.
> The anti immigration propaganda is a serious shot in the foot for the country - it's the blame game.
> 
> http://www.cornishpastyassociation.co.u ... on-europe/
Click to expand...


Jacob.... words fail me. You HAVE to be trolling, there can be no other reason for such a post from any otherwise semi intelligent person.

The UK has ALWAYS had the population to have 100% of jobs filled - that's why there has been such a thing as "unemployment", maybe you've heard of it. It's a situation whereby there is a surplus of population > jobs available ratio.

The UK has had it my entire lifetime of 46 years - and probably before that.

Since then we have had untold millions MORE people both born in the UK and enter it before the immigration situation became serious these last 15 years or so, and having up to several millions unemployed has never disappeared.

Between 1971 > 2016 the highest rate was 12%, with the current low of 5% (and that figure does not include those considered "economically inactive" of whom there are 8.9 million (students, registered disabled or otherwise not working but not claiming either)

In order for the UK to require even MORE immigrants to "benefit our growing economy" it would have to be 0%

If you honestly think the UK's economy is so robust as to have become BIGGER than before the 2008 collapse then you are seriously deluding yourself, and if you still think that's true, check out the national debt to see whether adding even more mouths to feed, all able to claim benefits is a good thing.

It seems as though you are that optimistic guy standing in a lifeboat telling everyone to get in, right up to the point it's swamped and all hands therein are lost.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

What we have accept of course is that -
1/ If you disagree with unlimited immigration you are an evil xenophobe.
2/ If you disagree with wind farms you are an evil climate change denier.
3/ If you disagree with homosexual marriage you are an evil homophobe.
4/ If you disagree with socialism you are an evil nazi.
5/ If you read right wing press you are an evil fool.

there are many more in the eyes of left wing virtue signallers. All are non sequiturs, of course, but logic doesn't come into these things.


----------



## RogerS

rafezetter":1vflzli9 said:


> .....because he was sending money home and couldn't afford to pay for it - but happily used it regardless - Bulgarian that was), quite a few claimed back PAYE paid upon leaving, and lived as meagre lifestyle as they could get away with during their time at the house.
> 
> And I'm betting a lot of the EU based nationals working here are also not spending 100% of their income in the UK either, so that isn't an economy boost but the equivalent of a slightly left on tap, slowly pouring UK pounds out of the economy.



So more a "trickle away" policy then rather than Jacob's "trickle up" policy !!

I think that you are more accurate than he is.


----------



## Wildman

OK,.. here's a short list of financial and industrial FUBARs from the EU then,.. (it was longer, much longer, but really tough reading. I have however edited this slightly due to those who have asked me to clarify some points. All of it has been fact-checked not only by myself but also many others.)

Cadbury moved production of several brands to a factory in Poland 2011 with EU grant. Despite promising the workforce they would not.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds. They have not yet said what UK plants will lose out.
Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant. That move was not wanted by Peugeot, it was forced on them by EU blundering and cost then dearly.
British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in Spain using Swedish steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales. (Just assembly. They could have been built entirely in Wales with British steel, ah Tata, maybe not then.)
Dyson gone to Malaysia, after an EU loan blunder. (I didn't believe this till I checked Financial Times)
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with with EU grants.
Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase. (Now sold on again)
JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU 'regeneration' grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry. (Joint CEOs charged with financial trading fraud, insider trading)
UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.
Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada. New trains contract awarded to German company.
39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU
The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria and those parts assembled in the UK. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.

Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn't paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK, I used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., and now we don't even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.

Yes some companies are in the UK with EU funding, but have you noticed that many, like Tata, are planning to shift the production away again, as soon as they will not have to pay a penalty to the EU for doing so. Hundreds already did, just using British skills to develop products and then opt for lower labour costs, often with a serious loss in quality too like Bosch alternators. Many employ staff only on a part-time basis, minimum wage and even those sent by DWP to work for nothing, those get just their benefits.

I haven't detailed our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don't even go there.
I haven't mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.

The way companies abuse the EU commercial assistance system is not doing the EU, Britain or any other country any favours. It has massive loopholes that are simply exploited and no-one in Brussels has the wit nor sense to change it. Change in the EU is slow at best and in most cases, next to impossible due to the intense lobbying by companies with a vested interest in abusing this very broken system. I know Margaret Thatcher was not many people's favourite person, but she did get a number of measures agreed that have now been completely eroded and sadly, by her own party. Mr Junker has said that any more 'special status' for Britain will be difficult and will face legal challenges. In other words, we will not get most of them, if any.

If the EU may break up in the event of Britain voting to leave as suggested by both leaders of the Bundesbank and European Central Bank, then in all honesty, we have as a nation been propping up a failed system for too long, It will probably fail anyway, taking anyone still 'in' with it. Thus, this vote you have is not exactly 'remain' or 'leave', it is more an issue of jumping off the sinking ship while we have a chance to swim ashore now, or waiting till it is in really deep water and going down with it. Either way, being brutally honest, we get wet and will have a struggle. Question is, do you want to survive or not?

Find something that's gone the other way, I've looked and I just can't. If you think the EU is a good idea,
1/ You haven't read the party manifesto of The European Peoples' Party.
2/ You haven't had to deal with EU petty bureaucracy tearing your business down.
3/ You don't think it matters.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

An ineresting article cribbed from a post in the S.T. -
The recent comments of the man who implemented the Single Market as Trade Minister, Peter Lilley, might interest you:

Is our net £10 billion contribution to the EU 'a small price to pay for tariff free access to the EU market'? If we left the EU with no trade deal – inconceivable given the tariff free zone from Iceland to Turkey – our exports would face EU tariffs averaging just 2.4% . But our net contribution to the EU budget is equivalent to a 7% tariff. Paying 7% to avoid 2-3% is miss-selling that dwarfs the PPI scandal!
So if we left before finalising a trade deal we could use our contribution to ensure our exporters are no worse off and still have several billion £s left over for the NHS. Our partners will not delay a deal once they realise British exporters will not suffer, whereas theirs would face tariffs to enter the UK – their biggest market, bigger than the USA.

Does 'EU membership help us negotiate free trade deals with the rest of the world'? Tariff free access to the fast growing, protected markets of Asia, Africa and Latin America would be worthwhile. Unfortunately, EU membership prevents us negotiating free trade deals – and the EU has negotiated few deals for us: none with China, India, Brazil.
Does the EU's size mean it gets better deals than we could alone? From my experience that is the reverse of the truth. The more countries involved in a trade deal the harder, slower and worse the result. All 28 EU members have a veto on their negotiations which is why EU deals take so long and exclude so much. Bilateral deals are simpler, quicker and more comprehensive.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The UK has operated a points based system for non-EU nationals similar to the Aussie approach since 2008. Only Tier 1 and 2 (skilled, filling job shortages, high value, expert) are currently getting entry with points also awarded for ability to be self financing and speak English. From April 2016 Tier 2 migrants have to earn £35k+ to qualify to stay.

EU migrants can be split into two camps. Those from the accession states - Poland, Roumania etc typically do lower paid unskilled jobs, those from the EU15 (mostly western Europe longstanding members - Germany, France, Austria, Italy etc ) who are typically doing a higher proportion of professional, skilled and managerial roles than UK nationals generally.

Leaving the EU will not stop the demand for the skilled, expert and professional - possibly more will come from India or Bangladesh than Germany or France - even if this is the case the difference is of no consequence. Low skilled jobs may be available to UK nationals if we leave - but it is also totally plausible they lack the education, motivation and skill to do even those jobs. UK unemployment is close to what most economists regard as full employment - 0% is an unrealistic expectation, but 3-5% would be considered full.

The Leave argument based on the improving job opportunities for Brits is, in short, completely flawed.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

> Is our net £10 billion contribution to the EU 'a small price to pay for tariff free access to the EU market'? If we left the EU with no trade deal – inconceivable given the tariff free zone from Iceland to Turkey


This comment is (I assume) a reference to EFTA which wikipedia defines as:

*The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is an intergovernmental trade organisation and free trade area consisting of four European states: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.[1] The organisation operates in parallel with the European Union (EU), and all four member states participate in the EU's single market.[2]*

I don't think this has any impact on the Leave/Remain debate - Switzerland and Norway have signed up to free movement and pay for single market excess, Iceland and Lichtenstein (with respect) are trivial and unimportant in this context.

Yer another piece of spin from the Leave camp - you may trust them but I don't.


----------



## mind_the_goat

rafezetter":1tndwqxt said:


> I live in a shared house of 6 rooms, and half of them have at one time or another been taken by foreign nationals working at HP, Rolls Royce and the MoD sites nearby and of the couple of dozen of those I have personally met in the 11 years I have lived here, not a single one has ever ever complained bitterly that getting access to the UK for work was so ridiculously hard, so as to give them pause to consider accepting the job.
> 
> And of the dozens and dozens of those I would say quite easily 95% of them were NON EU NATIONALS.
> 
> And I'm betting a lot of the EU based nationals working here are also not spending 100% of their income in the UK either, so that isn't an economy boost but the equivalent of a slightly left on tap, slowly pouring UK pounds out of the economy.



There is a good reason you have seen dozens and dozens of these workers pass through your shared accommodation. The multinational corporations that employee these skilled people will often bring them to the UK on fixed length visas so they can be trained on UK methods and get to know fellow team members, before being sent back to their home countries to continue the same job on a much reduced salary. They are generally not employed by the companies when they come to the UK but are already employed by them in another location. The value if this to our economy is a whole different issue.
I'm sure you are right that if we deported our European workforce we could quickly replace many of them with people from other places, but I fail to see how that solves any of the migration issues people seem concerned about. It just replaces one set of migrants with another, and may result in an even higher proportion of locally earned salary to be sent out of the country. 

If you work out the per capita funds sent out of the UK by offshore workers it looks to me as if a significant proportion stays in the UK, the 5.5K per person figure I mentioned earlier is actually too high as I assumed the 11Bn sent 'home' was just by EU workers.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Terry - Yet another piece of spin from the Leave camp - you may trust them but I don't? What part of this is wrong - 
"If we left the EU with no trade deal – inconceivable given the tariff free zone from Iceland to Turkey – our exports would face EU tariffs averaging just 2.4% . But our net contribution to the EU budget is equivalent to a 7% tariff. Paying 7% to avoid 2-3% is miss-selling that dwarfs the PPI scandal!" Peter Lilley.


----------



## Inoffthered

Water-Mark":12njbrty said:


> In or out we need and will have immigration, the numbers are not dependent on the EU.
> We could take back our borders but we won't, like we could spend our 50, 40 or 20 million on the NHS but we won't.
> 
> VAT on domestic fuel and tampons could be scrapped but it won't.
> 
> Will we be better off?
> The truth is we don't know what the economy will do and neither do they, no one can say what will happen either way nor can they say what would've happened either way.
> 
> Someone though will try.
> 
> Most of the EU control and human rights act stories i've read over the years have actually been false, whilst the stories we should be reading we're deemed to boring to print.
> 
> For all its faults i'm voting in, not for any political beliefs but as a human being and inhabitant of this planet think it needs fewer borders and boundaries not more.




You are right, a UK government may or may not do the things you listed above, but at least if you dont like it you can vote them out. The EU commissioners are unaccountable. It is an EU decision to regard tampons as a luxury item and therefore vatable, there is nothing you can do about it.
If the vote is to remain, then the expect vat to be applied on food as it is in most EU countries, and dont complain when it happens because there is nothing you can do about it (apart from grow your own).

Are you one of the Remaniacs that believes we are better in the EU so we can influence and change the way things are done? In his attempts to change the basis of our EU membership Cameron achieved nothing. Why does anyone think the EU will suddenly change if we vote in?

There is a whole raft of changes building up that have been suppressed to avoid undue influence on the referendum. I dont know whether you have seen todays Sunday Times? The Remainers scoff at suggestions that Turkey will be allowed to join the EU and claim the prospect of immigration from Turkey as being a scare story. The ST has leaked copies of memos suggesting that post referendum Turkey will be given the right to visa free travel. So although Turkey has not yet been admitted to the EU, for all practical purposes and the free movement of labour it may as well be.

The really chilling about the leaked memos was the discussion suggesting that similar concessions would be granted to Kosovo because the additional 1.5m likely immigrants would be "a drop in the ocean" compared with the number of turks that would migrate.

Now I have no problem with immigration but the fact that some unelected Eurocrat feels able to fundamentally impose a policy that will have major repercussions on society without discussion and without a legitimate mandates demonstrates contempt for the electorate and for that reason (among many others) I'm out.


----------



## mind_the_goat

Wildman":25bei2bs said:


> OK,.. here's a short list of financial and industrial FUBARs from the EU then,.. (it was longer, much longer, but really tough reading. I have however edited this slightly due to those who have asked me to clarify some points. All of it has been fact-checked not only by myself but also many others.)
> 
> Find something that's gone the other way, I've looked and I just can't. If you think the EU is a good idea,
> 1/ You haven't read the party manifesto of The European Peoples' Party.
> 2/ You haven't had to deal with EU petty bureaucracy tearing your business down.
> 3/ You don't think it matters.



That's a hell of a list, I am thankful you edited it down.
I'm sure in the cases of companies moving their operations, help from the EU makes it easier, but I doubt if these have all occurred just because grants were available (I'm sure some did). Dyson for example, I didn't find the reference to the EU blunder but I found mention of doubled profits since the move, motivation enough with or without EU funding. British military contracts being awarded to other counties, annoying as hell, but isn't that down to the government getting the 'best price' for the taxpayer ? Besides, much of the work will be done in Wales, the first 100 are to completed in Spain, presumably so we can get them quickly, the rest will be assembled in Wales. As for the steel, UK government is fighting the EU not to impose higher import tariffs on Chinese Steel.
Further down the list you get to UK utilities owned by other European companies, this again is due to our own government, nothing to do with the EU at all. Much of our electricity is supplied by a French company in which the French government has a large stake, not the EU's fault if we decided to privatise all our utilities.

No, I haven't read the manifesto, but they are one of a number of parties, maybe the biggest, but in terms of influence it looks like a close call with the Party of European Socialists. the EPP is not the same as the EU.

"You haven't had to deal with EU petty bureaucracy tearing your business down", Correct, I would be genuinely interested in your experience. How confident are you this red tape will all be cut down if we leave? I've certainly dealt with national red tape, that seems pretty bad when you are wading through it, but some of it, maybe a lot of it, needs to be there in some form or another.
"You don't think it matters", would not be involved in this thread if I didn't.

Sorry, your post deserves a longer and more researched reply, but its late. 
At the end of the day I doubt if anyone following this thread has had their mind changed by anything that has been said here (I'm curious, anyone ?) . I like to think I have been open to being persuaded but I'm still voting out....kidding.

I'm not convinced I'm right, I can think of plenty of reason for voting out (and have several more from this thread), but I intend to vote in. To me, many of the brexit arguments contain too many assumptions that cannot be backed up. The arguments here have been mainly good but there are enough loose threads in them for me to pull out, so not managing to convince me. 
Brexit are making a big issue of trade deals, could it be that Europe has not signed deals with the whole world because the terms are not good enough for Europe, or the concessions required are too much? TTIP seems a good case, UK government very keen on signing but it looks like a bad deal and requires giving away more of that valuable sovereignty to boot. It doesn't look like the rest of Europe is prepared to do so. This seems to me a case where democracy is working extremely well in the EU with EU citizens taking areal interest and making a difference. Another argument is that we don't need trade deals to trade, how can lack of such deals be a reason to leave? 
I don't buy in to the undemocratic, uncountable arguments either, it's simply not true that the UK has no influence. If we chose to send UKIP MEP's to represent us then that's our stupid fault. The commission do not function autonomously and do not operate as a dictatorship. I blame the tabloid press for many people view that it does.
I don't trust our current government, but I trust much much less the one we may have if vote leave wins. potentially that may only be for a couple of years but I believe a lot (more) of damage could be done in that time. The only thing that both sides seem to agree on is that a leave vote will cause the economy to crash, While I don't believe growth is sustainable indefinitely (I'm not even sure growth is the right thing to pursue at all) but on a purely personal level I don't want another crash right now. 

I'll see you all on the other side.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":3g2uwrqw said:


> What part of this is wrong - "If we left the EU with no trade deal – inconceivable given the tariff free zone from Iceland to Turkey – our exports would face EU tariffs averaging just 2.4% . But our net contribution to the EU budget is equivalent to a 7% tariff. Paying 7% to avoid 2-3% is miss-selling that dwarfs the PPI scandal!" Peter Lilley.



The stats. Lilley is understating the tariff % that would apply under WTO rules (eg 10% on cars), and relying on the £350m/week bare-faced lie for the membership costs side of the equation. Business for Britain (pro-Brexit) estimates that tariffs could cost British business up to £7bn pa, which is about the true annual cost of membership. Others put the potential tariff hit much higher.


----------



## rafezetter

mind_the_goat":ojw7lbh9 said:


> rafezetter":ojw7lbh9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a shared house of 6 rooms, and half of them have at one time or another been taken by foreign nationals working at HP, Rolls Royce and the MoD sites nearby and of the couple of dozen of those I have personally met in the 11 years I have lived here, not a single one has ever ever complained bitterly that getting access to the UK for work was so ridiculously hard, so as to give them pause to consider accepting the job.
> 
> And of the dozens and dozens of those I would say quite easily 95% of them were NON EU NATIONALS.
> 
> And I'm betting a lot of the EU based nationals working here are also not spending 100% of their income in the UK either, so that isn't an economy boost but the equivalent of a slightly left on tap, slowly pouring UK pounds out of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a good reason you have seen dozens and dozens of these workers pass through your shared accommodation. The multinational corporations that employee these skilled people will often bring them to the UK on fixed length visas so they can be trained on UK methods and get to know fellow team members, before being sent back to their home countries to continue the same job on a much reduced salary. They are generally not employed by the companies when they come to the UK but are already employed by them in another location. The value if this to our economy is a whole different issue.
> I'm sure you are right that if we deported our European workforce we could quickly replace many of them with people from other places, but I fail to see how that solves any of the migration issues people seem concerned about. It just replaces one set of migrants with another, and may result in an even higher proportion of locally earned salary to be sent out of the country.
> 
> If you work out the per capita funds sent out of the UK by offshore workers it looks to me as if a significant proportion stays in the UK, the 5.5K per person figure I mentioned earlier is actually too high as I assumed the 11Bn sent 'home' was just by EU workers.
Click to expand...


I wasn't saying that should we leave the EU all of the EU nationals should be deported, far from it, several are still friends of mine. If they are here and working I have no issue with them per se (leaving the money drain out of that particular argument), I was referring to Jacob and others' insistance that an open doors policy for EU nationals is not just desirable but an _absolute requirement_ to keep companies in labour.

Other parts of the employment problem are the benefits system being too easy to gain from, and that almost literally overnight after the work place pension schemes were introduced for all workers contracted for 30 hours or more (for qualifying companies over a set, but small size; to change in 2018 to ALL employees earning 10k or more, guess what's going to happen then...) - a huge portion of positions with little responsibility changed to less than 30 hours - often 20 so the job is split between 2, to avoid the employers pension costs. 20 hours isn't a living wage, and often the contracted hours are set in such a way that a person would find it difficult to work two different 20hour contracts. I spent a long time, years, claiming benefits in part because of that very reason - I regularly saw positions of *management* like a keyholder retail store manager with a ZERO HOURS CONTRACT, and absolutely no way to check if you would be one of only two or three or half a dozen.

No-one and I mean NO-ONE in their right mind would accept such a contract, whom is not in a position whereby other support is available from family or partner to cover the majority portion of the household budget.

And here's the kicker, if you apply and manage to get an interview to get a feel for the company, and get offered the position but it's obvious it's going to be difficult for you and turn it down, your benefits get STOPPED. No if's, but's, maybes, or "but I can't live on that sort of money" will save you.

And if you DO take the job and then require top ups on a monthly basis for housing benefit etc, I've been reliably informed because of the differing amounts week on week, the process is horrific, and one of the reasons why the whole benefits system is being overhauled to a "one application, one payment scheme" in a few trial areas (but Bristol will be last), instead of having to apply for work benefits, housing benefits and council tax benefits to three essentially seperate entites.

So a portion of the people branded as "feckless, workshy and parasitic layabouts" are anything but, but are not being offered anything that is remotely acceptable for their lifestyle - usually single british people, living in expensive private rented accomodation, (because they are single), and without the availability of being able to lean on family for support, or where the choice of "work hard for a few years and put up with living in little more than a 8x4 room", take the money and go back to country X where you can make that money last 5x longer" is possible.

They sit on the benefits system out of self preservation that at least on benefits they will get their rent paid and food on the table; every. single. month.

But even leaving the EU won't force employers to change their contracts system to remove this black hole of uncertainty many workers and prospective workers, face.


----------



## RogerS

mind_the_goat":211lncop said:


> ...
> I don't buy in to the undemocratic, uncountable arguments either, it's simply not true that the UK has no influence......



I disagree. If you do the research you will see that there have been virtually no instances when our MEPs have objected to something and the result went their way.

Cameron returned from his negotiations with almost diddly squat.

What part of the 'Commissioners are not elected' don't you understand ?


----------



## RobinBHM

James Dyson said he has seen no UK directives go through, mostly because large european companies block vote. 

In theory staying in europe would allow us to have a say. In practice history shows that wont happen.

The eu commissioners are now threatening they will make it difficukt if we leave. Why? because they are worried that other distgruntled countrids, like Italy will want to leave too.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"Brexit are making a big issue of trade deals, could it be that Europe has not signed deals with the whole world because the terms are not good enough for Europe, or the concessions required are too much?"
Maybe because the EU is thoroughly incompetent? or maybe as has been said before - they cannot get 28 Countries to agree to anything?


----------



## Jake

phil.p":3jmzo93a said:


> "Brexit are making a big issue of trade deals, could it be that Europe has not signed deals with the whole world because the terms are not good enough for Europe, or the concessions required are too much?"
> Maybe because the EU is thoroughly incompetent? or maybe as has been said before - they cannot get 28 Countries to agree to anything?



If that was the case, why is everyone on the Brezit side so adamant that getting a new FTA with the EU is going to be a piece of pish?

Just have to look at WTO (non) progress to understand that these things are very hard to negotiate.


----------



## RogerS

phil.p":31eyzftz said:


> "Brexit are making a big issue of trade deals, could it be that Europe has not signed deals with the whole world because the terms are not good enough for Europe, or the concessions required are too much?"
> Maybe because the EU is thoroughly incompetent? or maybe as has been said before - they cannot get 28 Countries to agree to anything?



The latter. They have been trying for a deal for ages with some of the S American countries but the deal is blocked by France and others.

It's a damn sight easier for one country ie us to negotiate a trade deal.


----------



## RogerS

Jake":1d3fltf7 said:


> phil.p":1d3fltf7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit are making a big issue of trade deals, could it be that Europe has not signed deals with the whole world because the terms are not good enough for Europe, or the concessions required are too much?"
> Maybe because the EU is thoroughly incompetent? or maybe as has been said before - they cannot get 28 Countries to agree to anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was the case, why is everyone on the Brezit side so adamant that getting a new FTA with the EU is going to be a piece of pish?
> 
> Just have to look at WTO (non) progress to understand that these things are very hard to negotiate.
Click to expand...


They might be hard to negotiate but frankly everyone seems to be trading quite well without them in many areas. So trade agreements ? Who cares ?


----------



## Stu_2

Out, without a doubt.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"If that was the case, why is everyone on the Brezit side so adamant that getting a new FTA with the EU is going to be a piece of pish?

Just have to look at WTO (non) progress to understand that these things are very hard to negotiate."

Possibly because Mercedes, Volkswagen, Porsche, BMW, Renault, Citroen, Peugeot etc. realise they need one PDQ?- and ultimately it's French and German money that talks. The leech Countries will be bribed to shut up.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"The stats. Lilley is understating the tariff % that would apply under WTO rules (eg 10% on cars)..."
He's not necessarily underestimating, he's quoting an average.


----------



## Woodmatt

Once we have voted who does the counting to come up with the result?Being a complete cynic my concern is can they be "leant on" by Cameron and his cronies? I understand a number of Birthday honours have gone to Remain campaigners so for me this would just be a step further to suit his ends.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Someone posting in The Times has been telling us for several weeks the result is 52/48 for remain.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

A few more that are extremely difficult to argue with -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1217 ... he-EU.html


----------



## RogerS

That's a great post, Phil, and he raises a good question about the lack of a cohesive plan post-Brexit. We really do need to be out.


----------



## woodpig

phil.p":3q78iyqs said:


> Someone posting in The Times has been telling us for several weeks the result is 52/48 for remain.



If that was the case then "that's your lot for another 30 years". If it was 52/48 for Brexit I have no doubt there would be another vote "just to be sure". :roll:

*Out*.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I think you miss the point.  

Another -
"Miriam Durantez Gonzalez, the arch-Europhile aka Mrs Clegg, blasts Cameron's renegotiation and warns Brussels is not reforming:
.
"The European Union is crying for reform. Proper reform. Not that Mickey Mouse negotiation that the Prime Minister did. The biggest reform that the EU needs is growth... In my life I have never gone through another moment when I have thought we are in the history books."
. 
"This is the renegotiation Cameron is asking you to vote on - and even Miriam says it's Mickey Mouse..."
From Guido Fawkes' website
.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/14/miria ... off-messag


----------



## Phil Pascoe

and another -
http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/__data/asset ... Models.pdf


----------



## RogerS

You're on a roll, Phil!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Yes. https://dotsub.com/view/229ca3b5-e82f-4 ... 6ad4af9cb2
a little Sir Humphrey. :lol:


----------



## BearTricks

I've just found out that a job opportunity I'm waiting to hear back from is funded, in part, using EU money. I suspect I'll probably be waiting until some point between the 23rd and the interview date to hear from anyone. I wont be surprised if they put it on hold for the forseeable future while they weigh up their options.


----------



## stuartpaul

BearTricks":1ep5pcmv said:


> I've just found out that a job opportunity I'm waiting to hear back from is funded, in part, using EU money. I suspect I'll probably be waiting until some point between the 23rd and the interview date to hear from anyone. I wont be surprised if they put it on hold for the forseeable future while they weigh up their options.


Nah, - you'll be fine. The leavers are promising to continue funding all EU funded projects. Together with £100 million a week for the NHS it'll all be wonderful.

If only they could get the number on the side of the bus right ..........


----------



## Inoffthered

Its getting to the stage when I almost cannot watch any of the Exit debates.

The next time one of the Remainiacs bangs on about how the EU creates jobs, I wish someone would ask them how the following EU employment interventions helped to create jobs in the UK. 

Cadbury, Factory move from Bristol to Poland, funded by the EU
Twinings , £10m EU grant to build a factory in Eastern Europe
Dyson, opened factory in Malaysia with an EU grant
Ford Transit production moved from Southampton to Turkey funded by...yes you've guessed it, the EU (€80 mill)
Hoover factory relocated from Merthyr to Czech republic funded by the EU
Jaguar Land Rover building new factory in Slovakia funded by EU
Peugot closed Raton factory and relocated to Slovakia
Texas Instruments Greenock factory relocated to Germany.
Also, the next time Camoron bangs on about Brexit resulting in a 6% drop in GDP, he should be asked to explain where this number comes from because an EU report produced to "celebrate " its achievements reckons that in 20 years it has added 2% to GDP.

Added to this the British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales. 

Funny how we couldn't do anything to help our steel industry but other EU countries dont seem to have the same problem.

It is truly ironic that a few months after cameron said that Junker was not fit fit to be EU president he has invited him to the UK next week to argue the cause for Remain.

To read some of Junker's more outrageous statements follow this link:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tions.html

I draw your attention to his comment made during the Greek crisis "When it becomes serious, you have to lie."

So why is he coming, to lie or is his suitcase stuffed with postal votes?


Vote OUT


----------



## Inoffthered

stuartpaul":2w7spfk9 said:


> BearTricks":2w7spfk9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only they could get the number on the side of the bus right ..........
Click to expand...



If only the Remainiacs would be honest about what is being held back for fear of affecting the referendum result

http://heatst.com/politics/everything-t ... sm_tw_post



The application of VAT on food will happen quickly because the EU needs the money .


----------



## Flynnwood

I am for leaving/vote out.

Time permitting, I will try to answer any *(logical) arguments against that.

* Including numbers.

P.S. Remember that the primary/underlying biological force is to reproduce.


----------



## RobinBHM

I have to say Ive learnt far more following this thread than any amount of reading elsewhere. Mostly because this thread has a diverse range of viewpoints and with quite a few posters with a considerable knowledge. It has certainly made me challenge my own belief.

To start, I thought immegration, economy, free market security etc were the issues. 

Certainly the media and the political campaigners have used these things to instill fear. They are all important issues but for me the core issue is increasing growth of the european union - and larger means less and less efficient which will keep costing more with less and less control. 

If we leave, it will create economic problems and a lot of hard work needed to drive through trade agreements. It wont be easy but I think Out is the way forward.


----------



## Rhossydd

Inoffthered":2to9g663 said:


> Cadbury, Factory move from Bristol to Poland, funded by the EU
> ...
> Texas Instruments Greenock factory relocated to Germany.


Might be worth considering that these incentives for multinationals to work in Europe won't stop if the UK leaves the EU.
However there will be no more EU money to assist the same companies to invest in the UK.


----------



## themackay

Its got to be out


----------



## themackay

Its got to be out


----------



## Woodmonkey

Someone posted this up on Facebook today, says it all really....

A good friend of mine came up with a great idea. If you don't have the time/inclination to find out all the facts about the EU referendum (I don't blame you) and are possibly unsure which way to vote, perhaps knowing how other notable people are thinking could help out.

Here are a few that strongly believe the UK should remain a member of the EU:

• Governor of the Bank of England
• International Monetary Fund
• Institute for Fiscal Studies
• Confederation of British Industry
• Leaders/heads of state of every single other member of the EU
• President of the United States of America
• Eight former US Treasury Secretaries
• President of China
• Prime Minister of India
• Prime Minister of Canada
• Prime Minister of Australia
• Prime Minister of Japan
• Prime Minister of New Zealand
• The chief executives of most of the top 100 companies in the UK including Marks and Spencer, BT, Asda, Vodafone, Virgin, IBM, BMW etc.
• Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations
• All living former Prime Ministers of the UK (from both parties)
• Virtually all reputable and recognised economists
• The Prime Minister of the UK
• The leader of the Labour Party
• The Leader of the Liberal Democrats
• The Leader of the Green Party
• The Leader of the Scottish National Party
• The leader of Plaid Cymru
• Leader of Sinn Fein
• Martin Lewis, that money saving dude off the telly
• The Secretary General of the TUC
• Unison
• National Union of Students
• National Union of Farmers
• Stephen Hawking
• Chief Executive of the NHS
• 300 of the most prominent international historians
• Director of Europol
• David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
• Former Directors of GCHQ
• Secretary General of Nato
• Church of England
• Church in Scotland
• Church in Wales
• Friends of the Earth
• Greenpeace
• Director General of the World Trade Organisation
• WWF
• World Bank
• OECD

Here are pretty much the only notable people who think we should leave the EU:

• Boris Johnson, who probably doesn’t really care either way, but knows he’ll become Prime Minister if the country votes to leave
• A former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who carried out a brutal regime of cuts to benefits and essential support for the poorest in society as well as the disabled and sick
• That silly person that was Education Secretary and every single teacher in the country hated with a furious passion for the damage he was doing to the education system
• Leader of UKIP
• BNP
• Britain First
• Donald Trump
• Keith Chegwin
• David Icke

So, as I said, if you can’t be bothered to look into the real facts and implications of all this in/out stuff, just pick the list that you most trust and vote that way. It really couldn’t be more simple.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":2k8ipgyx said:


> The next time one of the Remainiacs bangs on about how the EU creates jobs, I wish someone would ask them how the following EU employment interventions helped jobs in the UK.
> 
> Cadbury, Factory move from Bristol to Poland, funded by the EU
> Twinings , £10m EU grant to build a factory in Eastern Europe
> Dyson, opened factory in Malaysia with an EU grant
> Ford Transit production moved from Southampton to Turkey funded by...yes you've guessed it, the EU (€80 mill)
> Hoover factory relocated from Merthyr to Czech republic funded by the EU
> Jaguar Land Rover building new factory in Slovakia funded by EU
> Peugot closed Raton factory and relocated to Slovakia
> Texas Instruments Greenock factory relocated to Germany.



I call this out as social media rubbish as I have seen it so many times in different places it seems to be influencing people who have not done any fact checking and take stuff they see on the interweb at face value. When I say below I cannot find any independent evidence, I mean all I can find given a reasonable online search is repeat copy/paste posts of this by people taking it at face value (or apparently doing so).

Cadbury: I could find no independent evidence of EU grant influence.

Twinings: the EU cancelled the EUR12m grant because MEPs raised concerns that AB Foods had planned to shift rather than add production. AB Foods denied this, but opened it anyway (presumably because tariff free access to EU and lower wages costs).

Dyson: No independent evidence, and does not make sense. This is how the Telegraph perceived this not so long after the wage-saving move of production out of Malmesbury:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3615244/Dyson-is-making-pots-of-money-for-Britain-by-going-to-Malaysia.html

Ford: not a grant, a loan from the EIB, and Transit production was 90% there anyway before the loan. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ge ... an-1415960 That was going one way only. Look forward to many more if Brexit.

Hoover: a move started by geniuses http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 71711.html . The Merthyr plant made washing machines and tumble driers http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... nt-2117878. The Candy company which purchased the wreckage of Hoover got an EIB loan for its Polish factory which builds refrigerators and freezers http://www.eib.org/projects/loans/2001/20010622.htm.

I hope it is understandable after wasting my time checking the (un)truth of this carp that I have not bothered with the last couple of lies.


####

It makes me very sad how very stupid and emotional social media is making our polity. I know that everyone thinks they know who they think they know and that they are trustworthy because agree so must be, BUT DUMB.

Excuse me for rag-losing a little, but there there is so much of this round robin copycat flimsy nonsense doing the rounds and it is toxic. The demos decides but should not be misled (on either side, remain are not innocents but in my view leave are so much worse in terms of just not caring at all about known truths rather than laying on unknown predictions too thick)


----------



## Inoffthered

Rhossydd":qxxpp9jp said:


> Inoffthered":qxxpp9jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cadbury, Factory move from Bristol to Poland, funded by the EU
> ...
> Texas Instruments Greenock factory relocated to Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> Might be worth considering that these incentives for multinationals to work in Europe won't stop if the UK leaves the EU.
> However there will be no more EU money to assist the same companies to invest in the UK.
Click to expand...



Remind me, when was the last major EU funded business set up in the UK?

There is another aspect to this. If you think about the evolution of industry in this country, the agrarian revolution changed the way food was grown thereby releasing labour that had been working in the fields to work in factories as the industrial revolution developed. Our economy has moved into the next "knowledge based" phase. 
The days when millions of people were needed to work in textile mills, foundries and factories have gone.
Low production costs around the globe mean that a developed economy cannot compete on low value production because of our higher labour costs. We compete now not on price but by innovation. Dyson may have moved manufacturing to low labour cost area but its design and product development brains are here.

At a time when we need to be educating our people to the highest possible standards to equip them for the 21st century, we are forced into a position whereby the un-restricted free movement of labour has lead to an influx of unskilled workers for whom our minimum wage represents a good deal for the unemployed in Greece, Spain and Portugal and a major attraction for even skilled workers from Poland, Bulgaria etc where they can earn as much doing a manual job as they could get as teachers and other professionals in their own country.

I know some Remainiacs will quote figures of the contribution made by immigrant workers, but these claims are based on a major deception. The stats quoted generally compare the aggregate tax and NI paid by the workers with the benefits paid out. Nowhere do these figures take account of the social infrastructure costs. 

If the population increases by 300,000 per year then to maintain public services at a constant level, it would be necessary to build additional hospitals, doctors surgeries, dentists, schools, roads etc as well as additional housing stock. If the social infrastructure does not keep pace with population growth there will inevitably be increased waiting lists, longer waits in A&E as people who cannot get a doctor have no alternative for their medical needs. These costs are not included in the glib "migrant labour make a positive contribution" statements. 

Of course, readily available cheap labour is perfect for big business to tap into. People coming from Eastern Europe are quite happy to hot bed in multiple occupancy caravans/houses and still save money. To argue that this does not depress wages is one of the biggest lies perpetuated by the Remainiacs. 

I doubt the Mike Ashleys of this world struggle to get their kids into the local comp and they wont be in classes where English is not spoken by the majority of attendees. I bet Cameron and Corbyn have never had to wait a week for an appointment at their doctors, I bet their kids will never have to compete for a job on building site with someone who will work for £30 per day, but they will dress this up as being essential for the country. Madness.

I am not against immigration, on the contrary, immigration can be an important driver of growth BUT it has to be of the right people for the right jobs. If we need doctors, nurses , care workers then I dont care where they come from if there is a job for them. I cannot see the point in increasing the population by 300k unskilled people every year with the attendant infrastructure and social costs.

I see Osbourn is now threatening to put taxes up if we vote leave. (He is probably keeping the plague of locusts and boils till next week). It's nonsense of course and yet another pathetic example of project fear.

Keep the faith, have confidence and dont sell out to a bunch of unelected Eurocrats. Vote Leave


----------



## rafezetter

mind_the_goat":glt28snt said:


> phil.p":glt28snt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another from the Sunday Times -
> "A Syrian refugee who recently arrived in Britain under David Cameron’s high-profile resettlement programme has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
> Plenty more to come ... and even more if we stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this had been a native white Newcastle man (unlikely to make national news) would you be advocating banning all Tyne and Wear residents from crossing the boarder?
> 
> Given one of your main arguments is that anyone with a 'vested interest' cannot have a valid opinion I'm disappointed you read the UK press at all.
Click to expand...


It's the underlying mentality that's the issue; Newcastle men (at least as far as I'm, aware) don't have a long history of regarding all women as property to be done with as they see fit; to be used as a bartering tool (often as young as 11), offered up like cattle, to make links with wealthy or otherwise influential men so their fathers can increase their social and economic standing, or, act as though it's their "male right" to grope and harass women in a nightclub - or anywhere else.

Unless you have been under a rock for the last ten plus years you should be fully aware a large portion of the muslim community in the middle east (and some here in the UK too) still practise this on a daily basis. There has been news item after news item, both overseas AND within the UK highlighting such practices.

Of course it happens in india and other places too, but for some reason I have yet to fathom, when the middle eastern muslims with this sort of mentality come to a european country, even though they must be under no illusion that it's illegal, they do it anyway without regard for the women or laws; one might be moved to surmise it's deliberate in open defiance. 

And before you say "one bad apple" refer back to how many muslim men were involved - 54 - easily enough that they could have self policed such behaviour within their group(s), yet they did not, a fact which in itself speaks volumes.

So your argument that this is an unfairly biased news item is invalid, and you actually seem to want to DEFEND these people.

As for your comment about "vigilante's" - I was a "vigilante" once, at least according to some of a certain mindset - I used to be one of the Guardian Angels than rode the london underground in the early 90's and I can tell you, on the thankfully few occasions we had to get involved we were never once, NEVER, considered or accused of being a threat to law abiding people - not even by the attending police, and more than a few were openly thankful for our presence, public AND police. Sometimes it takes a gang of men, who are NOT automatically bound like the police, to ward off a gang of men. It's little different to war, and I can say with full conviction if you think that's overstating it, you should have spent time in Londons inner city after dark, before CCTV was everywhere and everyone had a mobile phone that can record images instantly, when women and elderly refused to get into a train carriage with a group of male youths after closing time.

I'm also willing to bet that none of the muslims involved in that incident will ever try that again during their time in Russia - or possibly anywhere else.


----------



## RogerS

Woodmonkey...I would suggest that that list has been chosen by David Cameron as it is so clearly skewed.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"However there will be no more EU money to assist the same companies to invest in the UK."
While they're subsidising them to move to continental Europe it'll make no difference, will it?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Cracking bit of EU logic, mind. Let's milk them for all they're worth and do our best to stop them making money at the same time. :? :lol:


----------



## RobinBHM

Rhossydd":243j3w32 said:


> Inoffthered":243j3w32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cadbury, Factory move from Bristol to Poland, funded by the EU
> ...
> Texas Instruments Greenock factory relocated to Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> Might be worth considering that these incentives for multinationals to work in Europe won't stop if the UK leaves the EU.
> However there will be no more EU money to assist the same companies to invest in the UK.
Click to expand...


Is it eu money? It could be argued it is UK money that the eu has chosen to invest in the uk, without us choosing. Its a bit like me giving £5 to somebody and saying keep some of it, then buy something for me with the rest.


----------



## Rhossydd

RobinBHM":1bf2cem1 said:


> Is it eu money? It could be argued it is UK money that the eu has chosen to invest in the uk, without us choosing. Its a bit like me giving £5 to somebody and saying keep some of it, then buy something for me with the rest.


How you choose to misinterpret the information is up to you.
What I was pointing out is that if we're stupid enough to leave the EU there will still be big subsidies available for the multi-nationals to move into mainland Europe from the EU and many will. Attracting new inward investment into the UK will cost UK tax payers much more and be less attractive to the potential investors outside the EU.

The only people saying it won't be a financial nightmare are Brexiters promising things they can't deliver and saying we have to make optimistic projections. It's too much like buying a lottery ticket, you might just win, but the overwhelming probability is that you will lose.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":2ez93a3x said:


> RobinBHM":2ez93a3x said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it eu money? It could be argued it is UK money that the eu has chosen to invest in the uk, without us choosing. Its a bit like me giving £5 to somebody and saying keep some of it, then buy something for me with the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> How you choose to misinterpret the information is up to you.
> What I was pointing out is that if we're stupid enough to leave the EU there will still be big subsidies available for the multi-nationals to move into mainland Europe from the EU and many will. Attracting new inward investment into the UK will cost UK tax payers much more and be less attractive to the potential investors outside the EU.
> 
> The only people saying it won't be a financial nightmare are Brexiters promising things they can't deliver and saying we have to make optimistic projections. It's too much like buying a lottery ticket, you might just win, but the overwhelming probability is that you will lose.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily so. You are ignoring the fact that at the moment the UK has its hands tied (under EU draconian rules) in terms of what it can/can't do to attract inward investment and/or support companies with state investment. Ditch the EU and we can foster and grow and attract inward investment to our hearts content. WE are actually then in control of our destiny and no longer under the yoke of a bureaucratic federal authority. Unfettered by petty-fogging EU diktats the UK economy can grow faster.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I suppose I should be thankful the EU in its benevolence has decided to subsidise half my local roundabouts.  
If you look through the lists of pro's and discount the ones who are beneficiaries of EU munificence (in one way or another) you could discount half - I wouldn't expect them to say any differently.


----------



## Inoffthered

RogerS":3onfc0wm said:


> Woodmonkey...I would suggest that that list has been chosen by David Cameron as it is so clearly skewed.




It also contains a large number who were using the same scare tactics about what would happen if we didn't join the Euro.

A notable omission from the list was Neil Kinnock who has £10 million reasons for wanting to Remain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ecide.html


----------



## Claymore

Osborne and Cameron should be booted out of their jobs before the vote for basically intimidating voters by blackmailing them regarding the so-called emergency budget. How disgusting to even suggest they will slash the NHS budget and benefits/pensions etc if the British public vote to leave the EU, my 84yr old father in law is not well like many of our elderly and disabled and he is terrified they are going to cut his pension after hearing Cameron on TV recently saying that "We may have to lower the state pension so we can spread the cost over more people" ..and basically saying that the elderly are living too long! 99% of the British elderly have paid into their pension funds and NHS for many years not forgetting fought in wars to ensure the British people are safe and now they treat them like a burden to society and for that alone I will vote to LEAVE the EU.
I have watched my father in laws health go downhill in recent months and for the first time in his life he is on medication for anxiety/depression which the GP has confirmed is due to him worrying about austerity cuts.
Personally I think if Cameron and Osborne are so keen to keep us in the EU that they will resort to blackmailing the sick/poor/elderly and disabled then its obvious its to protect their own pockets and not for the good of the nation.
Its got to be a Brexit vote for me.


----------



## RobinBHM

Woodmonkey":3hk3slix said:


> Someone posted this up on Facebook today, says it all really....
> 
> A good friend of mine came up with a great idea. If you don't have the time/inclination to find out all the facts about the EU referendum (I don't blame you) and are possibly unsure which way to vote, perhaps knowing how other notable people are thinking could help out.
> 
> Here are a few that strongly believe the UK should remain a member of the EU:
> 
> • Governor of the Bank of England
> • International Monetary Fund
> • Institute for Fiscal Studies
> • Confederation of British Industry
> • Leaders/heads of state of every single other member of the EU
> • President of the United States of America
> • Eight former US Treasury Secretaries
> • President of China
> • Prime Minister of India
> • Prime Minister of Canada
> • Prime Minister of Australia
> • Prime Minister of Japan
> • Prime Minister of New Zealand
> • The chief executives of most of the top 100 companies in the UK including Marks and Spencer, BT, Asda, Vodafone, Virgin, IBM, BMW etc.
> • Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations
> • All living former Prime Ministers of the UK (from both parties)
> • Virtually all reputable and recognised economists
> • The Prime Minister of the UK
> • The leader of the Labour Party
> • The Leader of the Liberal Democrats
> • The Leader of the Green Party
> • The Leader of the Scottish National Party
> • The leader of Plaid Cymru
> • Leader of Sinn Fein
> • Martin Lewis, that money saving dude off the telly
> • The Secretary General of the TUC
> • Unison
> • National Union of Students
> • National Union of Farmers
> • Stephen Hawking
> • Chief Executive of the NHS
> • 300 of the most prominent international historians
> • Director of Europol
> • David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
> • Former Directors of GCHQ
> • Secretary General of Nato
> • Church of England
> • Church in Scotland
> • Church in Wales
> • Friends of the Earth
> • Greenpeace
> • Director General of the World Trade Organisation
> • WWF
> • World Bank
> • OECD
> 
> Here are pretty much the only notable people who think we should leave the EU:
> 
> • Boris Johnson, who probably doesn’t really care either way, but knows he’ll become Prime Minister if the country votes to leave
> • A former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who carried out a brutal regime of cuts to benefits and essential support for the poorest in society as well as the disabled and sick
> • That silly person that was Education Secretary and every single teacher in the country hated with a furious passion for the damage he was doing to the education system
> • Leader of UKIP
> • BNP
> • Britain First
> • Donald Trump
> • Keith Chegwin
> • David Icke
> 
> So, as I said, if you can’t be bothered to look into the real facts and implications of all this in/out stuff, just pick the list that you most trust and vote that way. It really couldn’t be more simple.



I think if one cant be bothered to research the facts but want to pick a list of influential people wanting to Brexit and a list to remain then a 2 minute google search shows rather more than the joke Brexit list above:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-1 ... -creates-w

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referendum- ... ve-1545548

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/655650 ... e-campaign

One example of a serious figure in business campaigning to leave:
_'Vote Leave also announced that the former director general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), John Longworth, will take up a new role with the group as chairman of its business council.' _

On the other hand both Simon Cowell and Jeremy Clackson want to remain........


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The National Union of Students and the Church of England want in? That's me out, then.


----------



## RogerS

I think that after 36 pages, a Vote of Thanks to the Mods is definitely due for letting us discuss this =D>


----------



## RobinBHM

RogerS":2vyco0n1 said:


> I think that after 36 pages, a Vote of Thanks to the Mods is definitely due for letting us discuss this =D>



I second that  

Also many thanks to everybody who has spent time contributing, on all sides of the argument.


----------



## lurker

Its been fairly good natured

Even though "you know who" did his best to start a fight


----------



## Eric The Viking

The Remain campaign could learn a few things from this forum (and thread, probably). 

Today we got a personally addressed poster/leaflet through the post, that basically said, "Don't let Farage decide your future."

Arguments of that quality will sway millions. I wouldn't like to guess in which direction though.

And thanks to the mods from over here, too. 

E.

PS: Of course it could actually be a spoiler from the Brexit camp, but I don't think so.


----------



## Inoffthered

At least we haven't sunk to Bob Geldof's depths.

http://order-order.com/2016/06/15/remai ... qus_thread

The fishing industry has every right to be upset at what the EU has done to them and for a peaceful protest to met with such boorish behaviour from the multimillionaire Bob Geldoff speaks volumes.


----------



## Claymore

Geldof what a joke he is and always will be.

Who's next Bono or will he be busy distancing himself from deceased mps? maybe Clooney and Pitt? my moneys on Jedward


----------



## dynax

I for one will be voting out, mainly before the idiots in Brussels bring out a fart tax, and make us wear catalytic converters when we're in a public place, it's bad enough now with the missus asking if her bum looks big in this,


----------



## fred55

I'm still on the fence - my sons girlfriend is Polish; I rent out properties the Polish and north Europe, They mix in with society (pubs clubs socials churches) and generally they are better people than some of our own low life. I need a third option - reduce benefits to all - if you don't work don't expect a house - child benefits stops at 3 children - benefits should not be high enough to afford sky plus, mobiles, holidays in Spain, designer clothes and don't even think about a car. I'm a changed man and after 40 years for Labour now anybody rather than Labour.


----------



## will1983

I have just read through the full 36 pages of excellent well researched discussion and I'm impressed that such an evocotive subject hasn't spiralled into sillyiness and unpleasentness.

As a personal matter of interest I did a rough tot up of peoples opinions expressed in this thread. I count it as 25 leave to 10 remain. However as someone previously suggested I think the actual result will be very close as a large number of people seem to be undecided so may just "play it safe" and remain.

For what it is worth I have already voted to leave.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Guido has a view on the "nine-out-of-ten economists vote for insanity" thing:

http://order-order.com/2016/06/09/only- ... se-brexit/

Apparently it's been another exercise in how to lie with statistics. Sad really.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

This'll persuade you to stay - 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16UW8Rls2vE


----------



## Eric The Viking

Outstanding. 

The Remain supporter in the household gets home from Hungary tomorrow. I'll send her the link, pronto.

She's utterly compelling, so much so you wonder if it's intended ironically.


----------



## Rhossydd

Interesting to read a view point from a well respected overseas newspaper to see how others see this referendum choice:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html


----------



## stuartpaul

Eric The Viking":6aovx767 said:


> Guido has a view on the "nine-out-of-ten economists vote for insanity" thing:
> 
> http://order-order.com/2016/06/09/only- ... se-brexit/
> 
> Apparently it's been another exercise in how to lie with statistics. Sad really.


Eric, - that really does depend how you interpret it doesn't it? How do you account for those who didn't respond? 

To the best of my knowledge its not common practice with polls to include non respondents in either side of the argument.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rhossydd":3uctcq6s said:


> Interesting to read a view point from a well respected overseas newspaper to see how others see this referendum choice:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html


Yes. The last sentence sums it up - it wouldn't best suit the U.S.
I don't much care whether it suits the U.S. or not.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":2ckbhsrd said:


> Rhossydd":2ckbhsrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting to read a view point from a well respected overseas newspaper to see how others see this referendum choice:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The last sentence sums it up - it wouldn't best suit the U.S.
> I don't much care whether it suits the U.S. or not.
Click to expand...

Shall we quote what it says correctly;
"It would be better for the U.K. to stay in the E.U. It would also be better for the E.U., because Britain provides political and intellectual balance. Finally, it would be better for the United States, which doesn’t need a major ally — Britain — to go delusional."

Nicely put by someone I know; "Vote Leave = Vote Lemming as the Brexiteers seem hell bent on jumping over the cliff edge with no certain knowledge of what lies on the other side - but the overwhelming chances are it's not going to end well."


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Likewise, you have no idea what lies ahead if we stay - the EU will be a much different place before very long. Just wait til they start stuffing us with another round of charges - Cameron paid the £1.7billion he swore he wasn't going to. If anyone thinks we're going to escape paying for the ongoing Greek tragedy and it's follow ons or the immigrant crisis in Germany (which was supposed to be an economic boon?) they are deluded.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Pretty much since the referendum was called, I've been struck by the difference between 'ordinary people' and what might be termed the 'political classes'. Some of the latter have behaved appallingly, telling what are very close to bare-faced lies. Almost all the 'ordinary people' I've discussed the referendum with have taken it much more seriously; I can recall very few who have resorted to name-calling and personal insult. I think people know deep down that this is something of quite fundamental importance for the country's future, and possibly for Europe's future. Maybe that's why many have not been swayed by narrow arguments on economic or immigration grounds, but want to hear a broader range of views.

If the debate can be summed up in a soundbite, the nearest I've seen is the last two sentences of The Spectator's editorial this week, which I discovered courtesy of Guido Fawkes' blog. They say, "The history of the last two centuries can be summed up in two words: democracy matters. Let's vote to defend it on 23rd June."

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/wo ... ks-brexit/


----------



## Terry - Somerset

I've come to the conclusion that Leave supporters typically identify an aspect of EU membership as the problem that will be solved to the exclusion of all other impacts. Often the issues are not even problems - eg: the UK has a veto on Turkey membership, visa free travel does not mean no immigration control, the UK does not have to join the Euro now or in the future. For other it is simply an expression of frustration with a Tory/Cameron government.

The economic case to stay is overwhelmingly clear. It is supported by pretty much all quality economic commentators and is intuitively rational. Basing a Leave case on the decision not to join the Euro 15 years ago, and the expectation that deals with EU will be readily forthcoming because Germany sells lot of cars in the UK is fatuous. The Euro debate was 15 years ago, and any deal with the EU will depend on the willingness of all states to agree, not just the Germans.

For some the issue is immigration and stress on services. It is totally within the control of the government to flex spending on NHS and education to fix this - although they seem reluctant to do so (not sure why). 

For some it is the impact on jobs. But they UK has just reported the lowest since 2005 unemployment figures. Without immigration there would simply be vacancies - some in critical sectors. Somewhat arrogantly I suggest that those without jobs in the UK mostly either don't have the right skills (technical and social), are working in the black economy, or are too lazy.

For some it is the impact on housing. We need more housing to accommodate a rising population and this puts stress on the countryside. No quick fix to this.

For some it is the impact on wages - but increasing wages of unskilled jobs simply passes the additional cost of living to the rest of us.

For some it sovereignty. A statement of the blindingly obvious is that if we join a club of 27 we inevitably sacrifice control over some issues - as we do with NATO and WTO. We have not sacrificed ultimate sovereignty or we could not have a meaningful referendum.

In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed - other EU members aspire to our example.

I accept that many will be seduced by the Gove and Johnson vision (they don't have a plan). But the world has changed since the sun never set on the empire - we could equally become an unremarkable outpost, stuck in the N.E. Atlantic, our power and influence gradually diminishing as the US, China and the EU bloc dominate financial and world trade affairs.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed ...
Most of that was after joining the EEC not before. The EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":v8yrgwds said:


> In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed ...
> Most of that was after joining the EEC not before. The EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.



That's not actually true - Britain's economic progress was amongst the worst in Europe post-war prior to joining, and amongst the best post-joining.


----------



## Eric The Viking

stuartpaul":lkabathv said:


> Eric The Viking":lkabathv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guido has a view on the "nine-out-of-ten economists vote for insanity" thing:
> 
> http://order-order.com/2016/06/09/only- ... se-brexit/
> 
> Apparently it's been another exercise in how to lie with statistics. Sad really.
> 
> 
> 
> Eric, - that really does depend how you interpret it doesn't it? How do you account for those who didn't respond?
> 
> To the best of my knowledge its not common practice with polls to include non respondents in either side of the argument.
Click to expand...


It's disingenuous for them to suggest that nine out of ten economists support remain when there was such a dismally low response rate. For those that didn't respond, that's all you can say -- that they didn't respond.

It makes the whole 9/10 statement nonsense though. You can't, for example, say "I stood in the centre of town and shouted at the passers by. Of those who responded 75% supported Remain (actually three people agreed with me and one person called the police)."

With such a low response rate, it's effectively meaningless.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

[quoteThe EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.][/quote]

World GDP at the moments shows:

US 24%
EU (incl UK) 22%
China 15%
Japan 6%
UK 4%

Japan, UK, India,Brazil and a few others following closely could be described first division with no real chance of promotion to the premier league. Even if the UK had a growth rater 3% higher than the EU, mathematically it would take more than 50 years to catch up. There is a rather greater probability of India, Brazil or Russia overtaking the UK!


----------



## RobinBHM

It is certainly true that leaving the eu is a serious concern and not to be ignored. Staying in is also a major concern economically.
*
An extract from a blog by Andrew Lillico (Chairman of economists UK):*

There are two ideas gaining currency in the EU referendum debate that I want to kill off with this post.

The first is that all serious economists agree that Brexit would be economically harmful to the UK.
The second is that there is no serious economic analysis that has not concluded that Brexit would leave the UK permanently and materially poorer.
On the first point, two of the most illustrious economists in Britain are Roger Bootle, Managing Director of Capital Economics, and Gerard Lyons, Economic advisor to the Mayor of London and former Chief Economist of Standard Chartered Bank. Both favour Brexit. Roger Bootle argues that leaving would be neither economically beneficial nor economically harmful. Gerard Lyons argues that after some initial turbulence the UK would grow faster over the medium- to longer-term outside the EU than within.

Neither Roger nor Gerard can be caricatured as some other-worldly academic ideologue. They are both extremely serious economists whose opinions are sought (at considerable expense) by people across the finance sector across the world. They are by no means the only economists favouring Brexit. I happen to be Chairman of Economists for Britain, affiliated to Vote Leave, including a range of economists from left and right of the political spectrum. There are also various other groups, such as the Economist Friends of Brexit (including Ruth Lea, Warwick Lightfoot, Neil MacKinnon and others)


----------



## Andy Kev.

I think if you believe in democracy there is no alternative to voting out. The EU is actively anti-democracy which is a bit ironic considering that democracy is one of the greatest European achievements.

Brexit means complete control over our national fortunes as opposed to 1/28th of control over an organisation which has only one goal which is the formation of the United States of Europe and be under no illusion: there is no Plan B.

The EU is also corrupt - remember how the accounts never get signed off because they don't know where the money has gone. It is also poorly led by massively overpaid, second rate apparatchiks like Schulz and Juncker and it is generally unaccountable.

Because of its inherently democratic spirit the UK will always be at odds with many member states. I think we could get along well enough with the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and one or two others but we are simply politically incompatible with the rest. The French replaced an absolute monarchy with a more or less absolute presidency albeit coupled with a deliberately weakened parliament, the EU set up being modelled on this. The German political elite seems hell bent on doing away with the notion of Germany, rather like that character Harry Enfield created.

There are also two whopping lies routinely put about in favour of the EU. The biggest is that it is responsible for post-WW2 peace in Europe. This is nonsense as the peace was provided by NATO and for most of that time the EU's predecessor organisations didn't add up to much at all. The second is that leaving would mean a "leap into the unknown" for the UK. This is an absurd notion. For all of our history we have been an outward looking, independently minded international trading nation. Brexit would actually mean a return to business as usual. If we were out we could do our own thing while maintaining friendly relationships with our neighbours and negotiating our own trade deals with anybody we want.

A side effect of Brexit would be to jolt the self-regarding "elites" both at home and abroad into some sort of contact with reality. This could only be of benefit.

Apart from all that the EU is wonderful. :mrgreen:


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jake":g6thodn6 said:


> phil.p":g6thodn6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed ...
> Most of that was after joining the EEC not before. The EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not actually true - Britain's economic progress was amongst the worst in Europe post-war prior to joining, and amongst the best post-joining.
Click to expand...

 the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??


They were all after joining. Please learn some history.


----------



## Inoffthered

Terry - Somerset":1ykttu87 said:


> For some it sovereignty. A statement of the blindingly obvious is that if we join a club of 27 we inevitably sacrifice control over some issues - as we do with NATO and WTO. We have not sacrificed ultimate sovereignty or we could not have a meaningful referendum.
> 
> In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed - other EU members aspire to our example.
> 
> .



Sovereignty. 
Actually if we vote Remain we WILL sacrifice sovereignty. Anyone that thinks we can reform the EU from within is delusional. Regardless of whether you like or loathe Cameron and Corbyn, we have the chance to vote them out and influence policy. We have no chance of holding Junker or the other presidents to account. As for the veto, even if we had one, neither Cameron nor Corbyn would ever use it. Both are in favour of an enlarged EU (Cameron said he pave the way from Ankara to Brussels) so Turkey will be allowed in, to be followed shortly after by Kosovo. 

Ah Ha I hear you say, we have a veto on future treaty change. Not so, Cameron gave it away in negotiations to "reform" the EU. I had previously thought that in his much vaunted renegotiations he ask for nothing and got most of it. It now transpires that the effective political cost of getting nothing was huge.

See 
http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... eturn.html

UK Economy
When we were seduced into joining the common market, it was at a time of protectionist trade policies and the access to a free trade area like the EU was attractive. Over the years the global economy has swung more to a low tariff barriers and ironically, the tariffs for some imports are subject to higher because we are in the EU which seeks to erect tariff barriers.

The economic policies of the EU and the imposition of the Euro have ruined the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. While within the EU those economies will never recover because without control of their currency they cannot devalue nor can they manipulate interest rates to stimulate the economy. 

If you want to know what the future holds within the EU have a look at this:-
https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/b ... ort_en.pdf

Page 5 is a real rib tickler
"And finally, towards a Political Union ....... through genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional strengthening. "

Junker talking about "genuine democratic accountability" is a display of unbelievable hypocrisy and Orwellian doublespeak.

Some of you may say that this strategy relates to the Euro zone and that we are not in the Euro, but the Remain vote will be interpreted as a mandate to support the European project. There is no logic to voting to stay in the EU but to remain outside of the Euro as we will get the worst of all worlds, EU constraints, EU army, huge payments to support the project whether we are in the Euro or not, no border control. Cameron and Osbourn are being disingenuous in suggesting that we will be able to insulate the UK from all of this because we won't. 

The prospect of an ever expanding European superstate is not a legacy I would wish to leave to my worst enemy. If Junker and his fellow cronies want this, let them get on with it without us.

Vote leave.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":3ljcika1 said:


> Jake":3ljcika1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":3ljcika1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed ...
> Most of that was after joining the EEC not before. The EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not actually true - Britain's economic progress was amongst the worst in Europe post-war prior to joining, and amongst the best post-joining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??
> 
> 
> They were all after joining. Please learn some history.
Click to expand...


Yes, but we still had better economic growth in the period 1973 to date than in the period 1945-1973. Please learn some history.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I didn't suggest any different - I merely pointed out that what you presented as facts actually were no such thing.


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset":2lexes82 said:


> I've come to the conclusion that Leave supporters typically identify an aspect of EU membership as the problem that will be solved to the exclusion of all other impacts. Often the issues are not even problems - eg: the UK has a veto on Turkey membership, visa free travel does not mean no immigration control, the UK does not have to join the Euro now or in the future. For other it is simply an expression of frustration with a Tory/Cameron government.
> 
> The economic case to stay is overwhelmingly clear. It is supported by pretty much all quality economic commentators and is intuitively rational. Basing a Leave case on the decision not to join the Euro 15 years ago, and the expectation that deals with EU will be readily forthcoming because Germany sells lot of cars in the UK is fatuous. The Euro debate was 15 years ago, and any deal with the EU will depend on the willingness of all states to agree, not just the Germans.
> 
> For some the issue is immigration and stress on services. It is totally within the control of the government to flex spending on NHS and education to fix this - although they seem reluctant to do so (not sure why).
> 
> For some it is the impact on jobs. But they UK has just reported the lowest since 2005 unemployment figures. Without immigration there would simply be vacancies - some in critical sectors. Somewhat arrogantly I suggest that those without jobs in the UK mostly either don't have the right skills (technical and social), are working in the black economy, or are too lazy.
> 
> For some it is the impact on housing. We need more housing to accommodate a rising population and this puts stress on the countryside. No quick fix to this.
> 
> For some it is the impact on wages - but increasing wages of unskilled jobs simply passes the additional cost of living to the rest of us.
> 
> For some it sovereignty. A statement of the blindingly obvious is that if we join a club of 27 we inevitably sacrifice control over some issues - as we do with NATO and WTO. We have not sacrificed ultimate sovereignty or we could not have a meaningful referendum.
> 
> In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed - other EU members aspire to our example.
> 
> I accept that many will be seduced by the Gove and Johnson vision (they don't have a plan). But the world has changed since the sun never set on the empire - we could equally become an unremarkable outpost, stuck in the N.E. Atlantic, our power and influence gradually diminishing as the US, China and the EU bloc dominate financial and world trade affairs.



I do agree that the leave campaigners have often used single issues to justify an exit whilst taking the issue out of context.

Immegration will not be solved easily by remain or exit. The UK economy does need Immigration to help with our employment needs, but it wont be easy to cope with continuing immigration. I dont know the solutions but leaving the EU wont create an easy way to resolve this.

The economic case to stay is not overwhelmingly clear at all. Its easy to be clouded by a better the devil you know approach but many leading economists and businessmen believe UK mid and long term growth will be better out.

There is not a correlation between the UK 1970s economy and joining the EU. The economic situation in the 1970s was due to our union bound uncompetitive industries.

The euro debate may have been some years back, but the euro zone problems are a mounting problem that is going to have severe future impact to the eu.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":28zsufqo said:


> Rhossydd":28zsufqo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inoffthered":28zsufqo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cadbury, Factory move from Bristol to Poland, funded by the EU
> ...
> Texas Instruments Greenock factory relocated to Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> Might be worth considering that these incentives for multinationals to work in Europe won't stop if the UK leaves the EU.
> However there will be no more EU money to assist the same companies to invest in the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me, when was the last major EU funded business set up in the UK?
Click to expand...


Since most of the examples were EIB loans (or fictitious ones) the answer to this will be found here

http://www.eib.org/projects/regions/eur ... /index.htm


----------



## Jake

phil.p":2kuv1vf3 said:


> The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.



Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?

I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.


----------



## Jake

RobinBHM":31jl6e8p said:


> The economic case to stay is not overwhelmingly clear at all. Its easy to be clouded by a better the devil you know approach but many leading economists and businessmen believe UK mid and long term growth will be better out.



Many, many more think the opposite. The economic case for exit is very tenuous at best. The sovereignty and immigration arguments are at least based in some fact (although massively exaggerated by playing on people's fears of German rule, and johnny-foreigner generally, respectively). I think the exit campaign would be a lot more honest if it accepted there would be an economic price, but argued that what they see as the benefits of leaving outweighed it.


----------



## Claymore

I suspect that if they do vote to leave the EU then Osborne and his mates will make sure there will be an economic price to pay to spite the Brexit camp.
The longer the campaign goes on the more ridiculous the Remain camp sound......surely its if not legally wrong to manipulate/intimidate voters if not morally wrong before ANY vote? they accused the SNP of doing it for the Scottish Independence ref.......if they are willing to come up with so many fairy stories they must be only thinking of their own pockets suffering as they normally don't give a toss about the British public afterall in recent years they have been forcing our sick and disabled to work while letting asylum seekers wander around all day on the rob.......suddenly they are concerned about our poor sick/disabled elderly losing their benefits.......its never bothered them in the past.


----------



## BearTricks

There's about a week to go until the vote and the vast majority of the 'opinions' I hear from people here and there are based on absolutely nothing. One woman my girlfriend works with is voting out because "Well, something needs to change" although she has no idea what she is unhappy with in her life, or how leaving the EU could possibly change anything for her. Rather it's a vague disappointment and feeling that things could be better, which I think a lot of people suffer from, and the political and media spin doctors are promoting a life changing life or death choice which is magically going to fix everyone's problems.

I'm not necessarily advocating a default to remain for anyone who hasn't taken the time to review the issues, however I don't feel as if the public has been reasonably informed about what they're voting on. Even in thorough research by members on here, ridiculous statistics and downright falsehoods have slipped through because someone somewhere has published lies and manipulations of facts in order to promote their own agenda. This is true on both sides.

I can guarantee that in the days surrounding the referendum the likes of Osborne will push through some vile budget cuts or changes in legislation. They know that most people will just fixate on the referendum and ignore all the B stories, like when the (illegal) student loan sell off was ushered through behind the smokescreen a few weeks ago.


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":325a3mvs said:


> phil.p":325a3mvs said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?
> 
> I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.
Click to expand...



Guns or something.......well an EU army would be a start.

Veto? What would that be then? Do you mean the veto that Cameron gave away for the promise that the EU may at some indeterminate point in the future definitely maybe consider to change the way it operates?
If the link in an earlier post wasn't enough, how about this one?
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/18811 ... tions.html

Vote to Remain if you want to, but dont do it on the basis that we have any leverage to change things, nor that we can stop the move to complete union and the Euro. 

It is a shame that our prime ministers are so gullible. Blair gave away a chunk of the rebate negotiated by thatcher on the "promise" of a review of the common agricultural policy, and Camoron gave away a veto to get all of the "concessions" in his renegotiations last year. Pathetic.


----------



## RogerS

RobinBHM":1vu205cs said:


> It is certainly true that leaving the eu is a serious concern and not to be ignored. Staying in is also a major concern economically.
> *
> An extract from a blog by Andrew Lillico (Chairman of economists UK):*
> 
> There are two ideas gaining currency in the EU referendum debate that I want to kill off with this post.
> 
> The first is that all serious economists agree that Brexit would be economically harmful to the UK.
> The second is that there is no serious economic analysis that has not concluded that Brexit would leave the UK permanently and materially poorer.
> On the first point, two of the most illustrious economists in Britain are Roger Bootle, Managing Director of Capital Economics, and Gerard Lyons, Economic advisor to the Mayor of London and former Chief Economist of Standard Chartered Bank. Both favour Brexit. Roger Bootle argues that leaving would be neither economically beneficial nor economically harmful. Gerard Lyons argues that after some initial turbulence the UK would grow faster over the medium- to longer-term outside the EU than within.
> 
> Neither Roger nor Gerard can be caricatured as some other-worldly academic ideologue. They are both extremely serious economists whose opinions are sought (at considerable expense) by people across the finance sector across the world. They are by no means the only economists favouring Brexit. I happen to be Chairman of Economists for Britain, affiliated to Vote Leave, including a range of economists from left and right of the political spectrum. There are also various other groups, such as the Economist Friends of Brexit (including Ruth Lea, Warwick Lightfoot, Neil MacKinnon and others)


I'm sorry but sycophantic blogs such as these make me want to run the other way. Using words like 'illustrious'.

Maybe he should have added ' and I thoroughly enjoyed the souffle that Roger's delightful wife Jemima served us up the other day while sipping Pimms on the foredeck of our sloop'.


----------



## RogerS

Jake":5eague0m said:


> phil.p":5eague0m said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed ...
> Most of that was after joining the EEC not before. The EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not actually true - Britain's economic progress was amongst the worst in Europe post-war prior to joining, and amongst the best post-joining.
Click to expand...


But only indirectly as a result of the EU. The reason why it improved was that our industry had to improve their processes etc to survive in the face of increased competitiveness.

That and a certain lady from Finchley - the late Margaret Thatcher, who privatised state-owned companies, took on the unions and deregulated the City of London.


----------



## RogerS

From the FT...

"Some aspects of EU membership have not been so good for the British economy. Today one in 20 UK residents was born in another EU country. But numerous studies have shown that most gains from immigration have fallen to the immigrants themselves. Apart from a net benefit to public finances of importing workers, free movement has not itself obviously increased British people’s prosperity."


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Most of of us curiously enough are not swivel eyed, rabid xenophobes - I just object to a system that allows the indigenous idle to pick and choose what unskilled jobs they don't like the idea of while employers recruit abroad. I neither blame the employer for doing what he thinks best, nor the immigrant for doing likewise - I blame the system we operate that allows it. Incidentally, I spoke to a friend who has over the last few years employed different nationalities for unskilled jobs and asked him if they were better workers. He replied that initially they were until they settled into the system and sorted their child benefits etc. then they discovered back ache and stress the same as everyone else. I do however object to seemingly limitless immigration from the sub continent - and no one can tell me they are all earning £35,000 plus p.a. 
I keep hearing that the Australian system doesn't work as they have more immigration per capita than we do, but this ignores inconvenient facts - for one they want to increase their population, for two they have a third of our population and for three they have 32x more space. My sister an b.i.l emigrated to NZ nearly 30 years ago, and their employers had to jump through hoops to prove to the government that they had exhausted all home grown options - which is as it should be.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jake":3iecdtcf said:


> phil.p":3iecdtcf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?
> 
> I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.
Click to expand...


A common currency, a common army ... sorry, defence force, a central government and a lack of internal borders are the core beliefs of the EU - does it not occur to you that the option to sit on the periphery for ever doesn't exist?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

How to get the required answer.
I asked my daughter (just finished second year Russell group uni, heading for a first) if she thought the current immigration levels were necessary she said of course they are - the economy needs them. I asked her on a different occasion if we should be building a new city the size of Sheffield every year just to house immigrants and said that was quite obviously ridiculous.


----------



## Rhossydd

Inoffthered":3iczwlo2 said:


> It is a shame that our prime ministers are so gullible.


That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible.
They're probably the most well informed and briefed people in the UK. They're the people that have sat on the top tables and know what other leaders around the globe think/want/expect/would like.
Most importantly they are acutely aware of the consequences of their actions. Read their autobiographies and learn how much impact their first meeting with the heads of defence staff when they told of their responsibilities of our nuclear arsenal are brought home to them.
They can't further their own political careers as they've already been at the top.

It's telling that everyone of them is now saying exactly the same thing, remain.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jake":21tjksg0 said:


> RobinBHM":21tjksg0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic case for exit is very tenuous at best. The sovereignty and immigration arguments are at least based in some fact (although massively exaggerated by playing on people's fears of German rule, and johnny-foreigner generally, respectively). I think the exit campaign would be a lot more honest if it accepted there would be an economic price, but argued that what they see as the benefits of leaving outweighed it.
Click to expand...


I did some economics at university. I'm a convinced "Brexiteer" and have spent 20 years or so working hard for us to escape the EU. I have done a great deal of research on the EU in the past and have a bookshelf (well, one shelf!) full of EU-related topics. I believe there IS a strong economic case, but it is trumped by issues of democratic accountability and sovereignty.

Obviously nobody can predict the future - stupid to try in any detail - but certain things are very apparent. If we stay in the EU these things will badly affect our country.

First of all, Cameron got NOTHING from his 'negotiation' other than empty promises. He knows this, as does anyone who understands how the EU operates, whichever side of the issue they come down on.

This is not rhetoric on my part: almost everything he claims to have achieved actually requires either a majority in the Council of Ministers (very, very unlikely for most of it), or treaty change (absolutely impossible - there is complete certainty that this will NOT happen in the near future). Do not take my word for this, nor that of other pro-Brexit commentators. Read what the leaders of continental Europe and the EU have said, for example about treaty change after Lisbon: it ain't gonna happen.

Regarding the Council, things are less clear, it's true. But, simply by calling a referendum, Cameron has infuriated many of his European peers, and REALLY peesed-off the EU top brass (they have made that very clear). There will be consequences. There is ZERO chance that he can go to another IGC and in essence say, "I want you to approve these measures that are solely in Britain's interests." The next time there is an IGC, he is going to get a dressing-down and be hauled back into line, to support the Project.
. . .

Meanwhile, let's consider the existential threats to the EU, IRRESPECTIVE of our vote, and the effect they might or might not have on the UK. 

I regret that I have to refer to and quote Amsterdam, but it's the only treaty I can quickly lay my hands on this morning. You'll have to dig out the relevant clauses in Lisbon yourself (yes it's all been _renumbered yet again_ <sigh>!). 

Note the not-so-small matter that we have been signed-up to all this below since 1997 (nineteen years). It's not as if this stuff is particularly hidden nor dead, just that most of the pro-EU lot don't want to talk about it, or even in some cases admit these clauses exist. That's characteristic of the whole EU Project. Various European and EU leaders have even made mention (in somewhat louche speeches) of the need to conceal the true nature of the Project from the peoples of Europe (ere they reject it). Again don't take my word for it, but Google some speeches of the likes of Schumann, Monnet (at the start) and people as recent as Giscard D'Estaign (who masterminded the EU Const... er, the Lisbon treaty). And the Treaties matter as they are the fundamental law underpinning everything that happens in the EU. Cameron can blather on about what has or has not been agreed, but it matters not a jot if it conflicts with them.

And no, I don't misunderstand these things. In the ninteen years, I have been in correspondence (and face-to-face conversation) with several QCs and barristers and at least two constutional lawyers, (one based in Rome): I've put these points to them, and had confirmed that the way the European Court works is that you DO (and should) leap from Treaty "lily pad" to lily pad as I am doing below. The treaties themselves contain huge numbers of cross references to other sections, for exactly this reason.

1. *The eurozone is collapsing and we ARE on the hook for this*, no matter what Cameron and Osborne say about the matter. Anyway, let's start with the dreaded *Articles 98 & 99:* 

"_Member states shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in *Article 2*,..._" 

and,

"_Member states shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall co-ordinate them within the Council._"

Which raises the awkward bits of Article 2: 

"_... the establishment of economic and monetary union... implementation of a common foreign and security policy... *progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence*... to maintain in full the acquis communautaire... the objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty... _

So what are those objectives? That takes us back to good old Article 1:

"_... the process of creating an ever closer union..._"

That's the bit that all the Remainers deny we need to worry about, but it IS at the very heart of all EU treaties, always had been and always will be.

But what about propping up the Euro? Surely we have exemptions because we're not in the eurozone? 

This causes us to skip daintily over to Title VII ("Economic and Monetary Policy"). First off there are two authorities involved in European financial matters, the ECB (European Central Bank), and the less-well-known ESCB (European System of Central Banks). You'd think the latter simply refers to a co-ordinating council of central banks in Europe, until we read Article 107: "_(2) the ECB shall have legal personality_" and "_(3) The ESCB shall be governed by the decision-making bodies of the ECB..._"

Now the nub of the matter - *Article 119*. I'll skip quoting the whole thing, but basically it's about currency union (the Euro), and what happens when countries get into difficulties with their "balance of payments" (in this case an euphemism for "can't pay their creditors"): 

*119/2:* "_The Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall grant such mutual assistance..._"

That's the Council of Ministers, and the "mutual assistance" means loans or grants. And the QMV (emphasis mine) means we can't get out of it. So on this one, Osborne is simply lying - it's there in the treaties and has been for two decades*.

*2. Migration and immigration*. I won't bang on about this, suffice it to say:

The free movement of people and capital is so fundamental to the EU we can NEVER alter it. Merkel told Cameron this during his humilia- "negotiation", but he ignored her and refused to explain this to the British people (for obvious reasons). 

Read Title 1, Article 2 of Amsterdam and note its language (its tone). Here's just an excerpt:

"_... maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external borders, immigration, asylum and the combating of crime;... _"

Shengen is irrelevant (it simply refers to the area where border checks have been physically removed). We have a treaty obligation to accept EU citizens wishing to live here. So when John Major said last week in a headline-grabbing BBC interview that we would never join Shengen it was as important as saying we'd never make Baseball our national game Major, of course, knew that. [Aside] I am sick and tired of people like him using conjurors' tricks (distraction) to try to convince people of a lie. Major became very wealthy after forcing Maastrict through the Commons, and his masters are calling in his markers.[/]

The point of the quote above is that the EU claims for itself the right to determine border policies for EU countries. It is NOT something we can opt out of. On the way, it also claims our lawmaking, our policing and our defence policy and actual assets. That's one "justification" for the putative EU army.

. . .

The devil is now, and always has been, in the detail. 

If you want those things -- to give up the last vestiges of our self determination to qualified voting in a Council of 29 countries (including Romania, for example), and to accept any and all who wish to settle here as long as they are clutching an EU passport, and to bail out the eurozone even if we don't want to -- and you are comfortable with the direction of travel, e.g. British soldiers wearing EU uniforms (operating here to suppress anti-EU activity?), then there is nothing I can write that would persuade you. The treaties, incidentally, hint at the possibility of conscription too.

The real Federalists have always said openly what they intend. It hasn't been some dirty, obscure secret at all. It HAS been something that British federalist politicians, from Heath and Wilson onwards, have known would be unacceptable to the British people (more so in the 1960s, when the war generations were still around and knew personally what was at stake). They have always tried to downplay it, knowing they'd never succeed if they openly told the truth here.

Read Lord Kilmuir's advice to Heath from 1960. If I am wrong, given what it contains, why did Heath feel the need to lie about it to Parliament and the people a decade later? Kilmuir was writing as a government law officer, so Heath would not have taken his view as some after-dinner note scribbled on a napkin. _Kilmuir told him what he suspected but didn't want to hear, so he simply ignored the inconvenient truth_. 

. . .

It's not a question of the risks of us leaving, but the dangers inherent in us remaining. 

Note how the Remain camp are NOT arguing about the projections for immigration numbers - they cannot. Do you really think we can cope with millions of immigrants in the next decade without fundamental changes to the way the country looks, behaves, and its quality of life? We can't feed them, house them, educate their children (nor teach them English even), provide medical services for them, nor water, nor power and light. Forget any "contribution to the economy" we do not have the resources to accommodate them, yet we are treaty-bound to do so.

I have no idea how the euro will play out, except that it CANNOT succeed. Greece and the rest are killing it right now, as I type. The collapse will be horrible, and we can't stop it, only throw good (borrowed!) money after bad, _if we stay in_.

We have to escape now, while we still can. That's not racism, nor xenophobia, nor anything else but PRACTICAL and ECONOMIC. 

E.

PS: YES this is long, but it just scratches the surface. People who make TL;DR comments are the same type who find their insurance policies don't cover them or the warranty on the new TV doesn't mean a thing -- you have to do due diligence! I'm not going to engage either if someone pickes up on one particular phrase above and calls me out on it. Life is too short.

*Ratified and signed in 1997 but in existence for years prior to that.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":jv85b9le said:


> I asked her on a different occasion if we should be building a new city the size of Sheffield every year just to house immigrants and said that was quite obviously ridiculous.


Which is a silly question to ask.
A growing population obviously needs housing, but that's never done by just building new cities. It's about using the housing we already have most effectively and allowing sensible amounts of new housing to be built.
Increasing population isn't a problem caused just by immigration either.

Maybe you should listen more closely to your daughter, she sounds like she's better educated.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Rhossydd":2pg0mlpo said:


> Inoffthered":2pg0mlpo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that our prime ministers are so gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible.
> They're probably the most well informed and briefed people in the UK. They're the people that have sat on the top tables and know what other leaders around the globe think/want/expect/would like.
> Most importantly they are acutely aware of the consequences of their actions. Read their autobiographies and learn how much impact their first meeting with the heads of defence staff when they told of their responsibilities of our nuclear arsenal are brought home to them.
> They can't further their own political careers as they've already been at the top.
Click to expand...


I agree with everything you said above, until the last sentence.

Blair is the most egregious example - amassing a HUGE fortune starting immediately after leaving office. On the way up, he was a not-well-off public sector lawyer, and to some extent needed sponsorship form Labour grandees.

Major immediately joined some highly-paid and influential boards. Clark's association with British American Tobacco and the Bilderberg group is well known. I could go on, but the point is these people have VESTED INTERESTS in remaining in the Euro, as do most of the corporations they are connected to. The EU is nothing if not corporatist.


> It's telling that everyone of them is now saying exactly the same thing, remain.


Indeed so.

E.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":16olgxgc said:


> Jake":16olgxgc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":16olgxgc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?
> 
> I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A common currency, a common army ... sorry, defence force, a central government and a lack of internal borders are the core beliefs of the EU - does it not occur to you that the option to sit on the periphery for ever doesn't exist?
Click to expand...


Given we have a veto, we have control of whether we participate in any such developments. That means it will take guns. If (which is absurd,and demonstrates the unreality of your venting) guns are employed to enforce this, it doesn't actually matter whether we are in or out at the time the attempt to enforce this upon us is made, it just matters who has more guns, better soldiers, nuclear deterrents etc.


----------



## Dave D

A good friend of mine came up with a great idea. If you don't have the time/inclination to find out all the facts about the EU referendum (I don't blame you) and are possibly unsure which way to vote, perhaps knowing how other notable people are thinking could help out.

Here are a few that strongly believe the UK should remain a member of the EU:

• Governor of the Bank of England
• International Monetary Fund
• Institute for Fiscal Studies
• Confederation of British Industry
• Leaders/heads of state of every single other member of the EU
• President of the United States of America
• Eight former US Treasury Secretaries
• President of China
• Prime Minister of India
• Prime Minister of Canada
• Prime Minister of Australia
• Prime Minister of Japan
• Prime Minister of New Zealand
• The chief executives of most of the top 100 companies in the UK including Marks and Spencer, BT, Asda, Vodafone, Virgin, IBM, BMW etc.
• Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations
• All living former Prime Ministers of the UK (from both parties)
• Virtually all reputable and recognised economists
• The Prime Minister of the UK
• The leader of the Labour Party
• The Leader of the Liberal Democrats
• The Leader of the Green Party
• The Leader of the Scottish National Party
• The leader of Plaid Cymru
• Leader of Sinn Fein
• Martin Lewis, that money saving dude off the telly
• The Secretary General of the TUC
• Unison
• National Union of Students
• National Union of Farmers
• Stephen Hawking
• Chief Executive of the NHS
• 300 of the most prominent international historians
• Director of Europol
• David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
• Former Directors of GCHQ
• Secretary General of Nato
• Church of England
• Church in Scotland
• Church in Wales
• Friends of the Earth
• Greenpeace
• Director General of the World Trade Organisation
• WWF
• World Bank
• OECD

Here are pretty much the only notable people who think we should leave the EU:

• Boris Johnson, who probably doesn’t really care either way, but knows he’ll become Prime Minister if the country votes to leave
• A former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who carried out a brutal regime of cuts to benefits and essential support for the poorest in society as well as the disabled and sick
• The guy who was Education Secretary and every single teacher in the country hated with a furious passion for the damage he was doing to the education system
• Leader of UKIP
• BNP
• Britain First
• Donald Trump
• Keith Chegwin
• David Icke


----------



## Rhossydd

Eric The Viking":1r5luln1 said:


> these people have VESTED INTERESTS in remaining in the Euro, as do most of the corporations they are connected to.


Every one has some sort of 'vested interest' at some level, so that argument doesn't really cut it.

The ex-PMs _main_ vested interest is the continual success of the UK that they've all fought so hard for in office. (Shall we add that regardless of party they were all democratically elected) OK we may not agree with their individual policies and whether they worked well or not, but _together_ their main concern has been the growth and welfare of the UK.
When they ALL say the same thing we should sit up and pay attention.


----------



## Claymore

Blair certainly knew what he was doing and was very well briefed yet still attacked Iraq/Sadam even when they knew he had no WMD same goes for 99% of other illegal wars our so-called leaders have got us into......they should all be locked up for war crimes and fraud.
They are all out for themselves NOT for Britain and the British people who pay their wages.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Rhossydd":198oyvp1 said:


> phil.p":198oyvp1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked her on a different occasion if we should be building a new city the size of Sheffield every year just to house immigrants and said that was quite obviously ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a silly question to ask.
> A growing population obviously needs housing, but that's never done by just building new cities. It's about using the housing we already have most effectively and allowing sensible amounts of new housing to be built.
> Increasing population isn't a problem caused just by immigration either.
> 
> Maybe you should listen more closely to your daughter, she sounds like she's better educated.
Click to expand...


Hmm, playing the ball, or the man?

In WWII we had a population of about 35m. We grew crops on every possible square yard, including in public parks and gardens. Yet, until we defeated the U-boats and restored trade in the Atlantic, the country was slowly starving to death. 

A population of 80m is totally unsustainable because the resources required are simply not available, food being but one aspect of this.

The changes to British life, to the countryside, the infrastructure demands, to our energy needs (and foreign dependency thereof), in short _the accommodation of everything that such a vast increase in population demands_ are huge, and, to my mind quite unacceptable.

You are welcome to disagree as to whether they are acceptable, but the effects of mass immigration continuing at the present rate are factual, not debating points.

What would by your plan for this, as we simply cannot continue as we are. 

Is it one new house every four or every six minutes (I've heard both)? Will you lay them out end-to-end along the motorways or stack them in residential versions of the Shard? Will you openly say that greenbelt policy is "so last century"?

What will you do with all the sewage, literally? Where will you find the teachers, health service workers, jobs (most immigrants want work and are of working age)? How will you police them? Where will the new reservoirs and power stations be built? Where will the roads go?

It's not remotely trivial.

Well?

E.


----------



## Rhossydd

Eric The Viking":zairgsru said:


> In WWII we had a population of about 35m. We grew crops on every possible square yard, including in public parks and gardens. Yet, until we defeated the U-boats and restored trade in the Atlantic........


Move on. It's the twenty first century and we're living in a globalised economy.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Every one has some sort of 'vested interest' at some level, so that argument doesn't really cut it? Who has a vested interest in getting out? I can't think of anyone - quite the opposite in many cases. BoJo could be argued, I suppose.


----------



## Jake

RogerS":1vb1j6oh said:


> From the FT...
> 
> "Some aspects of EU membership have not been so good for the British economy. Today one in 20 UK residents was born in another EU country. But numerous studies have shown that most gains from immigration have fallen to the immigrants themselves. Apart from a net benefit to public finances of importing workers, free movement has not itself obviously increased British people’s prosperity."



Is that a balanced representation of the FT position Roger?


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":35eny7te said:


> Inoffthered":35eny7te said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that our prime ministers are so gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible.
> They're probably the most well informed and briefed people in the UK. They're the people that have sat on the top tables and know what other leaders around the globe think/want/expect/would like.
> Most importantly they are acutely aware of the consequences of their actions. Read their autobiographies and learn how much impact their first meeting with the heads of defence staff when they told of their responsibilities of our nuclear arsenal are brought home to them.
> They can't further their own political careers as they've already been at the top.
> 
> It's telling that everyone of them is now saying exactly the same thing, remain.
Click to expand...


Now remind me, Rhossydd, what was the name of that chap, wandering off an aeroplane, and waving a piece of paper in the air and shouting 'Peace in our time' ?


----------



## Wuffles

Dave D":h2xm3rvd said:


> A good friend of mine came up with a great idea. If you don't have the time/inclination to find out all the facts about the EU referendum (I don't blame you) and are possibly unsure which way to vote, perhaps knowing how other notable people are thinking could help out...



Please excuse nobody responding to this, but it's been posted before in this thread, and a million or more times on Facebook, where it originated.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rhossydd":3n9027av said:


> phil.p":3n9027av said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked her on a different occasion if we should be building a new city the size of Sheffield every year just to house immigrants and said that was quite obviously ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a silly question to ask.
> A growing population obviously needs housing, but that's never done by just building new cities. It's about using the housing we already have most effectively and allowing sensible amounts of new housing to be built.
> Increasing population isn't a problem caused just by immigration either.
> 
> Maybe you should listen more closely to your daughter, she sounds like she's better educated.
Click to expand...


It's not at all silly - that is the amount of housing needed to house immigrants and the children of immigrants - of course no one is going to build a new city - but it's a city over a wider area.
My point was that it is very easy to elicit the answer that suits your purposes. Do you think it's good for the Country to see 300,000 educated, fairly wealthy people (they are, because the Countries they go to won't accept them otherwise) emigrate and for nearly two thirds of million to come here EVERY YEAR?
The British birthrate is at its lowest ever - where's the population increase coming from if not immigration? Outer space?


----------



## Eric The Viking

Rhossydd":i3sxtq3r said:


> Eric The Viking":i3sxtq3r said:
> 
> 
> 
> In WWII we had a population of about 35m. We grew crops on every possible square yard, including in public parks and gardens. Yet, until we defeated the U-boats and restored trade in the Atlantic........
> 
> 
> 
> Move on. It's the twenty first century and we're living in a globalised economy.
Click to expand...

SERIOUSLY?

That's your plan? I'm not sure you even understood my point!

We do not have the resources to cope with current immigrants i.e. those who are ALREADY here, never mind the RATE of immigration that is rapidly increasing. 

We do not have the public services to cope RIGHT NOW, particularly in education and healthcare. Ask anyone who works in them.

We do not have sufficient housing, we cannot generate enough electricity, and actually we do not have sufficient jobs for them either.

How about doing a straight swap with other EU countries:"you can send us one of your unemployed, BUT you have to take one of ours in exchange."

That would work, at a numerical level, but I can see "issues" :roll: 

E.

PS: Seriously, *there is no plan*, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":33p8s41t said:


> Now remind me, Rhossydd, what was the name of that chap, wandering off an aeroplane, and waving a piece of paper in the air and shouting 'Peace in our time' ?


Long dead. We're talking about NOW.


----------



## Rhossydd

Eric The Viking":759ksvaa said:


> PS: Seriously, *there is no plan*, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.


Which is the exact problem with the leave campaign.
No plan and an arrogant assumption that they will become a new government.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jake et al - yes, we have a veto. How long do you think this will last? It's nigh impossible for them to run 28 Countries without vetos let alone with them. Everything of any importance (to them) will be passed on QMV.


----------



## BearTricks

Rhossydd":39xjq3w8 said:


> Eric The Viking":39xjq3w8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Seriously, *there is no plan*, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the exact problem with the leave campaign.
> No plan and an arrogant assumption that they will become a new government.
Click to expand...


Not to mention an arrogant assumption that the UK can survive and compete on its own.


----------



## DiscoStu

I think the leave campaign cannot have a plan as they will not be the government as they are made up of a mixture of parties etc. It will also take a long time to exit from Europe as its a complex process and will require negotiations. Does the remain campaign have a plan for what happens if we remain? No, no more of a plan that the leave campaign does for some of same reasons and if we do remain our position in Europe will be weakened. Look at the scenario:

The Conservatives we worried about the UKIP vote at the last election so to combat the they said they would provide a vote on Europe. So Europe knows that the UK isn't overly happy with Europe. 

They get into power and are concerned the public will vote out so they try to renegotiate with Europe. Europe knows we now have a referendum coming but they refuse to improve our deal (which is their right) and we fail to secure anything. 

We now go to vote and vote to stay in despite the EU telling us to "jog on" in previous renegotiations. Do we really think that they are then suddenly going to allow us to control our borders? I think it's far more likely that they will press on with greater rule from Brussels and a European army etc. 

And what is the remains plan for that?

There is no detailed plan for either scenario as neither really knows what will happen and it's impossible to have a plan as the will come down to the government and that is currently split on the issue. I'm sure that once a vote has been decided that there will be some shuffling and then a plan will begin. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":1sukf6go said:


> Who has a vested interest in getting out? I can't think of anyone - quite the opposite in many cases.


There are probably about half a million people who will benefit from leaving. The fishing magnates, the right wing politicians who crave power, lots of legal folk that will have a full workload dealing with replacement legislation, some of the media moguls that want exclusive UK power* and a few of the business minnows that can take advantage of the chaos.


*quote in the Anthony Hilton column for the Evening Standard:
"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'
and people trust The Sun ? remember Hillsborough.

Phil.p
Please learn to use the quote system properly. At 8.5k+ posts you really should be able to use it effectively by now. It makes it far easier for everyone to follow a discussion here if it's clear where quotes start and finish.


----------



## Rhossydd

DiscoStu":10h6qu3y said:


> Does the remain campaign have a plan for what happens if we remain?


It doesn't need a plan, because it will be business as usual. Just with a few minor improvements Cameron secured. Hopefully a remain decision will also focus people's mind on who they elect as MEPs in future. Then the UK will be better represented rather than the non-attendance and participation of UKIP members (which is a scandal in itself regardless, being paid by us and refusing to work).


----------



## Phil Pascoe

If I choose to I will. So very few in the greater scheme of things compared to all the people who have a vote who think their jobs are threatened and who've been bought by the EU?
Cameron hasn't actually secured anything at all.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":1rj9r2um said:


> RogerS":1rj9r2um said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now remind me, Rhossydd, what was the name of that chap, wandering off an aeroplane, and waving a piece of paper in the air and shouting 'Peace in our time' ?
> 
> 
> 
> Long dead. We're talking about NOW.
Click to expand...


You weren't. This is what you wrote "That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible."

Clearly your statement is wrong.

So which other ones are also wrong ?


----------



## RogerS

BearTricks":36a2kl0m said:


> Rhossydd":36a2kl0m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric The Viking":36a2kl0m said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Seriously, *there is no plan*, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the exact problem with the leave campaign.
> No plan and an arrogant assumption that they will become a new government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention an arrogant assumption that the UK can survive and compete on its own.
Click to expand...


On what basis do you make that statement ? Are we suddenly going to stop trading? Importing? Running financial services ? I don't think so.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":203blvdx said:


> phil.p":203blvdx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has a vested interest in getting out? I can't think of anyone - quite the opposite in many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Phil.p
> Please learn to use the quote system properly. At 8.5k+ posts you really should be able to use it effectively by now. It makes it far easier for everyone to follow a discussion here if it's clear where quotes start and finish.
Click to expand...


Don't be so patronising.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Rhossydd":2derdo4l said:


> Eric The Viking":2derdo4l said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Seriously, *there is no plan*, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the exact problem with the leave campaign.
> No plan and an arrogant assumption that they will become a new government.
Click to expand...

Thus you gloss over a real, measureable, and SERIOUS problem with staying in.

The Remain camp needs a plan because it won't be 'business as usual' at all. 


Our public services are close to meltdown in the inner-cities right now, and this can only get worse. 
That is in large part caused by immigration, and this can only get worse. 
We have borrowed to bailout banks and finance the eurozone, and this can only get worse.
So, amongst other things, we cannot finance, let alone actually find, the teachers and healthcare professionals we need, and guess what? It takes at least seven years to train a doctor, and four or five years to train a teacher. They don't grow on trees, and right now (not in three years's time) there is a large shortfall. So this can only get worse.

I'm not ducking the issue of a Brexit plan, at all, but you're not answering the points, are you?

One more time: What is the plan to cope with the collapse of the euro and mass immigration attending?

You want the Project - what is the plan to cope with the unintended consequences?

E.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

To address the question of not having a plan if we leave.

We don't need one.

Everything the UK needs to function as a nation is in place, and has been for in some cases many centuries, so it's tried and tested. We have a functioning, democratic system of government, we have a system of Law and a judiciary to apply it, we have armed services loyal to Queen and country, we have a diverse economy, we have systems of local government, we have a long history of trading.

Why on earth do we need A Plan? We just carry on - there will be some changes to the personnel of government (maybe even a general election in due course), and we'll have to gradually sift through a lot of EU legislation currently on the statute book to see what we can reasonably keep and what we can repeal (European Arrest Warrant, for example - incompatible with habeas corpus, so it should go), and some government Ministers will have to make their own decisions instead of just doing what they're told by Brussels (Agriculture and Energy, for example). Trade? We just do what we've always done, and go and trade - the normal business of government includes the negotiation of free trade deals, so that activity might intensify for a while, but in the meantime - we just trade.

Economically - nobody knows what will happen. If the Euro collapses (which looks likely) the effects on the world's economy will probably not be positive, for a while. But it will recover in due course - and we'd be less damaged away from it than tied to it through EU membership. History suggests that the most stable, peaceful and prosperous countries are those with fully-functioning democracies; those with more 'managed' economies under less democratic governments have rarely, if ever, done well.

Freedom matters. Freedom can only really exist where there is democratic government. Democracy is one of the cornerstones of freedom. The EU doesn't currently 'get' this - though many European people do - and it needs to if it is to survive. 

If for no other reason than to drop a whacking great hint to the EU that democracy matters - vote Leave.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":2j7t4p9p said:


> Jake et al - yes, we have a veto. How long do you think this will last? It's nigh impossible for them to run 28 Countries without vetos let alone with them. Everything of any importance (to them) will be passed on QMV.



So who has a veto as to whether there is more QMV? We do. Circular argument, the rabidly paranoid guns one was better.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jake":22rmtipy said:


> phil.p":22rmtipy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake et al - yes, we have a veto. How long do you think this will last? It's nigh impossible for them to run 28 Countries without vetos let alone with them. Everything of any importance (to them) will be passed on QMV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who has a veto as to whether there is more QMV? We do. Circular argument, the rabidly paranoid guns one was better.
Click to expand...


Sorry. I bet you wish that was true. Heck, if it was I'd be more in favour of the EU.

But you evidently havn't read any of the treaties, and, I note, chosen not to reply to me providing chapter + verse on why we're committed right now to propping up the Euro and open borders (and the commitment in AMSTERDAM, 20 years ago, to what will become an European army).

The EU army is only a surprise because our politicians haven't talked about it (and journalists can be very lazy). To those who've made the effort, only the timing is surprising - rather hubristic, don't you think?

Anyway, I await your rebuttal, but I won't be holding my breath.

E.


----------



## Jake

RogerS":3go4zulr said:


> Are we suddenly going to stop trading? Importing? Running financial services ? I don't think so.



You know as well as I do that Frankfurt and Paris are licking their lips.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":2u3hh4ey said:


> RogerS":2u3hh4ey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we suddenly going to stop trading? Importing? Running financial services ? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do that Frankfurt and Paris are licking their lips.
Click to expand...


They can lick their lips as much as they like - they don't control world trade. If there's an international currency, it's the US dollar, not the Euro. There's a reason why London (and Edinburgh) are world-respected centres of finance and trade, and that's the back-up of UK Law - fair dealing in the event of dispute.

That doesn't make London (or Edinburgh) nailed-on certainties to control world trade, but it does give them very considerable trading advantages.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":2cafe8r2 said:


> Jake":2cafe8r2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":2cafe8r2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we suddenly going to stop trading? Importing? Running financial services ? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do that Frankfurt and Paris are licking their lips.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can lick their lips as much as they like - they don't control world trade. If there's an international currency, it's the US dollar, not the Euro. There's a reason why London (and Edinburgh) are world-respected centres of finance and trade, and that's the back-up of UK Law - fair dealing in the event of dispute.
> 
> That doesn't make London (or Edinburgh) nailed-on certainties to control world trade, but it does give them very considerable trading advantages.
Click to expand...


English law is a big advantage, but you can incorporate that wherever you trade from, and the likes of Singapore and Dubai are trying to establish themselves as serious rivals for venue (as well as NY). 

EUR/USD is the biggest forex market and London will be shut out of it the instant we leave. We run EUR fx at the moment under (understandable) protest from the ECB, and only thanks to our current weight in European decision making. Europe can be expected to use its hold on the depositary/custodian chain to disadvantage London too if we were out.

London will not of course die, but its influence will be diminished and anything which weakens its hold on commerce will be seized upon by rivals inside and outside Europe.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Brexit will not insulate the UK from Euro failure, nor will Brexit insulate the UK from EU failure which may well be the outcome of a Euro failure.

Leaving simply makes failure more likely. Treaty obligations will continue for the 2 year notice period. Even after this, failure of the EU will decimate exports (44% of UK export business), and failure of the Euro will likely prompt a world financial crisis with UK banks intimately involved.

It is worth noting that separation of retail from casino/investment banks has yet to happen in the UK (not clear why it has taken so long as the problem was crystallised in 2008/09) so the consumer will not be safe from banking collapse.


----------



## Jake

Eric The Viking":2h5mfa0m said:


> Jake":2h5mfa0m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":2h5mfa0m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake et al - yes, we have a veto. How long do you think this will last? It's nigh impossible for them to run 28 Countries without vetos let alone with them. Everything of any importance (to them) will be passed on QMV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who has a veto as to whether there is more QMV? We do. Circular argument, the rabidly paranoid guns one was better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry. I bet you wish that was true. Heck, if it was I'd be more in favour of the EU.
Click to expand...


Glad to hear that. I hope to see your change of heart reflected in future posts. That is, if your opinions are based on facts and evidence at all, as opposed to ideology.

We do have a veto as to what QMV applies to, don't be ridiculous. Changing that requires treaty change, as did the recent extension to QMV. By definition, unanimity is required for a treaty change as states cannot be compelled to sign a new treaty.



> But you evidently havn't read any of the treaties, and, I note, chosen not to reply to me providing chapter + verse on why we're committed right now to propping up the Euro and open borders (and the commitment in AMSTERDAM, 20 years ago, to what will become an European army



As to your earlier post, it was full of tenuous arguments based on an outdated treaty. I have better things to do than engage with that sort of ill-informed windy ranting.

TFEU A.2:



> CATEGORIES AND AREAS OF UNION COMPETENCE
> 
> Article 2
> 
> ...
> 
> 4. The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.



The EDA is not competent to deal with anything other than extra-EU affairs - read the protocol. Membership of the EDA is optional, so we can leave (but we haven't, in order to be able to obstruct its development). And defence is not something which can be decided under QMV so we have a veto.


----------



## Jake

Eric The Viking":1o6jiuss said:


> This causes us to skip daintily over to Title VII ("Economic and Monetary Policy"). First off there are two authorities involved in European financial matters, the ECB (European Central Bank), and the less-well-known ESCB (European System of Central Banks). You'd think the latter simply refers to a co-ordinating council of central banks in Europe, until we read Article 107: "_(2) the ECB shall have legal personality_" and "_(3) The ESCB shall be governed by the decision-making bodies of the ECB..._"



The ESCB is the group of national central banks of the countries belonging to the Euro. In the nature of currency, they have to be under the control of the ECB as the monetary authority.



> Now the nub of the matter - *Article 119*. I'll skip quoting the whole thing, but basically it's about currency union (the Euro), and what happens when countries get into difficulties with their "balance of payments" (in this case an euphemism for "can't pay their creditors"):
> 
> *119/2:* "_The Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall grant such mutual assistance..._"



The relevant provisions shouldn't be skipped over. Let's start here:



Article 139 TEU":1o6jiuss said:


> 1. *Member States in respect of which the Council has not decided that they fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘Member States with a derogation’.*
> 
> 2. The following provisions of the Treaties shall not apply to Member States with a derogation:
> 
> (a) adoption of the parts of the broad economic policy guidelines which concern the euro area generally (Article 121(2));
> (b) coercive means of remedying excessive deficits (Article 126(9) and (11));
> (c) the objectives and tasks of the ESCB (Article 127(1) to (3) and (5));
> (d) issue of the euro (Article 128);
> (e) acts of the European Central Bank (Article 132);
> (f) measures governing the use of the euro (Article 133);
> (g) monetary agreements and other measures relating to exchange-rate policy (Article 219);
> (h) appointment of members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (Article 283(2));
> (i) decisions establishing common positions on issues of particular relevance for economic and monetary union within the competent international financial institutions and conferences (Article 138(1));
> (j) measures to ensure unified representation within the international financial institutions and conferences (Article 138(2)).
> 
> In the Articles referred to in points (a) to (j), ‘Member States’ shall therefore mean Member States whose currency is the euro.
> 
> 3. Under Chapter IX of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB, * Member States with a derogation and their national central banks are excluded from rights and obligations within the ESCB.*
> 
> 4. The voting rights of members of the Council representing Member States with a derogation shall be suspended for the adoption by the Council of the measures referred to in the Articles listed in paragraph 2, and in the following instances:
> 
> (a) recommendations made to those Member States whose currency is the euro in the framework of multilateral surveillance, including on stability programmes and warnings (Article 121(4));
> 
> (b) measures relating to excessive deficits concerning those Member States whose currency is the euro (Article 126(6), (7), (8), (12) and (13)).
> 
> A qualified majority of the other members of the Council shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(a).



We are (obviously) a member state with a derogation. The members of the Euro-system are by definition not member states with a derogation.

So then we turn to your dreaded A119, now A143.



Article 143 TEU (ex Article 119 TEC)":1o6jiuss said:


> 1. *Where a Member State with a derogation* is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments either as a result of an overall disequilibrium in its balance of payments, or as a result of the type of currency at its disposal, and where such difficulties are liable in particular to jeopardise the functioning of the internal market or the implementation of the common commercial policy, the Commission shall immediately investigate *the position of the State in question and the action which, making use of all the means at its disposal, that State has taken or may take in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties*. The Commission shall state what measures it recommends the State concerned to take.
> 
> *If the action taken by a Member State with a derogation and the measures suggested by the Commission do not prove sufficient to overcome the difficulties which have arisen or which threaten*, the Commission shall, after consulting the Economic and Financial Committee, recommend to the Council the granting of mutual assistance and appropriate methods therefor.
> 
> The Commission shall keep the Council regularly informed of the situation and of how it is developing.
> 
> 2. The Council shall grant such mutual assistance; it shall adopt directives or decisions laying down the conditions and details of such assistance, which may take such forms as:
> 
> (a) a concerted approach to or within any other international organisations to which Member States with a derogation may have recourse;
> (b) measures needed to avoid deflection of trade where the Member State with a derogation which is in difficulties maintains or reintroduces quantitative restrictions against third countries;
> (c) the granting of limited credits by other Member States, subject to their agreement.
> 
> 3. If the mutual assistance recommended by the Commission is not granted by the Council or if the mutual assistance granted and the measures taken are insufficient, the Commission shall authorise the Member State with a derogation which is in difficulties to take protective measures, the conditions and details of which the Commission shall determine.
> 
> Such authorisation may be revoked and such conditions and details may be changed by the Council.



So plainly, this article can only be used to assist countries not within the Euro.



Eric the Vikling":1o6jiuss said:


> Council of Ministers, and the "mutual assistance" means loans or grants. And the QMV (emphasis mine) means we can't get out of it. So on this one, Osborne is simply lying - it's there in the treaties and has been for two decades*.



Much as I despise Osborne and agree he is in general a loathsome creature, on this occasion I think you owe him an apology for this specific accusation of untruthfulness, being as it has no basis in how the TEU/TFEU is actually framed. 

Given how wrong you are on that one, I decline to waste any more time on your so-called analysis of the treaty provisions. That's even ignoring your elision between assistance for balance of payments issues and assistance with public finances, which is not a mistake anyone with any real understanding of economics could honestly make.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

One of the problems with examining the minutiae of EU treaties is that the EU top brass has demonstrated that it is prepared to ignore their provisions if it is politically expedient to do so. I gather from the broadsheet press that the bail-out of Greece (or more accurately the banks loaning money to Greece) was illegal under EU law, but it happened anyway. I'm not sure whether the imposition of an unelected 'technocratic' government on a member state is legal either, but it happened to Italy.

The problem from the ordinary man-in-the-street's point of view is that all these treaties leave us in a position of 'heads they win, tails we lose'. The EU will bring down the full force of the law on any member state that contravenes a treaty provision, but itself cheerfully ignores treaties if it feels the political need to do so. 

That's not something I want the UK shackled to. Vote Leave.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Precisely.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":16ug981r said:


> One of the problems with examining the minutiae of EU treaties is that the EU top brass has demonstrated that it is prepared to ignore their provisions if it is politically expedient to do so. I gather from the broadsheet press that the bail-out of Greece (or more accurately the banks loaning money to Greece) was illegal under EU law, but it happened anyway.



This is a bit vague to deal with, but I assume you mean the challenges which have been made by German citizens against the OMT and ESM. The former has been ruled legal under EU law by the ECJ. The latter was dismissed by the German Constitutional Court. So neither of those support this thesis (the ECJ and German Constitutional Court being somewhat more authoritative on the subject of legality or not than some unnamed broadsheet article).



> I'm not sure whether the imposition of an unelected 'technocratic' government on a member state is legal either, but it happened to Italy.



Monti is a EU bureaucrat through and through, but he was appointed by the Italian president, and his government was voted into power by the Italian parliaments.



> The problem from the ordinary man-in-the-street's point of view is that all these treaties leave us in a position of 'heads they win, tails we lose'. The EU will bring down the full force of the law on any member state that contravenes a treaty provision, but itself cheerfully ignores treaties if it feels the political need to do so.



My problem with the EU is that they are vampires who eat children and old people, and have literal tentacles which suck the life force out of the EU population with the secret intention of turning the Matrix into reality. But in the real world, those are probably not very credible concerns so should not be given much weight in a vote of this importance. Sadly they might well be on the current state of discourse.


----------



## paulm

Jake":14ak9c8u said:


> Cheshirechappie":14ak9c8u said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems with examining the minutiae of EU treaties is that the EU top brass has demonstrated that it is prepared to ignore their provisions if it is politically expedient to do so. I gather from the broadsheet press that the bail-out of Greece (or more accurately the banks loaning money to Greece) was illegal under EU law, but it happened anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit vague to deal with, but I assume you mean the challenges which have been made by German citizens against the OMT and ESM. The former has been ruled legal under EU law by the ECJ. The latter was dismissed by the German Constitutional Court. So neither of those support this thesis (the ECJ and German Constitutional Court being somewhat more authoritative on the subject of legality or not than some unnamed broadsheet article).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure whether the imposition of an unelected 'technocratic' government on a member state is legal either, but it happened to Italy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monti is a EU bureaucrat through and through, but he was appointed by the Italian president, and his government was voted into power by the Italian parliaments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem from the ordinary man-in-the-street's point of view is that all these treaties leave us in a position of 'heads they win, tails we lose'. The EU will bring down the full force of the law on any member state that contravenes a treaty provision, but itself cheerfully ignores treaties if it feels the political need to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem with the EU is that they are vampires who eat children and old people, and have literal tentacles which suck the life force out of the EU population with the secret intention of turning the Matrix into reality. But in the real world, those are probably not very credible concerns so should not be given much weight in a vote of this importance. Sadly they might well be on the current state of discourse.
Click to expand...


Regardless of what side of the argument holds sway with me currently, I hope you intended the above to be tongue in cheek and drily humorous, otherwise I fear that posts like this, and many recent ones by Rhossdy also, may cross a line and come across as being arrogant, supercilious and condescending. 

Or maybe not, I may be an overly sensitive soul :lol: but just thought I would mention how some recent posts and posters are coming across to me, merits or otherwise of any arguments aside.


----------



## Woodmonkey

Eric The Viking":11fy2ozg said:


> [*]So, amongst other things, we cannot finance, let alone actually find, the teachers and healthcare professionals we need, and guess what? It takes at least seven years to train a doctor, and four or five years to train a teacher. They don't grow on trees, and right now (not in three years's time) there is a large shortfall. So this can only get worse.
> 
> E.



Hmmm if only it were easier for teachers or doctors from overseas to come and work here....


----------



## Jake

paulm":1rxju801 said:


> Regardless of what side of the argument holds sway with me currently, I hope you intended the above to be tongue in cheek and drily humorous, otherwise I fear that posts like this, and many recent ones by Rhossdy also, may cross a line and come across as being arrogant, supercilious and condescending.
> 
> Or maybe not, I may be an overly sensitive soul :lol: but just thought I would mention how some recent posts and posters are coming across to me, merits or otherwise of any arguments aside.



You quoted my whole post. The first two answers were intended as serious factual rebuttals. The end bit was obviously thoroughly tongue in cheek, but there is quite a lot of far-fetched stuff flying around so satire is not uncalled for.


----------



## Woodmonkey




----------



## Claymore

.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":39nc6sj6 said:


> Rhossydd":39nc6sj6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":39nc6sj6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now remind me, Rhossydd, what was the name of that chap, wandering off an aeroplane, and waving a piece of paper in the air and shouting 'Peace in our time' ?
> 
> 
> 
> Long dead. We're talking about NOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You weren't. This is what you wrote "That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible."
> Clearly your statement is wrong.
Click to expand...

This thread is about the current debate on the referendum, not sweeping comments on all of history. You know that.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":28zchysp said:


> Rhossydd":28zchysp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":28zchysp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has a vested interest in getting out? I can't think of anyone - quite the opposite in many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> Phil.p
> Please learn to use the quote system properly. At 8.5k+ posts you really should be able to use it effectively by now. It makes it far easier for everyone to follow a discussion here if it's clear where quotes start and finish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be so patronising.
Click to expand...

Asking people (who should know better) to post clearly isn't 'patronising'.


----------



## Rhossydd

I've just read of the tragic murder of Jo Cox. I don't always agree with Polly Toynbee, but her piece about this atrocity makes poignant reading; http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... type=Email

For those that are too blinkered to read anything from the Guardian might contemplate these paragraphs;
"Did we delude ourselves we were a tolerant country – or can we still save our better selves? Over recent years, struggling to identify “Britishness”, to connect with a natural patriotic love of country that citizens have every right to feel, politicians floundering for a British identity reach for the reassuring idea that this cradle of democracy is blessed with some special civility.

But if the vote is out, then out goes that impression of what kind of country we are. Around the world we will be seen as the island that cut itself off as a result of anti-foreigner feeling: that will identify us globally more than any other attribute. Our image, our reality, will change overnight."


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Don't you realise that by equating the desire to leave an unnecessary, expensive corrupt political union with xenophobia it just smacks of desperation? I don't read Toynbee, and tripe like that is why.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Of course if we stay in the EU there'll be no more murders because everyone will be friends.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":2fcr3azl said:


> RogerS":2fcr3azl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhossydd":2fcr3azl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil.p
> Please learn to use the quote system properly. At 8.5k+ posts you really should be able to use it effectively by now. It makes it far easier for everyone to follow a discussion here if it's clear where quotes start and finish.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so patronising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking people (who should know better) to post clearly isn't 'patronising'.
Click to expand...


You clearly do not understand the word 'patronising'.

Perhaps English is not your mother tongue ?

See what I did there ?


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":j6n283mn said:


> Of course if we stay in the EU there'll be no more murders because everyone will be friends.


Perhaps you're unaware that the assailant allegedly shouted "Britain first" before murdering the MP? I suspect that's what the article refers to.



Claymore":j6n283mn said:


> unlike the unwashed spud worrier Geldof


Are you serious?!


----------



## Wuffles

Is The Spectator ok to read Brexiters? This is doing the rounds on social media.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160616183 ... of-infamy/


----------



## DiscoStu

> Hmmm if only it were easier for teachers or doctors from overseas to come and work here....



Do you want a French national teaching your child English?

One of the issues a friend of mine was saying was that his daughter's school has taken on a lot of foreign teachers and the kids can't understand them. That's not a racist comment it's just an unfortunate fact. You can't have teachers who cannot be understood. I know a lot of foreign teachers will have a great grasp of English (probably better than mine) but if they have a strong accent etc. then it's pointless.

I think the same can be true for Doctors. My Dad was ill in hospital a while ago and as well as having dodgy hearing anyway he had a foreign doctor looking after him at one point and he couldn't understand him. Not only can that be frightening for the patient it could lead to some serious issues where the Dr thinks the patient has said something completely different to what he has said. I spoke to the nursing staff and they said that they really struggled to understand him as well. 

I don't just think you can bring in foreign resources and assume that it's job done. Going back to teaching, they will need to learn the national curriculum and the pedagogy. It's not simple. 

That said neither option is simple. Exit will involve a lot of slow unpicking of the interwoven fabric of EU law. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DiscoStu

With regards to the dreadful murder of Jo Cox. 

It's a horrific incident and I am sure that both remain and brexit camps will see it for what it was. A horrific incident carried out by a single deranged individual. 

I would hope that neither side use this for any sort of gain. 

If you believe that this individual that carried out the attack was speaking for any one who is in favour of exit (or even remain as we do t have the facts) then you probably also believe that every Muslim thinks that all westerners should be wiped off the planet. I really hope that people don't try and use this tragic incident as a political point. If they do then they are beyond contempt. 

My thoughts are with her family. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wuffles

DiscoStu":28h5quyp said:


> Do you want a French national teaching your child English?


Yes, I'd be fine with that. Is that the wrong answer? I think for some it will be.



DiscoStu":28h5quyp said:


> [...]he had a foreign doctor looking after him


Reads like the agenda from a 70s meeting at ITV headquarters about up-coming comedies.

Feels like some true c̶o̶l̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ insecurities are shining through on this thread now.


----------



## Wuffles

DiscoStu":24kwvdjv said:


> If you believe that this individual that carried out the attack was speaking for any one who is in favour of exit (or even remain as we do t have the facts) then you probably also believe that every Muslim thinks that all westerners should be wiped off the planet.



That had better not be directed at me.


----------



## Eric The Viking

I think it's probably appropriate to call time on this thread now. I think everything that could be aired probably has been now, and it would perhaps be a mark of respect to move on. 

I can't be the only person on here who was utterly shocked by yesterday's horror. I must have been standing in Axbridge town square when it happened, chatting with another Forum member about childhood, planting orchards and bringing up a young family. For us, it was just a glorious, uncomplicated afternoon. Then I got into the car and turned on the radio, to hear the news.

There are countries, some nearby, whose representatives are chosen, and distant from the 'common' people. Here we do it differently -- since 1832 we always have. Ms. Cox, and those like her, represent the very best in our democracy, and I have no doubt she would want it no other way. 

Anyone on here who has 'done' politics knows how vulnerable our elected representatives become. Yet they still come forward to serve, and the best of them, of which Ms. Cox was evidently one, consider that close connection to the constituency and serving it, are both right at the centre of what they do. Given what she did before entering Parliament, I imagine she would have been proud of her vulnerability too, on the basis that it was also empowerment: simply being so much better than extremism helps to defeat it.

We owe it to her memory to do what she would no doubt wish - to reason, to persuade, to hold fervent opinions, but all the time to respect those with whom we disagree. Democracy has to be plurality _with respect_, or it is merely dressed-up dictatorship.

I have nothing more to say at this point, except that my thoughts and prayers are very much with Ms. Cox's family.


----------



## t8hants

If we remain in the EU we will be shackled to a rotting corpse, if we leave we can and must accelerate its demise, freeing ourselves and others from what is the least democratic European organisation since the fall of the Third Reich. 
Second and third rate countries use it as a method of parasiting off the richer ones, whilst also dumping on them their surplus unemployed population whom they can't employ.
Whilst Greece screams for hand outs, it has one of the biggest armies in Europe equipped largely by the Germans who are ever so keen to ensure that Greece gets the loan, to help keep their own industries going.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Wuffles":18izdcks said:


> DiscoStu":18izdcks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a French national teaching your child English?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd be fine with that. Is that the wrong answer? I think for some it will be.
> 
> 
> 
> DiscoStu":18izdcks said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]he had a foreign doctor looking after him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reads like the agenda from a 70s meeting at ITV headquarters about up-coming comedies.
> 
> Feels like some true c̶o̶l̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ insecurities are shining through on this thread now.
Click to expand...

Like Stu, we have a coloured lady doctor. She is kind, thorough and a brilliant doctor all round - but as the majority of my consultations are over the phone is it remotely racist of me to ask to speak to someone else because ... I can't understand half she says and I feel awkward asking her to repeat every second sentence? If you can see racism in that I feel sorry for you - you must see it all around you 24/7.


----------



## t8hants

At work yesterday two very friendly Poles turned up wanting some brackets made for the garage doors they are employed to fit.
They spoke excellent English and it was a pleasant job to do for them, but our youngsters can't get jobs, and they are not being trained because the blue collar jobs are being filled by migrants, who as individuals are as acceptable as anyone else, but make up an unacceptable mass.


----------



## Jake

t8hants":1ry0mg93 said:


> If we remain in the EU we will be shackled to a rotting corpse, if we leave we can and must accelerate its demise, freeing ourselves and others from what is the least democratic European organisation since the fall of the Third Reich.



Deeply unpleasant rhetoric to choose to deploy any circumstances but especially today.

The fascists in this debate are not in the Remain camp.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Wuffles":126j2hdb said:


> phil.p":126j2hdb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course if we stay in the EU there'll be no more murders because everyone will be friends.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're unaware that the assailant allegedly shouted "Britain first" before murdering the MP? I suspect that's what the article refers to.

Perfectly, thank you. It was an awful murder, and I feel desperately sad for her family - but it was the action of one lunatic, it doesn't make tens of millions of people evil - much as it seems you'd like it to - for wanting to stop unlimited immigration. Sorry.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jake":7832a6ml said:


> t8hants":7832a6ml said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we remain in the EU we will be shackled to a rotting corpse, if we leave we can and must accelerate its demise, freeing ourselves and others from what is the least democratic European organisation since the fall of the Third Reich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deeply unpleasant rhetoric to choose to deploy any circumstances but especially today.
> 
> The fascists in this debate are not in the Remain camp.
Click to expand...

Of course - remain - saintly, leave - evil. Everyone knows that.
(a bad choice of expression this morning, I'll agree)


----------



## Jake

phil.p":1vsnm8do said:


> Jake":1vsnm8do said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t8hants":1vsnm8do said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we remain in the EU we will be shackled to a rotting corpse, if we leave we can and must accelerate its demise, freeing ourselves and others from what is the least democratic European organisation since the fall of the Third Reich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deeply unpleasant rhetoric to choose to deploy any circumstances but especially today.
> 
> The fascists in this debate are not in the Remain camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course - remain - saintly, leave - evil. Everyone knows that.
> (a bad choice of expression this morning, I'll agree)
Click to expand...


How do you get to that from what I said?


----------



## DiscoStu

Wuffles":3869dhhn said:


> DiscoStu":3869dhhn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that this individual that carried out the attack was speaking for any one who is in favour of exit (or even remain as we do t have the facts) then you probably also believe that every Muslim thinks that all westerners should be wiped off the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That had better not be directed at me.
Click to expand...


No 100% not aimed at anyone and I am really sorry if you felt it was. Completely not my intention. I tried to be clear that it could be either view point. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DiscoStu

Wuffles":4e06frhf said:


> DiscoStu":4e06frhf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a French national teaching your child English?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd be fine with that. Is that the wrong answer? I think for some it will be.
> 
> 
> 
> DiscoStu":4e06frhf said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]he had a foreign doctor looking after him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reads like the agenda from a 70s meeting at ITV headquarters about up-coming comedies.
> 
> Feels like some true c̶o̶l̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ insecurities are shining through on this thread now.
Click to expand...



As I have stated previously I have no issue with immigration I think it's a good thing. I don't think "people are coming over here and stealing our jobs" I do however have serious concerns about the net gain that we have with immigration. A city the size of Newcastle each year is a huge population increase that requires schools, and teachers, hospitals and Dr's etc. That is a genuine real world issue its not a trading argument that may or may not be an issue if we exit, it's a issue that is here now. Saying you can just bring more teachers and Dr's in is simplistic in my opinion. And whilst you may mock my point about a foreign Dr looking after my father it was a real problem. It wasn't funny and I didn't laugh when the man is always looked up to and respected was genuinely scarred because he didn't know what was going on. My Dad was just into his 70's when he was in hospital and wasn't senile he had trouble breathing which has got to be pretty frightening and if you can't understand what the Dr is telling you is going to happen etc then it's pretty terrifying. So I'm glad that you think my comments are dated from a 70's comedy but it was no laughing matter. In the same way that I don't find it funny that a friends daughter is struggling to understand some of her teachers in School. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all foreign teachers and Dr's shouldn't be in the UK. I am saying that like any teacher or Dr they should be competent to do their job and that does included being able to communicate with patients and pupils. So suggesting that immigration gain can be handled by bringing in foreign staff seems impractical to me. It also only answers part of the issue of immigration it doesn't answer the issue of where do 250,000 people a year live, where do they go to school, how are their medical needs dealt with etc etc. 


As I said at the start of this post I am all in favour of immigration but it needs to be either balanced or the net gain needs to be at a level where our infrastructure can cope. I don't believe we can cope with the net gain as it stands and as we all know we have no way of controlling that whilst in Europe. We tried to renegotiate on it and failed. 

I'm not actually against European membership but not as it stands. For me to vote remain it would have needed a few key issues addressing and unfortunately Europe didn't want to change its policies and laws to accommodate the UK, so we either need to put up and shut up or walk away. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I see in The Times this morning that a seventy seven year old man had a crack at Jo Cox's murderer - I hope someone local organises some crowd funding or a local multi millionaire sees fit to give him a nice reward. I'd like to think I had the balls to to do it now, let alone at that age.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>


----------



## Rhossydd

DiscoStu":3kvafozb said:


> I'm not actually against European membership but not as it stands. For me to vote remain it would have needed a few key issues addressing and unfortunately Europe didn't want to change its policies and laws to accommodate the UK, so we either need to put up and shut up or walk away


There's the other option of staying in and continuing to press for better policies to control unwanted migration and it's consequences. Most other European countries are waking up to the issues of unwanted population movement and it's likely that sooner, rather than later, the issue will become so pressing it will be addressed and the wide eyed idealism of freedom of movement will be tempered with some widely acceptable compromises.

The malicious xenophobia being whipped up by some sections of the leave campaign is unhelpful and, frankly, unBritish.

Leaving is a dangerous one way ticket. We'd never be able to return to the EU on such favourable terms. At least if common sense prevails we will still retain our options in future.


----------



## Inoffthered

Rhossydd":3jce890h said:


> DiscoStu":3jce890h said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Leaving is a dangerous one way ticket. We'd never be able to return to the EU on such favourable terms. At least if common sense prevails we will still retain our options in future.
Click to expand...


If the politicians had been honest about the true consequences of joining the common market, there would never have been a yes vote in the first place.
But you pose an interesting point, if we were outside the EU and were offered membership on condition we opened our fishing areas, allowed unlimited migration, lost sovereignty to unelected presidents, got tied in to a protectionist economic bloc and have to pay for the privilege , would you actually want to join?

Anyone saying yes is the real "little englander" and is selling this country short (or has their snout in the EU trough)


----------



## RogerS

Wuffles":hgwlac2y said:


> DiscoStu":hgwlac2y said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a French national teaching your child English?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd be fine with that. Is that the wrong answer? I think for some it will be.
> 
> 
> 
> DiscoStu":hgwlac2y said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]he had a foreign doctor looking after him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reads like the agenda from a 70s meeting at ITV headquarters about up-coming comedies.
> 
> Feels like some true c̶o̶l̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ insecurities are shining through on this thread now.
Click to expand...


Oh please, stick that PC prejudice firmly back in its box. DiscoStu has made a very good point regarding teachers and/or doctors having a very strong accent that makes them unintelligible and in the case of clinical staff, potentially health threatening. It happens. His comment is valid. Get over it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rhossydd":3uasks32 said:


> DiscoStu":3uasks32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not actually against European membership but not as it stands. For me to vote remain it would have needed a few key issues addressing and unfortunately Europe didn't want to change its policies and laws to accommodate the UK, so we either need to put up and shut up or walk away
> 
> 
> 
> There's the other option of staying in and continuing to press for better policies to control unwanted migration and it's consequences. Most other European countries are waking up to the issues of unwanted population movement and it's likely that sooner, rather than later, the issue will become so pressing it will be addressed and the wide eyed idealism of freedom of movement will be tempered with some widely acceptable compromises.
> 
> The malicious xenophobia being whipped up by some sections of the leave campaign is unhelpful and, frankly, unBritish.
> 
> Leaving is a dangerous one way ticket. We'd never be able to return to the EU on such favourable terms. At least if common sense prevails we will still retain our options in future.
Click to expand...


I think there is quite an element of xenophobia in some parts of the leave campaign, particularly this old argument that foreigners are taking our jobs or undercutting wages. 

but I would say that Staying is a dangerous one way ticket. I like Europe and want the UK to be part of Europe, which it always will be. That does not mean we have to within a restrictive union. Trying to get 28 or so countries to agree on common policies is very difficult. Trying to get different countries with different economies to have a common currency is lunacy and has always been flawed. The EU needs huge reform, I wish we could stay in and be part of that reform but we have never had influence, so to me the future of that route seems impossible. We are, I believe between a rock and hard place! (and the current campaigners on both sides havent helped by not starting with a truthful agenda, its all been typical electioneering).


----------



## Rhossydd

Inoffthered":3o602a89 said:


> But you pose an interesting point, if we were outside the EU and were offered membership on condition we opened our fishing areas, allowed unlimited migration, lost sovereignty to unelected presidents, got tied in to a protectionist economic bloc and have to pay for the privilege , would you actually want to join?


That's not the question though and just cherry picking the things that are less favourable doesn't help provide any clarity.

The other side could be;
Would you want to join the EU if it gave you rights to fish through other country's waters, allowed you a great supply of cheap skilled labour to boost your economy, your citizens given rights to work anywhere else in Europe that offers good opportunities, access other people's cheap eduction systems that are provided in your native language, have a court that could provide a level of human rights and protections our own government won't offer and get economic benefits that far outstrip the membership fee, plus you still get to keep your own currency and have get a better deal than any other member ?
Why wouldn't you ?


----------



## Rhossydd

RobinBHM":ib08ko7d said:


> I would say that Staying is a dangerous one way ticket.


It absolutely isn't.
If it became _overwhelming_ clear that we'd be better off outside of the union at some future time, we would be able to leave just as we can now. At that point there should be some sort of credible plan as to how to exit and what the advantages would definitely be, not just a 'might be if we're lucky'. If the decision was that clear cut it would also be far more widely supported and less contentious.


----------



## Jake

RobinBHM":ax3y4fnm said:


> The EU needs huge reform, I wish we could stay in and be part of that reform but we have never had influence, so to me the future of that route seems impossible.



That is so untrue though. Sure, we can't demand anything is done exactly our way every time, but the current EU has been radically shaped by British policy, from its free trade bias (which is not a French ideal, the Germans and Eastern Europeans are our allies there), to the sheer size of it - the huge expansion eastwards was driven by Britain in the Thatcher years, the frustration of Franco-German (Belgian) etc federalist dreams, the existence of opt outs and special status on a whole host of issues, could go on and on.


----------



## RogerM

Interesting blog on what happens following a Brexit win here


----------



## stuartpaul

RogerM":2qsgmtgx said:


> Interesting blog on what happens following a Brexit win here


Roger,

Funny, entertaining and a bit scary all at the same time!


----------



## RobinBHM

Rhossydd":1r6isp92 said:


> RobinBHM":1r6isp92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that Staying is a dangerous one way ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely isn't.
> If it became _overwhelming_ clear that we'd be better off outside of the union at some future time, we would be able to leave just as we can now. At that point there should be some sort of credible plan as to how to exit and what the advantages would definitely be, not just a 'might be if we're lucky'. If the decision was that clear cut it would also be far more widely supported and less contentious.
Click to expand...


Given that the current polls indicate an almost 50-50 split on voting I would suggest leaving as as widely supported as staying.


----------



## thetyreman

it's very worrying that we may leave the EU to me, the propaganda is working


----------



## Phil Pascoe

it's very worrying that we may stay in the EU to me, the propaganda is working


----------



## RogerM

Let's assume (say) that there is a turnout of 70%, which would be high for a national poll, and the split is pro Brexit 52% to 48%. The result is not binding on the government, so it could be argued that only 36% of those eligible to vote actually voted to come out. It could further be argued that those who didn't vote were "don't knows" and that there is NOT a mandate to leave. Put to a free vote in Parliament, I suspect the "remain" vote to carry the day.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

One thing that can be guaranteed is that the government have explored any conceivable get out. It'll be interesting to see what the outcome is - I can't remember when (with the exception of No.1 child) I last spoke to anyone who wanted in.


----------



## Grahamshed

We have been in the EU ( in whatever its form was at the time ) for 40 odd years. We are responsible for what the EU is as much as any other of the 28 

People now talk of the EU being in meltdown and us getting out before it is to late.

Does no-one else feel this is a bit like us being the Rats deserting the sinking ship ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

No, it makes perfect sense to desert a sinking ship. Anyway, for many months pro EU people have been telling us we are doomed to be an insignificant, irrelevant, poverty stricken little grey island somewhere off the periphery of the ever mighty, benevolent and bountiful EU and now they're saying we will be responsible for its demise and even the start of WW3.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":3dkbv21t said:


> One thing that can be guaranteed is that the government have explored any conceivable get out.


Quite right too. The democratically elected government and the majority of MPs want the UK to remain in the EU.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

RogerM":lfq15ebg said:


> Let's assume (say) that there is a turnout of 70%, which would be high for a national poll, and the split is pro Brexit 52% to 48%. The result is not binding on the government, so it could be argued that only 36% of those eligible to vote actually voted to come out. It could further be argued that those who didn't vote were "don't knows" and that there is NOT a mandate to leave. Put to a free vote in Parliament, I suspect the "remain" vote to carry the day.



We should treat people who don't vote, whether in this referendum or any election no matter how small as invisible nonentities. They can vote in person, by post or by proxy - there is no excuse for not voting.


----------



## MusicMan

I am firmly and passionately IN. I voted IN in the 70s and have never regretted it. Of course things can be improved in the EU, but the benefits seem to me immense - economic strength, single market, political negotiating strength, ability to work anywhere in the EU, negotiating strength towards global corporations (I'm sure the EU will sort out tax havens and corporations evading tax by spurious registrations better than UK alone), protection of workers rights that are under great threat from the Brexit side, medical treatment across the EU, and many others. Above all, European peace and the damping down of the evil of nationalism. Cooperation - even involving compromise - to me is far better.

I think labelling Remain as Project Fear is spurious. If there are real problems with a potential course of action it is right to point them out. The chances of economic recession, break up of the UK, and major problems in EU leading to a spate of right-wing nationalism seem to be very real on a Brexit. The quality of the expert opinion on these issues is very telling. As for Gove's remark that we've had enough of experts, let's just say that I'd prefer the advice of this forum on how to cut a dovetail joint than of almost any politician.

The main issues brought up by the Leave side are control and immigration. The control issues, 'take back our country' etc (alarmingly like Donald Trump's rhetoric) are essentially emotional and jingoistic. We already cede absolute sovereignty via thousands of international treaties, most notably NATO and the UN, because we feel that these increase our security, economic strength, social programme, etc. Same for the EU. Since the EU Parliament is elected, and the Commission is appointed by our elected representatives, it is perfectly democratic (much more so than the UK with its unelected second chamber). We won't get our way all the time but the decisions made are really not unreasonable.

I do feel that we have to live with increased immigration whatever our political status. Instead of griping we should welcome immigrants for the extra resource and strength they bring to the country. Who doesn't like a Polish builder or plumber? They don't soak up benefits and they do contribute strongly via taxation. And I'm not a NIMBY here, we have immigrant families on both sides of us. 

As a practising scientist before retirement I was involved in several EU projects and found them fantastic. Of course scientists will collaborate whether in or out of the EU, but the extra dimension and funding provided by the EU has immense leverage. The projects went much further and faster than would otherwise have been the case. The framework set by the EU is fair and excellent, and it is true that training and diversity in science and engineering in different countries brings different skills and attitudes to the table.

I don't want to slag off individuals here, but the final argument is that I would much rather be represented and governed by the people leading the Remain campaign than those leading Brexit.

Keith


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rhossydd":2f6uvae5 said:


> phil.p":2f6uvae5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that can be guaranteed is that the government have explored any conceivable get out.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right too. The democratically elected government and the majority of MPs want the UK to remain in the EU.
Click to expand...

We know that MPs are under no obligation to vote as their constituents wish, but if I were an MP I would be decidedly unhappy at deliberately voting the opposite. Maybe you wouldn't? Bloody plebs getting in the way of the grand plan again?


----------



## RogerS

MusicMan":283s2e33 said:


> ....
> 
> I don't want to slag off individuals here, but the final argument is that I would much rather be represented and governed by the people leading the Remain campaign than those leading Brexit.
> 
> Keith



I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Gove and Johnson are for Brexit. They are not running for parliament viz a general election.


----------



## Jake

RogerM":xdysn6kz said:


> Let's assume (say) that there is a turnout of 70%, which would be high for a national poll, and the split is pro Brexit 52% to 48%. The result is not binding on the government, so it could be argued that only 36% of those eligible to vote actually voted to come out. It could further be argued that those who didn't vote were "don't knows" and that there is NOT a mandate to leave. Put to a free vote in Parliament, I suspect the "remain" vote to carry the day.



The only way the government could avoid implementing the referendum result in reality would be hold another general election to win a mandate to re-run the referendum in the hope that it won the opposite result. That's the cold hard political reality as the government would not be able to sustain itself otherwise, especially with the Conservatives cut in half over the issue.


----------



## Woodmonkey

It's interesting how nearly everyone seems to be vehemently convinced either one way or the other. Am I the only one who thinks that it probably won't be the end of the world which ever way it goes? I can see pros and cons of both sides, and at the end of the day we will still have the same snivelling bunch of politicians in downing st. 
On balance i will vote (have already voted by post) to stay in, based more than anything else on the type of people who are telling me to leave, but again I don't really see that much changing either way except for a probable slump in the economy if we leave.
And to those who complain that the eu is undemocratic, take a long hard look at our own "democracy" - an unelected second chamber and head of state, and a first post the post system which effectively makes huge numbers of votes meaningless.


----------



## Grahamshed

Woodmonkey":3cmljqdp said:


> It's interesting how nearly everyone seems to be vehemently convinced either one way or the other. Am I the only one who thinks that it probably won't be the end of the world which ever way it goes? I can see pros and cons of both sides, and at the end of the day we will still have the same snivelling bunch of politicians in downing st.
> On balance i will vote (have already voted by post) to stay in, based more than anything else on the type of people who are telling me to leave, but again I don't really see that much changing either way except for a probable slump in the economy if we leave.
> And to those who complain that the eu is undemocratic, take a long hard look at our own "democracy" - an unelected second chamber and head of state, and a first post the post system which effectively makes huge numbers of votes meaningless.



Sums up my position as well.


----------



## Claymore

This is interesting,
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClI2EceVYAAbqBW.jpg

Apparently the story that he shouted Britain First was first circulated on Twitter within minutes by a female Labour MP called Maria Eagle. Forgot to mention she deleted the Twitter message once it had circulated....why?


----------



## RobinBHM

Grahamshed":2olxlvi2 said:


> Woodmonkey":2olxlvi2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how nearly everyone seems to be vehemently convinced either one way or the other. Am I the only one who thinks that it probably won't be the end of the world which ever way it goes? I can see pros and cons of both sides, and at the end of the day we will still have the same snivelling bunch of politicians in downing st.
> On balance i will vote (have already voted by post) to stay in, based more than anything else on the type of people who are telling me to leave, but again I don't really see that much changing either way except for a probable slump in the economy if we leave.
> And to those who complain that the eu is undemocratic, take a long hard look at our own "democracy" - an unelected second chamber and head of state, and a first post the post system which effectively makes huge numbers of votes meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sums up my position as well.
Click to expand...


I also agree, people do seem to have polarized views, but the reality is there are strengths and weaknesses on both options.

I fall in the exit camp mostly because I dont find any large organisation to be efficient or honest, EU included. It has so much money pumped into it that those working for the EU are going to be inward looking.


----------



## MIGNAL

Claymore":1986mjnw said:


> This is interesting,
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClI2EceVYAAbqBW.jpg
> 
> Apparently the story that he shouted Britain First was first circulated on Twitter within minutes by a female Labour MP called Maria Eagle. Forgot to mention she deleted the Twitter message once it had circulated....why?



Probably because she first heard it from somewhere else. You would have to be one of the very few witnesses to be able to confirm, unlikely that any other MP would have been a witness. I don't even trust your link. 
I do wish folk would put a fist in their mouth in relation to Twitter. Seems to me that some folk treat it like a rolling news report. Just let the authorities and the police release the official version of events then you can comment on it.


----------



## Claymore

So the shop owner is lying by putting the message in his shop window? if its there then its there......just because someone doesn't agree with it doesn't mean they are right.
Your right about Twitter posting rubbish and fake stories...... just look at all the fake ISIS and refugee stories circulating trying to get us to go to war with ASSAD ...... its happened before with Sadams WMD which were also fairy tails by Blair.


----------



## MIGNAL

Where did I state that they were lying? I said I didn't trust it. Were they at the actual scene at the very moment she was attacked? Were they present throughout the whole ordeal? If not it's hardly going to be an authoritative version of events. Once ALL the witnesses have been interviewed, perhaps then we will get the truth. Of course it might be a little different if 10 different witnesses had already told the media exactly what was said. I don't think that has happened yet. We'll find out soon enough.


----------



## Claymore

I agree BUT why is it ok for the media to plaster all the newspapers etc that the guy shouted "Britain First" if he didn't? surely it works both ways? 
The guy at the shop was definitely there as it happened outside His shop so I think he has a right to let the world know what he saw/heard and not what the Media claims he said.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Woodmonkey":1ouixkpj said:


> It's interesting how nearly everyone seems to be vehemently convinced either one way or the other. Am I the only one who thinks that it probably won't be the end of the world which ever way it goes? I can see pros and cons of both sides, and at the end of the day we will still have the same snivelling bunch of politicians in downing st.
> On balance i will vote (have already voted by post) to stay in, based more than anything else on the type of people who are telling me to leave, but again I don't really see that much changing either way except for a probable slump in the economy if we leave.
> And to those who complain that the eu is undemocratic, take a long hard look at our own "democracy" - an unelected second chamber and head of state, and a first post the post system which effectively makes huge numbers of votes meaningless.



There is a fundamental difference in the ways the UK Parliament and the EU institutions are structured. 

In Westminster, the decision-makers (the Government) are drawn from elected MPs. The second chamber may scrutinise legislation, may advise and may send back to the elected chamber for revision, but cannot propose or throw out legislation. The elected chamber thus has primacy. The head of state does not become involved in politics at all, but may advise ministers or request explanation.

In the EU, the only people able to propose legislation are the Commission (unelected). The elected MEPs cannot, nor can they throw out legislation. Overall guidance and direction are decided by the Council of Ministers (of which any country can elect only one out of currently twenty-eight), but they cannot propose legislation.

Overall, the Westminster system is far more accountable to us - the governed. Individually, none of us has more power than anybody else - one vote - but collectively, we decide the colour of government and periodically can hold it to account (provided we choose to register for and use our vote - and it's the individual's lookout if they don't). We have no influence at all on the direction of the EU, and none of us, in any country, can hold the decision-makers in the Commission to account. I don't see any meaningful effort to change that - hence, I'm voting to leave.


----------



## MIGNAL

Claymore":1trozax9 said:


> I agree BUT why is it ok for the media to plaster all the newspapers etc that the guy shouted "Britain First" if he didn't? surely it works both ways?
> The guy at the shop was definitely there as it happened outside His shop so I think he has a right to let the world know what he saw/heard and not what the Media claims he said.



You might be very surprised at what one does or does not actually witness. I was less than 25 yards from another recent gun killing. I clearly heard all the commotion, just after the event. I didn't hear one single gun shot, despite three shots being fired (according to reports). Maybe I did hear them but for some odd reason they did not stay in the memory. I have absolutely no recollection of any gun shots but I can clearly remember screams and shouting. Other people reported hearing gun shots, even though they were much further away from the event than I.


----------



## RogerS

MIGNAL":3rnbmrow said:


> Claymore":3rnbmrow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree BUT why is it ok for the media to plaster all the newspapers etc that the guy shouted "Britain First" if he didn't? surely it works both ways?
> The guy at the shop was definitely there as it happened outside His shop so I think he has a right to let the world know what he saw/heard and not what the Media claims he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might be very surprised at what one does or does not actually witness. I was less than 25 yards from another recent gun killing. I clearly heard all the commotion, just after the event. I didn't hear one single gun shot, despite three shots being fired (according to reports). Maybe I did hear them but for some odd reason they did not stay in the memory. I have absolutely no recollection of any gun shots but I can clearly remember screams and shouting. Other people reported hearing gun shots, even though they were much further away from the event than I.
Click to expand...


Not surprised at all. These sort of things are explained in great detail in this excellent book http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/overview.html


----------



## Phil Pascoe

^^^As above. I spent my 25th birthday in a coroners court at an inquest where it was debatable whether someone had been killed. I listened to about thirty people's version of events - the only ones that were the same were the people I knew to be liars.


----------



## Inoffthered

Claymore":2cqnu2gb said:


> This is interesting,
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClI2EceVYAAbqBW.jpg
> 
> Apparently the story that he shouted Britain First was first circulated on Twitter within minutes by a female Labour MP called Maria Eagle. Forgot to mention she deleted the Twitter message once it had circulated....why?




The depths that some will sink to get exploit a tragedy is well put here:-

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClGkbxpVAAAaKoL.jpg:large

and here

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06 ... -time-low/


----------



## Rhossydd

Claymore":1ooht66d said:


> Your right about Twitter posting rubbish and fake stories...... just look at all the fake ISIS and refugee stories circulating trying to get us to go to war with ASSAD ...... its happened before with Sadams WMD which were also fairy tails by Blair.


Check your facts the Iraq war was in 2003, Twitter was founded in 2006.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":2l57tkem said:


> There is a fundamental difference in the ways the UK Parliament and the EU institutions are structured.



Yes, there is. That is because it is a supranational organisation - i.e. an international treaty organisation. Its legitimacy is ultimately derived from the legitimacy of the governments of the member states, not from the MEPs.



Cheshirechappie":2l57tkem said:


> In the EU, the only people able to propose legislation are the Commission (unelected). The elected MEPs cannot, nor can they throw out legislation. Overall guidance and direction are decided by the Council of Ministers (of which any country can elect only one out of currently twenty-eight), but they cannot propose legislation.



That's not accurate. For a start, MEPs or Member States can make the Commission come up with proposed legislation. MEPs do also have the power to veto legislation, which has to be approved both by the EP and by The Council of the European Union. Countries also do not elect representatives to the Council, they just attend in the person of a minister of the national government for the relevant policy area. 

The draft legislation proposed by the Commission is scrutinised both by the European Parliament, and also by the Council initially through COREPER - the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Member States. COREPER is comprised of ambassadors from the member states (i.e civil servants representing the national government of all the member states). COREPER then makes recommendations to the Council, generally in practice acting on a unanimous decision making basis. QMV in theory applies (to those treaty areas where it is applicable) but does not tend to be exercised. If COREPER has agreed unanimously, then the Council will usually approve, but if not there is a whole new process of examination and discussion and debate between government representatives of the member states at ministerial level in Council. 

Both the Council and the Parliament have to agree before legislation is passed. if they do not, there is a conciliation process between the two, but if that does not result in agreement, the draft proposed legislation dies on the vine.



> Overall, the Westminster system is far more accountable to us - the governed. Individually, none of us has more power than anybody else - one vote - but collectively, we decide the colour of government and periodically can hold it to account (provided we choose to register for and use our vote - and it's the individual's lookout if they don't).



The Westminster system is what controls the EU through the above process, and so does the EP. So there is both directly elected accountability, and indirect accountability.



> We have no influence at all on the direction of the EU, and none of us, in any country, can hold the decision-makers in the Commission to account.



Anyone might complain that we do not have enough influence given that 100% influence would be a British dictatorship over Europe which we do not have and hopefully do not want, but it is plainly wrong to say we have no influence. There is also accountability, which may not be perfectly designed, but it is difficult to do so within the constraints of not supplanting national government entirely by creating a federal superstate. That means that the accountability of the EU as a supranational organisation (and not a federal superstate) is primarily exercised through the national governments from which it primarily derives its legitimacy. 

The same is true for the very many international treaty organisations to which the UK adheres.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

None of that alters the fact that we (ordinary people) can vote for the people that make the decisions at Westminster, and we can hold them to account at a general election. If enough of us feel that the UK government isn't working as it should, we can change it - as happened in 1979, 1997 and 2010.

We can't in any way change the EU decision makers through the ballot box. We can't change it's direction if we don't like it.

Ultimately, the Westminster parliament is more accountable to the people over whom it governs than the EU is.


----------



## Claymore

Rhossydd":374bug7j said:


> Claymore":374bug7j said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right about Twitter posting rubbish and fake stories...... just look at all the fake ISIS and refugee stories circulating trying to get us to go to war with ASSAD ...... its happened before with Sadams WMD which were also fairy tails by Blair.
> 
> 
> 
> Check your facts the Iraq war was in 2003, Twitter was founded in 2006.
Click to expand...



Sorry I should have said the Internet and other forms of social media plus the newspapers of course, either way they have still to prove he had WMD. One of my best friends was killed in Iraq and I had to witness his wife and kids and his elderly parents try and cope with his loss, our lovely government have been terrible to them over the years with lies and even more lies and eventually last January they finally found out the truth that he had been butchered while on patrol by a gang of teens who not only killed him but mutilated his body........ the MOD tried to cover it up due to the fact they had cut back on safety equipment etc and radio equipment that was useless in certain areas (they only found out about his capture/death due to another soldier using a mobile)
As you may guess this has had a big impression on what I feel for any politician which is zero.
Anyway sorry to move away from the thread and I will keep out of future posts, my apologies if I have offended anyone on here.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":iqegnojm said:


> We can't in any way change the EU decision makers through the ballot box. We can't change it's direction if we don't like it.
> 
> Ultimately, the Westminster parliament is more accountable to the people over whom it governs than the EU is.



Did you even read it? Do you even acknowledge that your earlier post was inaccurate?

We do control the decision makers, as they are either the MEPs, or representatives from national goverments - i.e. Westminster, who we can change at will in the usual way.


----------



## Rhossydd

Another interesting and unbiased opinion of the referendum from a respected USA paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opini ... ef=opinion


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":cwqfler5 said:


> Another interesting and unbiased opinion of the referendum from a respected USA paper.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opini ... ef=opinion



'Respected' by whom? Those who agree with its editorial line ?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":4jxp4uwn said:


> Cheshirechappie":4jxp4uwn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't in any way change the EU decision makers through the ballot box. We can't change it's direction if we don't like it.
> 
> Ultimately, the Westminster parliament is more accountable to the people over whom it governs than the EU is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read it? Do you even acknowledge that your earlier post was inaccurate?
> 
> We do control the decision makers, as they are either the MEPs, or representatives from national goverments - i.e. Westminster, who we can change at will in the usual way.
Click to expand...


I stand by what I wrote. The European Commission is the body that proposes EU law. Commissioners are appointed, not elected. In Westminster, government Ministers are the proposers of laws, and they are elected. If we, the electorate, vote in enough numbers, we can change the direction of government. We can't do that with the EU.

(I don't doubt that there are mechanisms for minor legislation to be proposed by MEPs, just as there are mechanisms for back-benchers to propose legislation in Westminster. That, however, is something of a side-issue; the important business is conducted as described.)


----------



## Woodmonkey

Cheshirechappie":2rx1zh2i said:


> Jake":2rx1zh2i said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":2rx1zh2i said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't in any way change the EU decision makers through the ballot box. We can't change it's direction if we don't like it.
> 
> Ultimately, the Westminster parliament is more accountable to the people over whom it governs than the EU is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read it? Do you even acknowledge that your earlier post was inaccurate?
> 
> We do control the decision makers, as they are either the MEPs, or representatives from national goverments - i.e. Westminster, who we can change at will in the usual way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stand by what I wrote. The European Commission is the body that proposes EU law. Commissioners are appointed, not elected. In Westminster, government Ministers are the proposers of laws, and they are elected. *If we, the electorate, vote in enough numbers, we can change the direction of government*. We can't do that with the EU.
> 
> (I don't doubt that there are mechanisms for minor legislation to be proposed by MEPs, just as there are mechanisms for back-benchers to propose legislation in Westminster. That, however, is something of a side-issue; the important business is conducted as described.)
Click to expand...


No we can't. Over five million people combined voted for either ukip or greens in the last election and they only won 1 mp each. So no, on that point you are wrong.


----------



## t8hants

Before we joined the Eu we were trading with the world and had a world outlook, since we have been turned inward and made to jump to the command of any sniveling snot-grovel of a country whose total economy is less than that of Manchester.
If it takes thirty years of grinding recession as a result of brexit, it will still be a price worth paying as the price of freedom is never too high.
The European parliament is a sham designed to create the illusion of democracy.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Woodmonkey":2wcsiduy said:


> No we can't. Over five million people combined voted for either ukip or greens in the last election and they only won 1 mp each. So no, on that point you are wrong.



But we did in 1979, 1997 and 2010.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":lo729035 said:


> I stand by what I wrote.



Didn't you complain that MEPs do not have a veto power then?

Didn't you say that the Council only has general steering powers rather than any detailed scrutiny role in respect of each piece of legislation drafted by the Commission?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

t8hants":1qxyspv1 said:


> The European parliament is a sham designed to create the illusion of democracy.



I'm inclined to agree with that - I think the history of the last few years bears it out. Which of us voted to impose severe austerity on Greece? Which of us voted for a technocratic government in Italy? 

More locally, who has been allowed to vote for or against net immigration in excess of 300,000 annually? If there is any democratic mandate, it was cast for those promising to limit net migration to the tens of thousands annually - a promise they couldn't keep because our EU treaty obligations won't allow it (which they no doubt knew full well when they made the electoral promise). None of us has ever been allowed a vote on whether or not we wish to adopt the various treaties implemented since the late 1970s. Those nations that have voted against treaty adoption have been ignored - or made to vote again until the EU elites got the answer they wanted.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":3mlvdhiw said:


> Cheshirechappie":3mlvdhiw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand by what I wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you complain that MEPs do not have a veto power then?
> 
> Didn't you say that the Council only has general steering powers rather than any detailed scrutiny role in respect of each piece of legislation drafted by the Commission?
Click to expand...


Only in theory - they very rarely use it. One technique is to bombard the EP with legislation to approve, so that there is insufficient time available for anything other than voting it through virtually 'on the nod' rather than with the three-stage process in the Commons.

The Council of Ministers scrutinising legislation in detail? Oh, come on! Even you don't believe that happens!


----------



## joethedrummer

Even more confused after all this educated and in depth discussion, guess it all boils down to how a lot of voters feel on the day, but then that"s how the elected come to power...


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":370fr9nq said:


> The Council of Ministers scrutinising legislation in detail? Oh, come on! Even you don't believe that happens!



You are wrong. A lot of it is performed though the COREPER delegates, but yes, that is exactly where detailed scrutiny goes on. As well as in the EP. And each have a complicated lock on each other, it is much more sophisticated and effective control mechanism that you can possibly imagine, having started from the unevidenced belief that the Commission does what it likes. I do not expect to be able to move you from that position, but that is because it is what you want to believe, however much more complex the reality is.


----------



## Rhossydd

Cheshirechappie":1b53u4bx said:


> Which of us voted to impose severe austerity on Greece?


Largely self-inflicted after they borrowed way beyond their ability to repay.
Then banks thought it might be a good idea to try to recover some of the money they(we) were owed.

The UK has pretty huge debts too. If things go as badly as some people forecast with a leave vote, the international banks may start asking for their money back too, then we'd be put in a similar position.

"If it takes thirty years of grinding recession as a result of brexit, it will still be a price worth paying as the price of freedom is never too high." Easy to say when you're not actually having to endure a third decade of austerity. There's little comfort from 'freedom' if you have absolutely no money, not enough to eat, can't afford decent heating or clothes.


----------



## Inoffthered

Is the EU a democratic and open organisation working on behalf of EU citizens or does it have a different agenda?

When they tell you that Remain is the internationalist and outward looking option...... 

http://order-order.com/2016/06/17/eu-co ... h-despots/

What else are they hiding?


----------



## MIGNAL

Thirty years of grinding recession. He must be absolutely loaded, one of the wealthy elite who actually thinks it will just be a bit of local bother, old chap. Absolute crazy thing to say.


----------



## t8hants

MIGNAL":153vo07j said:


> Thirty years of grinding recession. He must be absolutely loaded, one of the wealthy elite who actually thinks it will just be a bit of local bother, old chap. Absolute crazy thing to say.



Sorry to disillusion you but I've been a lowly fabricator welder all me working life which came to a premature end when the shop closed and boss refused to pay redundancy.
The EU is non democratic in every fiber of its being. If you like being subject to foreign laws whilst you sit on your sofa or work away in your shop fine vote remain, but it is clear we are being dragged down by the EU year on year. 
I want to be subject to British laws voted on by a British Parliament, not foreign ones rubber stamped by a lap dog parliament here, or in Brussels.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":115tgcf1 said:


> Cheshirechappie":115tgcf1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Council of Ministers scrutinising legislation in detail? Oh, come on! Even you don't believe that happens!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. A lot of it is performed though the COREPER delegates, but yes, that is exactly where detailed scrutiny goes on. As well as in the EP. And each have a complicated lock on each other, it is much more sophisticated and effective control mechanism that you can possibly imagine, having started from the unevidenced belief that the Commission does what it likes. I do not expect to be able to move you from that position, but that is because it is what you want to believe, however much more complex the reality is.
Click to expand...


I judge by what I see. I see an organisation that imposes austerity on Greece, and an unelected government on Italy. I see an organisation that seems indifferent to 40% youth unemployment in Spain so that it can prop up the Euro. I see an organisation that I have never (until now) had any opportunity to express an opinion about through the ballot box. I see an organisation that has imposed arbitrary targets on electricity generation that is leaving the UK very close to power cuts in times of high demand, and obliged to subsidise means of generation that (basically) don't work very well.

Jake - do you genuinely believe that the EU is, in practice, democratically accountable to EU citizens? I don't. I don't because of what I see in practice.


----------



## Rhossydd

t8hants":aj1o9h2b said:


> I want to be subject to British laws voted on by a British Parliament, not foreign ones rubber stamped by a lap dog parliament here, or in Brussels.


The issue shouldn't be where the legislation is made, but if it's good legislation.
There's a lot of disabled people that haven't been too happy lately about the laws made in the UK by a British elected government.


----------



## Inoffthered

Cheshirechappie":2mwvpzgx said:


> Which of us voted to impose severe austerity on Greece?


Largely self-inflicted after they borrowed way beyond their ability to repay.
.[/quote]

Not so, Greece had been understating its fiscal deficits for years and should never have been allowed into the Euro zone thereby chaining its economy into a monetary system geared up to the interests of France and Germany. 
In the old days Greece could have managed its way out of its difficulties by changing its interest rates and devaluing the drachma. That would have been a boost to trade and its tourist industry. 

The debts to which you refer were imposed on Greece to allow it to repay other debts and interest a significant amount of which was owed to Germany. Now most of Greece's debt is held by the IMF, and the European central bank, to which we are major contributors. So when Remainiacs say we are insulated from directly supporting the Eurozone, in some respects they are right but of course we contribute indirectly through the IMF and the ECB.


----------



## RobinBHM

Inoffthered":3qyv1is7 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3qyv1is7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of us voted to impose severe austerity on Greece?
> 
> 
> 
> Largely self-inflicted after they borrowed way beyond their ability to repay.
> 
> Not so, Greece had been understating its fiscal deficits for years and should never have been allowed into the Euro zone thereby chaining its economy into a monetary system geared up to the interests of France and Germany.
> In the old days Greece could have managed its way out of its difficulties by changing its interest rates and devaluing the drachma. That would have been a boost to trade and its tourist industry.
> 
> The debts to which you refer were imposed on Greece to allow it to repay other debts and interest a significant amount of which was owed to Germany. Now most of Greece's debt is held by the IMF, and the European central bank, to which we are major contributors. So when Remainiacs say we are insulated from directly supporting the Eurozone, in some respects they are right but of course we contribute indirectly through the IMF and the ECB.
Click to expand...


When I used to visit the Greek islands back in the Drachma days, holidays were very reasonable, drinks and meals also. Since the Euro Greek holidays are more expensive, especially cost of eating out. My understanding from Taverna and hotel owners is that tourism there is generally down and their standard of living has not increased since joining the Euro zone. In a rather naive way Ive always wondered whether it has been a benefit for Greece or not (I do believe their per capita GDP has climbed since euro membership so maybe it has). 

Greece certainly isnt feeling the benefit at the moment whatever view is taken.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":2llh183t said:


> Greece had been understating its fiscal deficits for years and should never have been allowed into the Euro zone thereby chaining its economy into a monetary system geared up to the interests of France and Germany.



That's true.



> In the old days Greece could have managed its way out of its difficulties by changing its interest rates and devaluing the drachma. That would have been a boost to trade and its tourist industry.



And just by defaulting on its creditors.



> The debts to which you refer were imposed on Greece to allow it to repay other debts and interest a significant amount of which was owed to Germany. Now most of Greece's debt is held by the IMF, and the European central bank, to which we are major contributors. So when Remainiacs say we are insulated from directly supporting the Eurozone, in some respects they are right but of course we contribute indirectly through the IMF and the ECB.



The IMF is always repaid so no need to worry there. We are not exposed via the ECB for the Treaty reasons set out in previous posts.

At some point Germany is going to have to accept that all the moral hazard arguments in the world aren't going to save the Euro-system from taking losses (has already in the form of longer payment terms, lower rates etc).

But anyway, we are not part of the Euro-system, have an exemption from any expectation of joining it, and no exposure to the costs of it.


----------



## Rhossydd

Jake":b82twt17 said:


> But anyway, we are not part of the Euro-system, have an exemption from any expectation of joining it, and no exposure to the costs of it.


Unless we're stupid enough to vote out, it all goes wrong and we have to go back, cap in hand, to the EU to try and rejoin.


----------



## Jake

True


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":1298rqbd said:


> 'Respected' by whom?


The New York Times is hardly gutter press like The Sun.
Just to pick some quotes from it's Wikipedia entry;
"The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper."
"In a December 19, 2012, column published in the left-leaning The Huffington Post, economics professor and former bank regulator William K. Black characterized The New York Times as being "far right ... on financial issues" "

I found the following paragraph interesting and raises a point I haven't heard mentioned before;
"It is certain that Brexit would do gross damage to both Europe and America. For the United States, it would mean the failure of many years of diplomacy. Britain would become at once less useful as an ally and less predictable. Washington would turn increasingly from London to Berlin."


----------



## paulm

Rhossydd":3d225jd0 said:


> Jake":3d225jd0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But anyway, we are not part of the Euro-system, have an exemption from any expectation of joining it, and no exposure to the costs of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless we're stupid enough to vote out, it all goes wrong and we have to go back, cap in hand, to the EU to try and rejoin.
Click to expand...


Really ? :lol: 

Get a grip for goodness sake ! :roll:


----------



## Rhossydd

paulm":2ap4z9dy said:


> Get a grip for goodness sake !


You're right. It would take a desperate situation to need to return to the EU as we'd never be able to get the favourable deals we have now once we'd shunned them.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":ng2dx6ao said:


> I see an organisation that imposes austerity on Greece, and an unelected government on Italy. I see an organisation that seems indifferent to 40% youth unemployment in Spain so that it can prop up the Euro. I see an organisation that I have never (until now) had any opportunity to express an opinion about through the ballot box. I see an organisation that has imposed arbitrary targets on electricity generation that is leaving the UK very close to power cuts in times of high demand, and obliged to subsidise means of generation that (basically) don't work very well.
> 
> Jake - do you genuinely believe that the EU is, in practice, democratically accountable to EU citizens? I don't. I don't because of what I see in practice.



It's an international organisation so it cannot be directly democratically accountable in the same way as a nation state is. The only way it could be would be to make it a federal superstate, which I don't think would be acceptable to many of the member states (or their populations). So it is by design stuck in a position where the main democratic accountability mechanism is not through the controls exerted through direct democracy, but instead by the controls imposed by the national goverments of its member states. And yes, I do believe it is accountable to those governments - it undoubtedly is. Whether everyone likes everything those governments do is another question.

As to Greece, I think it should have left the Euro-system and defaulted. It chose not to in a democratic referendum. Given that Germany is obsessed with monetary controls and moral hazard due to its experience of hyper-inflation and the hold of the Austrian school of economics, that was never going to play out well for Greece. On the other hand, they have their own hapless and pretty corrupt nation-state largely to blame for their original difficulties. 

Italy - the Berlusconi government collapsed and the Italians appointed a technocratic government. Their choice of path, again because they wanted to stay in the Euro-system.

Spain and Portugal (and Ireland etc), yes, all are taking real hardships to keep themselves within a Euro-system which is not adequately integrated to be a functional currency block. Do I like what they are going through? No. Do they have a choice? Yes, they have the option to leave, as we do now. Is the UK suffering the same thing? No. Is that then a reason for us to leave? I don't see why. Will the euro-system survive in its present form? I doubt it. Is that a reason to leave? Not in my view - the result is probably going to be a two speed Europe with a federalist core with a euro-currency, and a substantial wider trading block of the sort we will be more comfortable with, or else the federalist element will just collapse entirely. 

As to electricity generation, that is thoroughly a UK government failing of the worst sort over the past three decades covering all hues of governments.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Hmm - accountable to governments is not the same thing as accountable to ordinary people. It's not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby the principal decision-makers are elected by and accountable to the people over whom they govern. The EU has chosen a system in which that is not possible. Hence, it isn't as democratic as Westminster.

On electricity generation, the UK has to comply with an EU Directive requiring 20% of electricity to be generated by renewable sources, and a Directive requiring the largest 'carbon' emitters to be shut down (that's not the wording, but it's the effect) by 2017 (from memory). There is also a policy in place harmonising nuclear development, which pretty much excludes the UK from doing it's own thing. Thus, we have a French reactor design of dubious quality and eye-watering price thrust on us, the shutting down of old but effective coal-fired stations, and the building at great expense of wind turbines (which only deliver when the wind is blowing) and solar farms (which don't work when it's dark), leaving us with a significant shortfall between supply and demand at peak times in the near future. That gap will be partly filled by privately-owned diesel generators, at great expense to the electricity bill payer and/or taxpayer.

The UK government is partly at fault for not seeing what would happen and doing something about it, but the EU did impose the Directives and energy policy, and they are causing major problems and significant additional costs for electricity users. Businesses have failed because of high energy costs, and others are at risk. The steel sector has been a recent sufferer, but heavy chemicals is another sector the profitability of which is compromised.

We'd be better off without those EU directives shackling us just at the moment.

Quite a lot here, if you want to thrash through it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_po ... pean_Union

(You may have noticed that there's a big push to get people to have smart meters. One thing they can do is to ration the electricity delivered to each customer - something that may happen in extremis. It'll be dressed up as encouragement to use electricity in cheaper off-peak times, but the effect will be that you won't always be able to take a shower or boil a kettle when you choose. The problem is that generation capacity is being shut down before effective replacement capacity is in place - to comply with EU directives.)


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"(wind turbines) which only deliver when the wind is blowing ..." 
and not when it's blowing too hard ...  - which where I live is probably at least 50% of the time.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":f3smlut1 said:


> Hmm - accountable to governments is not the same thing as accountable to ordinary people. It's not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby the principal decision-makers are elected by and accountable to the people over whom they govern.



That's called a state. The EU cannot be as directly democratic as a state unless we turn it into one. That's not a popular option.



> The EU has chosen a system in which that is not possible. Hence, it isn't as democratic as Westminster



Chosen is the wrong word - it is a creature of its member states, and hence is controlled primarily by their democratically elected governments through delegated shared sovereignty (with a double-lock veto from the directly elected representative MEPs). That doesn't make it non-democratic, just a supranational organisation and not a state.



> On electricity generation, the UK has to comply with an EU Directive requiring 20% of electricity to be generated by renewable sources



Seems like good thing to me.



> and a Directive requiring the largest 'carbon' emitters to be shut down (that's not the wording, but it's the effect) by 2017 (from memory)



I don't think this is a Directive, it sounds like the Energy Act 2013 which is our own. 



> There is also a policy in place harmonising nuclear development, which pretty much excludes the UK from doing it's own thing. Thus, we have a French reactor design of dubious quality and eye-watering price thrust on us



I've looked for that and can only find a directive harmonising nuclear safety regulation which is a reassuring thing with some of those Eastern European countries being quite keen on nuclear and us being downwind of them. We clearly aren't tied to the (very clever if not proven) EPR as the planned Japanese plants are basically the geriatric GE design made famous in Fukushima with a few changes. 



> The UK government is partly at fault for not seeing what would happen and doing something about it, but the EU did impose the Directives and energy policy



The problem started way before that, but in any case the UK government had a say in the Renewable Energy directive and agreed to it and indeed sponsored and supported it (rightly so in my view, given the threat of global warming is much more serious than some adjustment issues).


----------



## Wuffles

RogerS":2g0poo9g said:


> Wuffles":2g0poo9g said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiscoStu":2g0poo9g said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a French national teaching your child English?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd be fine with that. Is that the wrong answer? I think for some it will be.
> 
> 
> 
> DiscoStu":2g0poo9g said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]he had a foreign doctor looking after him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reads like the agenda from a 70s meeting at ITV headquarters about up-coming comedies.
> 
> Feels like some true c̶o̶l̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ insecurities are shining through on this thread now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, stick that PC prejudice firmly back in its box. DiscoStu has made a very good point regarding teachers and/or doctors having a very strong accent that makes them unintelligible and in the case of clinical staff, potentially health threatening. It happens. His comment is valid. Get over it.
Click to expand...


His comment is comedic, however your comment is pathetic. PC predudice? Really? Idiotic riposte. 

My daughter has been treated by a doctor from "forin lands" called Sven, how's that sound to you? I don't care how it sounded to you actually, I get the impression I know exactly how it sounds to you. Regardless it sounded pretty good to me when he made sure she wasn't concussed. He wasn't perhaps as forin sounding as your point would warrant, but nonetheless, he was forin. Shame on him?

His English pronunciation was better than most in Bristol and he was polite and professional. Pretty much all I want from a doctor in any given situation.

Oh, he was white by the way, but then he would be expected to be with a name like Sven. Not sure if it makes any difference to you.


----------



## thetyreman

phil.p":1tvvyz3s said:


> it's very worrying that we may stay in the EU to me, the propaganda is working



:roll:


----------



## Phil Pascoe

thetyreman":1hjm61mz said:


> it's very worrying that we may leave the EU to me, the propaganda is working



Oh, dear. what did you expect?


----------



## RogerS

Jake":1o8dbiom said:


> Cheshirechappie":1o8dbiom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....There is also a policy in place harmonising nuclear development, which pretty much excludes the UK from doing it's own thing. Thus, we have a French reactor design of dubious quality and eye-watering price thrust on us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked for that and can only find a directive harmonising nuclear safety regulation which is a reassuring thing with some of those Eastern European countries being quite keen on nuclear and us being downwind of them. We clearly aren't tied to the (very clever if not proven) EPR as the planned Japanese plants are basically the geriatric GE design made famous in Fukushima with a few changes.
Click to expand...


Ah, that's where you are wrong, Jake. The prevailing wind direction in the UK is from the South West. Last time I checked, Eastern Europe was, um, to the east of us.


----------



## RogerS

Wuffles":29x5z221 said:


> RogerS":29x5z221 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Oh please, stick that PC prejudice firmly back in its box. DiscoStu has made a very good point regarding teachers and/or doctors having a very strong accent that makes them unintelligible and in the case of clinical staff, potentially health threatening. It happens. His comment is valid. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His comment is comedic, however your comment is pathetic. PC predudice? Really? Idiotic riposte.
> 
> My daughter has been treated by a doctor from "forin lands" called Sven, how's that sound to you? I don't care how it sounded to you actually, I get the impression I know exactly how it sounds to you. Regardless it sounded pretty good to me when he made sure she wasn't concussed. He wasn't perhaps as forin sounding as your point would warrant, but nonetheless, he was forin. Shame on him?
> 
> His English pronunciation was better than most in Bristol and he was polite and professional. Pretty much all I want from a doctor in any given situation.
> 
> Oh, he was white by the way, but then he would be expected to be with a name like Sven. Not sure if it makes any difference to you.
Click to expand...


I find it so profoundly depressing that you can be so blinkered and bigoted. You would do well to go and read what Trevor Philips has written on the subject and then reflect on your own attitudes and prejudices.


----------



## dzj

Has anyone done a computer simulation of what happens to your economy and society in general if you leave and what happens if you stay?
Sort of best case/ worst case scenarios.
There are so many variables to consider, I fear it is beyond the grasp of a normal person. 
Being from a non EU country, I haven't been following this issue very closely, but I have the impression that
personal preferences, politicians and the media are skewing any analytical/ pragmatic take on the matter.


----------



## RogerS

dzj":1npnipzl said:


> Has anyone done a computer simulation of what happens to your economy and society in general if you leave and what happens if you stay?
> Sort of best case/ worst case scenarios.
> There are so many variables to consider, I fear it is beyond the grasp of a normal person.
> Being from a non EU country, I haven't been following this issue very closely, but I have the impression that
> personal preferences, politicians and the media are skewing any analytical/ pragmatic take on the matter.



There have been countless simulations from both sides but none are conclusive since they depend on the initial data being fed in and whether or not the 'other' side, as it were, accepts that data.

There has been more (and better) debate around this issue in this thread then in most newspapers apart from, perhaps, the FT !


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":2gon6x5z said:


> RogerS":2gon6x5z said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Respected' by whom?
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times is hardly gutter press like The Sun.
> Just to pick some quotes from it's Wikipedia entry;
> "The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper."
> "In a December 19, 2012, column published in the left-leaning The Huffington Post, economics professor and former bank regulator William K. Black characterized The New York Times as being "far right ... on financial issues" "
> 
> I found the following paragraph interesting and raises a point I haven't heard mentioned before;
> "It is certain that Brexit would do gross damage to both Europe and America. For the United States, it would mean the failure of many years of diplomacy. Britain would become at once less useful as an ally and less predictable. Washington would turn increasingly from London to Berlin."
Click to expand...


Yes, we can all be selective in what we choose to quote...

Also from the same Wikipedia entry ...

Coverage issues....
_Iraq War_
A year after the war started the newspaper asserted that some of its articles had not been as rigorous as they should have been, and were insufficiently qualified, frequently overly dependent upon information from Iraqi exiles desiring regime change. Reporter Judith Miller retired after criticisms that her reporting of the lead-up to the Iraq War was factually inaccurate and overly favorable to the Bush administration's position, for which The New York Times later apologized


And your quote sounded very familiar in tone and style. A little Googling reveals that the author is a one Neal Ascherson who also writes for, yup, judging by the tone of his opinion piece, the Guardian. We need say no more.


----------



## dzj

RogerS":3bbfobo5 said:


> dzj":3bbfobo5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone done a computer simulation of what happens to your economy and society in general if you leave and what happens if you stay?
> Sort of best case/ worst case scenarios.
> There are so many variables to consider, I fear it is beyond the grasp of a normal person.
> Being from a non EU country, I haven't been following this issue very closely, but I have the impression that
> personal preferences, politicians and the media are skewing any analytical/ pragmatic take on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been countless simulations from both sides but none are conclusive since they depend on the initial data being fed in and whether or not the 'other' side, as it were, accepts that data.
> 
> There has been more (and better) debate around this issue in this thread then in most newspapers apart from, perhaps, the FT !
Click to expand...


So, no studies conducted by non-partisan institutions like reputable universities and such?


----------



## RogerS

dzj":whhadc4p said:


> RogerS":whhadc4p said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dzj":whhadc4p said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone done a computer simulation of what happens to your economy and society in general if you leave and what happens if you stay?
> Sort of best case/ worst case scenarios.
> There are so many variables to consider, I fear it is beyond the grasp of a normal person.
> Being from a non EU country, I haven't been following this issue very closely, but I have the impression that
> personal preferences, politicians and the media are skewing any analytical/ pragmatic take on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been countless simulations from both sides but none are conclusive since they depend on the initial data being fed in and whether or not the 'other' side, as it were, accepts that data.
> 
> There has been more (and better) debate around this issue in this thread then in most newspapers apart from, perhaps, the FT !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, no studies conducted by non-partisan institutions like reputable universities and such?
Click to expand...


A nice idea..finding a non-partisan institution. I think they are still looking ! Even if there was one, the trouble with all those economic models (or any models) is that there are no hard and fast answers and that others will analyse to exhaustion every single line item.

Unfortunately, for many, it's the heart that is ruling their decision as to Remain or Leave.

I might as well come clean and state that I have changed my own mind, largely down to much that Jake has posted in this thread, and will be voting to Remain.


----------



## DrPhill

I have followed the debate here and on the wider media. I find it very odd that we are concentrating on two issues - immigration and the economy - and arguing about so-called facts that are not.

Economic forecasting is hugely inaccurate. Some of the 'doom' and 'boom' scenarios are so far within the error of margin that they are risible. Likewise the figures on immigration, past, present and future are unreliable.
Likewise current political stances of europe or the uk are likely to change (for better or worse). So whether we stay or leave we have no certainties.

It seems to me that the real debate is slightly more abstract. Do you want to live in:

 A larger political unit with more international clout, but less personal control
 A smaller political unit with less international clout but more personal control.

How do you approach this choice?

(I hope that I have managed to disguise my personal preference.)
_
[sorry a couple of edits. One because the auto fill for list includes an incorrect '=' sign and one for a typo)_


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":384imdaa said:


> The prevailing wind direction in the UK is from the South West. Last time I checked, Eastern Europe was, um, to the east of us.


Remember Chernobyl ? It didn't matter where the prevailing wind direction was that day, it still made a mess of the North Wales sheep farming industry for many years.
The UK has a interest in nuclear safety _across_ Europe. Pollution doesn't stop at a border control.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":2wbvrpbw said:


> There have been countless simulations from both sides but none are conclusive since they depend on the initial data being fed in and whether or not the 'other' side, as it were, accepts that data.


What this means in practice is that the leave camp don't accept the vast majority of projections and only accept projections based on very optimistic and favourable assumptions.
There was an interesting interview with one of the few economists in favour of leaving on R4 earlier this week. What he said was that his assumptions were based on best possible cases and wouldn't accept that anything could go wrong. Sounded very naive to me.

The problem is that only a tiny 0.6% fall in our economy will wipe out any financial saving won from not paying any EU membership costs. The majority of projections are VERY significantly worse than that.


----------



## Jake

RogerS":2oedyfz5 said:


> Ah, that's where you are wrong, Jake. The prevailing wind direction in the UK is from the South West. Last time I checked, Eastern Europe was, um, to the east of us.



Got me there Roger.


----------



## Jake

RogerS":35tkw2o3 said:


> dzj":35tkw2o3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone done a computer simulation of what happens to your economy and society in general if you leave and what happens if you stay?
> Sort of best case/ worst case scenarios.
> There are so many variables to consider, I fear it is beyond the grasp of a normal person.
> Being from a non EU country, I haven't been following this issue very closely, but I have the impression that
> personal preferences, politicians and the media are skewing any analytical/ pragmatic take on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been countless simulations from both sides but none are conclusive since they depend on the initial data being fed in and whether or not the 'other' side, as it were, accepts that data.
> 
> There has been more (and better) debate around this issue in this thread then in most newspapers apart from, perhaps, the FT !
Click to expand...


More accurately there have been countless simulations, nearly all of which point to negative outcomes, but all such studies rest on assumptions and data which can be questioned and can form the basis of accusations of bias from the side which does not accept the consensus (whether that be for genuine or propaganda reasons).


----------



## Jake

Rhossydd":3blsvk3i said:


> RogerS":3blsvk3i said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prevailing wind direction in the UK is from the South West. Last time I checked, Eastern Europe was, um, to the east of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Chernobyl ? It didn't matter where the prevailing wind direction was that day, it still made a mess of the North Wales sheep farming industry for many years.
> The UK has a interest in nuclear safety _across_ Europe. Pollution doesn't stop at a border control.
Click to expand...

I think he was pulling my leg.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":3f7nxfum said:


> Cheshirechappie":3f7nxfum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm - accountable to governments is not the same thing as accountable to ordinary people. It's not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby the principal decision-makers are elected by and accountable to the people over whom they govern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a state. The EU cannot be as directly democratic as a state unless we turn it into one. That's not a popular option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EU has chosen a system in which that is not possible. Hence, it isn't as democratic as Westminster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chosen is the wrong word - it is a creature of its member states, and hence is controlled primarily by their democratically elected governments through delegated shared sovereignty (with a double-lock veto from the directly elected representative MEPs). That doesn't make it non-democratic, just a supranational organisation and not a state.
Click to expand...


All that rather proves my point. We (the plebs) elect those who govern at Westminster, but we (the plebs) don't elect those who govern in Brussels.

Whether of not it's a 'state' or a 'supranational organisation' is a difference without a distinction in the case of the EU. It seeks to control aspects of our lives, so it's a government by whatever name it might be called.

I value freedom, and democracy is a cornerstone of freedom. History shows us that trade and commerce thrive better under democratic systems of government than they do under less democratic systems of government - the current difference in economic growth and performance between the Eurozone and non-Eurozone economies such as the UK's being one illustration. The Westminster government is more democratic than the Brussels one, and thus I think more likely to lead to a prosperous future than Brussels, hence my decision to vote leave.


----------



## Rhossydd

It would be interesting to hear how many going on about the lack of accountability and democracy have ever done anything more than turn up at a ballot station every few years.

Policies get made and changed by lobbying and direct contact. I'd guess only a very, very tiny minority ever have bothered actually engaging in the process and discovering how well it works.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":20coo5pw said:


> RogerS":20coo5pw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prevailing wind direction in the UK is from the South West. Last time I checked, Eastern Europe was, um, to the east of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Chernobyl ? It didn't matter where the prevailing wind direction was that day, it still made a mess of the North Wales sheep farming industry for many years.
> The UK has a interest in nuclear safety _across_ Europe. Pollution doesn't stop at a border control.
Click to expand...


<sigh> Jake specifically wrote 'downwind' and that was what I was commenting on. Please read and consider first before jumping in with both feet.
Capisce?


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":12dwv4wx said:


> Jake":12dwv4wx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":12dwv4wx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm - accountable to governments is not the same thing as accountable to ordinary people. It's not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby the principal decision-makers are elected by and accountable to the people over whom they govern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a state. The EU cannot be as directly democratic as a state unless we turn it into one. That's not a popular option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EU has chosen a system in which that is not possible. Hence, it isn't as democratic as Westminster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chosen is the wrong word - it is a creature of its member states, and hence is controlled primarily by their democratically elected governments through delegated shared sovereignty (with a double-lock veto from the directly elected representative MEPs). That doesn't make it non-democratic, just a supranational organisation and not a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that rather proves my point. We (the plebs) elect those who govern at Westminster, but we (the plebs) don't elect those who govern in Brussels.
> 
> Whether of not it's a 'state' or a 'supranational organisation' is a difference without a distinction in the case of the EU. It seeks to control aspects of our lives, so it's a government by whatever name it might be called.
> 
> I value freedom, and democracy is a cornerstone of freedom. History shows us that trade and commerce thrive better under democratic systems of government than they do under less democratic systems of government - the current difference in economic growth and performance between the Eurozone and non-Eurozone economies such as the UK's being one illustration. The Westminster government is more democratic than the Brussels one, and thus I think more likely to lead to a prosperous future than Brussels, hence my decision to vote leave.
Click to expand...


We do control them, as the people who make the decisions and govern are the Council (ie representatives of the elected national government) or elected MEPs. But anyway, your mind is made up whatever the facts.


----------



## RobinBHM

dzj":1y0fkvx7 said:


> Has anyone done a computer simulation of what happens to your economy and society in general if you leave and what happens if you stay?
> Sort of best case/ worst case scenarios.
> There are so many variables to consider, I fear it is beyond the grasp of a normal person.
> Being from a non EU country, I haven't been following this issue very closely, but I have the impression that
> personal preferences, politicians and the media are skewing any analytical/ pragmatic take on the matter.



Open Europe have given a Brexit forecast for Gdp in 2030 to be in range from -2.2% to +1.6% or they say the politically most likely range is from -0.8% to +0.6% 

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/b ... -a-brexit/

You are right, there are so many variables thst makes it almost kmpossible to predict. What does seem clear though is that if a Brexit happens, the UK's future economy depends on the will of politicians to create a deregulated free trading economy.


----------



## Jake

RobinBHM":1nzfx2px said:


> . What does seem clear though is that if a Brexit happens, the UK's future economy depends on the will of politicians to create a deregulated free trading economy.



Those being politicians of the world not just the UK. Most of whom have higher priorities than sorti g that out with the UK. 

Nb those who say WTO rules are fine should ponder on the fact that WTO only covers goods, and our economy is 70-80% services. German cars will get in fine with a tariff they could probably live with but the UK's professional services and banking & financial services will not have access under WTO rules. I know everyone sniffs at a service led economy but we are damn good at it.


----------



## Inoffthered

RobinBHM":17qwcsxg said:


> You are right, there are so many variables thst makes it almost kmpossible to predict. What does seem clear though is that if a Brexit happens, the UK's future economy depends on the will of politicians to create a deregulated free trading economy.




Will of the politicians? If we vote Brexit there will be a queue of people representing Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Audi and BMW outside Merkel's office counselling for continuing free trade with the UK and no German politician is going to create a recession Germany but ceasing to trade with the fifth largest world economy. Our economy won't collapse because we cannot buy any German cars or French wine and cheese.

The EU has more to lose from stopping trade with us than we have. If indeed the EU does embark on a policy of punishment, that in itself actually justifies the decision to leave. 

If they impose tariffs on any goods or services from the UK, then they should expect reciprocal action and given that they sell more to us than we sell to them they have nothing to gain. 

There may be period of uncertainty but nothing we cannot withstand. Actually coming out of the protectionist EU economic block into a world of free trade will be a boost to our economy. IMHO it always appeared perverse to apply tariffs to food imports from Africa. Of course, the tariff barriers were erected to protect inefficient French agriculture but as well as keeping food prices high, they prevent the economic development of third world countries.

In any event, the decision is about more than economic growth it is about sovereignty. I don't share the little Englander mentality that thinks we need to be told what to do by faceless Eurocrats, we will do much better outside the EU.

Vote Leave.


----------



## dexter

Does anyone know how much as a percentage, the U.K. Imports from the other 27 members of the EU collectively?
If they need us more than we need them, I imagine it would be quite a considerable amount.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The view that the rest of EU will quickly sign up new trade agreements with th UK is at best optimistic as:

- agreement of all remaining 27 members will be required. Germany may have the muscle to coerce some smaller states but not all 27

- UK companies without a major EU business may prefer to sit behind tariff barriers to boost their UK profits

- EU companies may similarly prefer to sit behind a tariff barrier 

- EU companies and states may prefer to put up barriers in the hope of attracting inward investment which may otherwise go to UK

- EU will want to develop their own financial services business to compete with London 

One could liken it to placing a bet on Grimsby town to win the cup before the tournament starts. I can't prove it is stupid, but all that has gone before makes it unlikely.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

According to Peter Lilley ( the trade minister who helped set up the single market ) if we have no trade agreement at all the average tariff we will will pay is 2.4% and the amount we pay in now equates to an average tariff of 7% -- he reckon this is misselling on a scale that dwarfs PPI.


----------



## RogerS

dexter":1tsfszen said:


> Does anyone know how much as a percentage, the U.K. Imports from the other 27 members of the EU collectively?
> If they need us more than we need them, I imagine it would be quite a considerable amount.



Here you go, dexter

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... ty-eu.html


----------



## beech1948

Interesting that today an article from The Spectator was reprinted in one of the dailies. I have subscribed to the Spectator for the last 53 yrs....it was founded in 1836 I think and has become a beacon of thought about the issues of the day.

Todays article was a tour de force of the rationale of In or OUT and is well worth reading as a well thought out and balanced review of the arguements. Not many of those about these days.

Economically we will be better off if OUT

Government will be better off if OUT

UK laws for Uk people if OUT

Democracy for all if OUT

EU being a corrupt and unaccountable organisation so OUT

EU being a brake on UK businesses so OUT

EU being a brake on other EU members so OUT

EU destroying national governments and economies eg Greece so OUT

Will we lose anything if OUT I think not. The EU will still need to be part of ther 5 eyes intelligence community of the UK/US/Australia/NZ/ and the EU.

UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and can get bigger if the EU boulder is removed from our necks so OUT

EU will not impose tariffs on us because they send more to us than we send to them so OUT

UK does not need trade agreements with the EU to trade with individual countries so get OUT

EU led by Germany is really the fulfillment of WW3 as the Germans try to take over the whole of Europe so OUT

UK finance is under threat by EU legislation so we should go it alone and fight them so OUT

German stock exchange wants to buy the UK stock exchange run by a chicken hearted Frenchman to cement Germany's ability to lord it over Europe so get OUT and keep the UK stock exchange British

EU will collapse in 5 yrs after the UK leaves as it crumbles under Germany's deadening leadership and the Euro fails so OUT


----------



## BearTricks

RogerS":2o1ahizc said:


> dzj":2o1ahizc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":2o1ahizc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might as well come clean and state that I have changed my own mind, largely down to much that Jake has posted in this thread, and will be voting to Remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm very surprised that someone's mind has been changed. I assumed that the vast majority of people were voting with their guts. I think that the rhetoric from both sides is so aggressive and patronising that most people are cemented in their views after trying to talk to someone with the opposite idea. 

I know I've been angered enough by some things in this thread that I've retreated back in to the safety of my shell. There's a girl on my facebook feed who insists on posting fifty or so links a day to pro-remain articles and pontificating about how terrified she is that we may leave. I'm for remain but even I think she protests too much, and that half of her links are complete nonsense. If I had the opposite opinion I could easily see how someone like her could hurt the remain campaign more than help it.


----------



## thetyreman

looks like most people here then will be voting OUT from what I've seen.


----------



## Inoffthered

Terry - Somerset":zyvkd3qb said:


> One could liken it to placing a bet on Grimsby town to win the cup before the tournament starts. I can't prove it is stupid, but all that has gone before makes it unlikely.




Actually, that analogy is pretty stupid as you seem to be forgetting that the UK is the fifth largest global economy. If you used the team that finished 5th in the premier league instead of the team that was in 96th place, then you would be betting on Manchester United! 

With regards to your other points, 

What Germany wants, Germany gets but to be honest if the rest of the EU want to be dicks and cut their nose off to spite their face then let them. Adopting a policy of imposing punishment for leaving by itself justifies the decision to leave. A bit of short term pain would still be worth it to restore sovereignty and to control our destiny again. The real problem with the way Cameron and co have organised the remain campaign is that they have run down and denigrated our country. What the remainiacs are actually saying is that they do not have the confidence , ability and ideas to run the country and that they want to delegate authority to the EU.

Economic policy is determined by government not individual companies. Trade barriers are however, a sign of economic weakness not strength. There is an interesting clip on Youtube of Prof Patrick Minford who destroys the argument of Remainiac economists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV7nazf5wOo (Minford starts at about 1.00)
Minford, unlike the Remainiac economists, argued against joining the Euro and he predicted what would happen in the eurozone)

EU is currently a protectionist area that imposed tariffs so nothing new there, but as they export more to us than we do to them that would be result in net income to the government. But the use of tariffs creates inefficient businesses because they are insulated from the real world. Tariffs may allow inefficient businesses to survive but the price is paid by every consumer within the EU who could get stuff cheaper but have to pay the tariff. 

Don't forget that if the UK leaves the EU, the EU itself becomes a less attractive place to base a business especially if they have erected tariff barriers. 

Dont think that the EU hasn't been trying to develop financial services because they have. The EU is however, proposing to introduce a financial transactions tax which affect London more than the EU, which is another good reason to leave.


----------



## Flynnwood

Posted on another forum - see what you think (not written by me):

*Cost*
Both sides have taken a polarised view on the amount of money we pay to the EU, I think the truth is somewhere in between.
According to the European Parliament Information Office based in the United Kingdom the net (what it actually costs us after all the ins, outs and ducking and diving) contribution of the UK is

£8,473,000,000 Per Year, Say eight and a half thousand million pounds
£162,942,308 Per Week, Say one hundred and sixty three million pounds
£23,213,699 Per Day, Say twenty three and a bit million pounds per day

Of course the Brexit folks say it is more but even if these figures given by the EU itself are right I don’t think we get value for what we pay. I would prefer that money to be spent on our schools, hospitals and vulnerable people. If it helped the poor kids in Spain suffering an unemployment rate of 45% I would feel better about it; but it doesn’t.

*Immigration*
Successive Governments have not been honest with us about levels of immigration and their ability to control it as members of the EU. The current Government acknowledge it needs to be brought down but fail consistently. We can’t control immigration within the EU.

I think we are unfair to people from countries outside the EU who can’t apply to live here. Its in our economic interests to encourage immigration of those people with the skills to build our economy and that shouldn’t be decided on the basis of whether they were lucky enough to be born in the EU. I think we the people should be able to decide both the numbers and skills of those people coming into our country.

*Housing*
I like and make the effort to engage with the people from the EU who have moved into my street. These “immigrants” are decent people striving to do the best for themselves and their families.

They are getting ripped off to rent their homes paying amounts which have increased more than 40% in the last three years because of the mismatch in supply and demand which undoubtedly and somewhat ironically immigration has contributed to. 
The last local family with two young children who lived in one of these renters were given a 25% rent increase demand from the landlord and had to leave. 

It is the duty of our elected government to protect the interests of those who elected them and in that they have failed both in terms of the housing stock and in terms of excessive immigration which has confounded the problem. 

*Bureaucracy/Rules*
There’s a lot of red herrings getting thrown around here, the EU does some good things (Air Quality) and some silly things. Most of the silly things are not life changing but I question whether they are necessary (Bananas). 

I believe small business people, the majority of whom say that EU rules make doing business harder.

The EU machinery is a massively inefficient gravy train for the professionals and politicians and does not serve the interests of the people of the EU. Forty years is long enough to have done better. I believe the majority of ordinary people around the EU feel the same.

*UK Economics/Jobs*
The UK has a healthier economy than most of the EU. This has been helped by immigration as well as having control of our own currency. If we were able to operate selective immigration I believe we would be even better off.

EU membership has not benefitted the most vulnerable in our society. Many people and young people in particular face intense competition due to the greater supply of labour and as with most competitive environments those with the least means have faired worse. If you are a disabled young person in the UK your chances of getting a job are reduced as a result of EU membership.

We see plenty of FTSE 100 leaders supporting EU membership. Their opinions are based on their own interests as well as the businesses they run. Large businesses have a strategic and operational advantage operating within the complexities of the European Union. I have shares in some of these businesses so I am not against them but I think they are powerful enough. 

I am very concerned by the Trans Atlantic (TTIP) trade agreement being drawn up between the EU and the US. I don’t trust EU negotiators to make an agreement which protects our NHS and our public services.

We are told that we won’t be able to work in the rest of Europe if we leave. I don’t believe it, people were working all over Europe before the EU. Its much harder to move and get work in the US but plenty of people do.

My sense overall is that the EU has resulted in a more polarised society with wealth gravitating to the rich.

*EU Economics/Jobs*
Growth across most of the EU is poor. There are major strategic problems such as a unified currency for different types and strengths of economies, a point acknowledged by many high profile people on both sides of the argument. The economies of France, Spain, Italy and Greece are in a precarious position. 

The economic risks facing the EU project are substantial and the risks of remain for the UK are mostly not understood or publicised.

The most mobile/able have been able to move around for employment. Germany benefits massively from the euro for its manufacturing industries, the ordinary people of most of the other European countries have either not benefitted or are worse off as a result of the European project.

I haven’t seen any proposal to eject the people who have joined us from within the EU so I can’t see any economic hardship for them in a leave vote.

For Spain, Greece and Italy the only solution to their economic problems might be an exit.

*Short term impact of Brexit*
Nobody knows for sure what will happen either way, stay or leave, I wish they would say so. 
The balance between the message in each case is way out of balance with the remain side succeeding in scaring people. My view is that the risks of remaining are equal if not greater. If one of the Southern European countries has an economic shock we could suffer more as a result of staying in. 

There is already significant volatility in most of the UK and European financial markets and I think this will increase in the short term. Equally the markets might react positively to the prospects of a UK economy unbridled and with the uncertainty facing the rest of Europe overseas investors may look to UK business as a safe haven.

So I don’t know but neither do they and I wish they would stop trying to scare us. My best guess and thats all it is that we will have a small short term negative effect. I don’t believe the doom and gloom story. Many FTSE 250 and FTSE all share businesses will thrive outside EU membership. The FTSE 100 is no longer a meaningful reflection of the UK economy as many of those businesses are international.

When you listen to Mark Carney carefully its quite clear that he is raising risk as a pre cursor to acting upon what may happen i.e. being prepared.

If you wake up on the morning of a Brexit, sit back and have a coffee, not much will happen in the two year transition period, there will be a lot of hot air but not much action.

*Long term impact of Brexit*
Don’t believe the politicians who tell you thats it once the vote is had its settled. 
If its Brexit the EU will do everything it can to make an improved settlement, the UK economy is just too big for them to do anything else. If its remain expect an ongoing diatribe of dissatisfaction and Tory in-fighting. Oh Dear.

Lets suppose after an exit vote we do get down to negotiating trade deals. The only sense I can make of the stats is that we would end up being a very large trading partner for the EU. It seems to me that its in no party’s interest to impose tariffs and restrictive practices. Common sense will prevail and tariffs will either not be imposed or balanced meaning this is a hullaballoo about nothing. 

Most of the stats we hear are about physical trade not services which constitutes the larger part of the UK economy and is an area where we have enormous difficulty accessing European markets.

At present we are unable to secure international trade deals around the world and would be able to do so faster and more effectively with the enormous number of growing markets throughout the Commonwealth and the rest of the World.

President Obama said we will be “at the back of the queue”. Have you ever heard an American say “queue”? Sorry its always “line”, sounds like our Dave’s words to me and after his flip on Turkey and the scare stories I just don’t believe him. 

Of course the US will do a trade deal with us; go to Google Maps and have a look in San Diego at the BAE facility by the US Navy base. Oh and whilst I think the guy has had a bad time with Congress the fact remains that in the US the wealth gap between rich and poor (Read Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality) is worse than its ever been. How will his advice help the ordinary people of the UK? If followed it would sure help US Corporations.

*Security*
Ask anyone you know in the military, NATO is the instrument of high level European peace and security. Those who imply a war with another European Country are trying to manipulate us. Nobody in Europe is going to kick off against us. The geopolitical tensions that sparked WWI and WWII just don’t exist and the stakes with nuclear weapons knocking around are too high. The populations of other EU countries aren’t going to stomach any trumped up military threat against the UK nowadays, gone are the days where the officer blows the whistle to “have em over the trenches”.

How did the EU security apparatus (what is that by the way?) help prevent Paris or Brussels? 

Europol will continue in or out.

The intelligence services will continue co-operating regardless.

The remainers say Putin wants us to leave so there is a more divided Europe. What difference will it make practically? Any conflict with the Bear will be a NATO issue. Will our ability to agree sanctions be poorer outside the EU? Don’t see it myself.
Border security across Shengen is poor, its common sense that the movement of terrorists is assisted by free movement of population.

Ask yourself what happened in the Balkans. The EU didn’t help at all.

*Turkey*
Well which version do you believe from Cameron, the one where he tells the Turks he wants to “pave the way from Ankara to Brussels” or the one where he tells us it won’t happen? Please.

*Competence*
The true measure of the competence of an organisation is its ability to manage a crisis:
Greece; calamity.

The European Economy is in crisis, ask the unemployed in Spain, Italy and Portugal.
Balkans; what did the EU do?

Immigration crisis; an absolute disaster from both a border control and humanitarian perspective. If the EU exists for anything its to deal with something like this. Absolute incompetence with no valid excuses after forty years to get it right.

*Democracy/Law/Sovereignty*
The only politician I want in office is the one I can vote out. Take your view as you wish.

The majority of Laws are now made by the EU and in most cases our courts are subservient to European Courts. Its never bothered me but equally I can’t see what it does for me either. I do know if the majority of people here don’t like a European Law its almost impossible to get it changed. Hang on, aren’t the courts there to serve the people

*Culture/Fun*
Wouldn’t it be great to going back to buying some Pesetas again for a trip to the sun? You could even stick your card in the wall, the bank would rip you off of course but the beer would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Happy Days.

*Ex Pats*
The economy of Southern Spain would collapse without the UK ex-pat community. EHIC card withdrawal works both ways so the politicos would have to work it out. NHS pays into it of course. People working within the EU will not be kicked out; their companies will arrange residency/permits same as before the EU.

Goodbye EU, Hello Europe.


----------



## Inoffthered

Editor of the Guardian is voting leave!

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06 ... ing-leave/


----------



## Jake

dexter":3fm40gir said:


> Does anyone know how much as a percentage, the U.K. Imports from the other 27 members of the EU collectively?
> If they need us more than we need them, I imagine it would be quite a considerable amount.



Exports from EU to UK would be about 3% of EU (ex UK) GDP, and Britain would be about 16% of the EU's exports but the only country with a big trade surplus with us is Germany. EU would be 45% of our exports.which is about 13% of our GDP.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trade with the eu is important of course but it is dwindling.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... harts.html


----------



## RobinBHM

My understanding is that almost every single eu country has a trade surplus with the UK.

EU exports about 15% of total exports to the UK, roughly similar to eu's exports to the US.


----------



## dexter

Thanks for that RogerS and Jake. It makes you think, who actually needs who?


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":3qhd7v4w said:


> dexter":3qhd7v4w said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know how much as a percentage, the U.K. Imports from the other 27 members of the EU collectively?
> If they need us more than we need them, I imagine it would be quite a considerable amount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exports from EU to UK would be about 3% of EU (ex UK) GDP, and Britain would be about 16% of the EU's exports but the only country with a big trade surplus with us is Germany. EU would be 45% of our exports.which is about 13% of our GDP.
Click to expand...



Where do you get your numbers from Jake?

A cynic may suggest that you are trying to distort the percentages. Expressing the aggregate of exports to the UK as a percentage of total EU exports is a pretty meaningless number.


Source please, or rather than quoting percentages give us the raw data please. France also has a sizeable trade surplus.


----------



## Inoffthered

Actually Jake, I'll help you out. 

Figures for 2016 in millions (Exports = our exports, Imports = our imports) Source HMRC

Germany: Exports £10,452 Imports £20,456
France: Exports £6,268 Imports £7,978
Netherlands Exports £5,965 Imports 10,930
Belgium Exports £3,649 Imports £7,112
Spain Exports £2,908 Imports £5,282
Ireland Exports £5,115 Imports £3,875
Poland Exports £1,260 Imports £2,746
Sweden Exports £ 1,496 Imports £2,003

With the exception of Ireland all countries listed above sell more to us than we sell to them. Only a fool or a poor negotiator would fail to take that into account in any post brexit negotiations. The EU will be looking for some way of funding the UK's contribution to its budget, they are not going to make worse by stopping Germany and co trading with us.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":3a9mjati said:


> Actually Jake, I'll help you out.
> 
> Figures for 2016 in millions (Exports = our exports, Imports = our imports) Source HMRC
> 
> Germany: Exports £10,452 Imports £20,456
> France: Exports £6,268 Imports £7,978
> Netherlands Exports £5,965 Imports 10,930
> Belgium Exports £3,649 Imports £7,112
> Spain Exports £2,908 Imports £5,282
> Ireland Exports £5,115 Imports £3,875
> Poland Exports £1,260 Imports £2,746
> Sweden Exports £ 1,496 Imports £2,003
> 
> With the exception of Ireland all countries listed above sell more to us than we sell to them. Only a fool or a poor negotiator would fail to take that into account in any post brexit negotiations. The EU will be looking for some way of funding the UK's contribution to its budget, they are not going to make worse by stopping Germany and co trading with us.



That's a short list of 27 countries. Is it goods only perhaps, Mr Willing to Accuse Others of Manipulating Data? 

Gotta link? Will trade.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":iin458va said:


> Jake":iin458va said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dexter":iin458va said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know how much as a percentage, the U.K. Imports from the other 27 members of the EU collectively?
> If they need us more than we need them, I imagine it would be quite a considerable amount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exports from EU to UK would be about 3% of EU (ex UK) GDP, and Britain would be about 16% of the EU's exports but the only country with a big trade surplus with us is Germany. EU would be 45% of our exports.which is about 13% of our GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get your numbers from Jake?
> 
> A cynic may suggest that you are trying to distort the percentages. Expressing the aggregate of exports to the UK as a percentage of total EU exports is a pretty meaningless number.
> 
> Source please, or rather than quoting percentages give us the raw data please. France also has a sizeable trade surplus.
Click to expand...


No intention to distort anything. For what it is worth, I have not made up my mind which way to vote but I am finding this exercise very helpful as there is so much unsubstantiated nonsense around,so I do appreciate the question is a fair one even if it was framed antagonistically.

All the raw data you could want is transparently available on here (with the normal caveat that even official data is what it is) 
http://exporthelp.europa.eu/thdapp/disp ... guageId=en

Edit: Here's some more useful official stats:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... sig2=amcZh


----------



## Inoffthered

Here's the list

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/ ... ables.aspx


Follow the link to top 25 trading partners.

We also have a big deficit with Italy. Of our top 25 trading partners, 10 are in the EU. We have a trade deficit with 9 of them, the only trade surplus is with Ireland and given the border between the republic and northern Ireland I think that surplus is safe whatever the EU tries to do.
I dont think you'll find that we do much with Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia and the others.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":3hxsnd18 said:


> Here's the list
> 
> https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/ ... ables.aspx.



That's to a monthly table which is almost completely meaningless in any macro sense.

How about lets take the average of the last 20 years if that is available?


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":1nc3q2ss said:


> Inoffthered":1nc3q2ss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the list
> 
> https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/ ... ables.aspx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's to a monthly table which is almost completely meaningless in any macro sense.
> 
> How about lets take the average of the last 20 years if that is available?
Click to expand...



That gives the UK's current year to date trading results for 2016. It actually makes a lot of sense from a macro point of view, much more relevant for the referendum decision than total Eurostat statistics.
What possible value are trading statistics for 20 years ago pre bank crash etc? The world has changed a lot since then.. That's how the USSR used to do things, take a 20 year perspective and make things nobody wanted...you must have heard the story about the bath plugs.


Makes your numbers look a bit suspect though doesn't it!

If you looked at other options on the page you would have seen the annual deficit of trade with the EU since 2008. The annual deficit (i.e. imports exceeded exports) was £85bn. I'm not sure what is was 20 years age but in 2008 it was £35bn.


----------



## rafezetter

Jake":2f5u1cmu said:


> phil.p":2f5u1cmu said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?
> 
> I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.
Click to expand...


Did you REALLY just state that Jake? The EU has been introducing LAWS on us that we don't want, didn't ask for and that are detrimental to our economic situation. Let me just state that again, LAWS that we cannot ignore and if a person breaches said law, they can and will be charged (or detained, possibly indefinitely, without charge).

The laws are being passed by the EU legislators regardless of WHAT WE WANT, with NO VETO option to say that the UK does not wish to adopt said law, and the EU leaders have been doing so for FORTY YEARS!!

What part of this situation makes you believe they won't force us at legal or political gunpoint to adopt the euro or face crippling penalties that they can apply any time they wish. They have the *unlimited and unopposable power* to sue the country into virtual bankruptcy should they so choose, or apply such extreme trade sanctions "we will cut you off at the knees and leave you twitching at the side of the road while we milk you dry if you refuse", that those in Govt at the time will have no choice but to agree or face riots in the streets.

All it will take is a group of EU leaders to decide they want the UK to adopt the Euro as it's national currency and it'll happen - we don't have it now because the pound is and always had been a very strong currency internationally, and also quite possibly because the EU leaders know it's a watershed event that until the referendum became a thing - might have sparked one, but were that to change - quite possibly if the #leave vote fails, then the EU will be pretty much free to do as it wishes with impunity.

I'm sorry but not even grasping just how much power and change the EU has already been exerting on the UK without our best interests as heart, just proves how little grasp you have of the realities of being in the EU.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":18tlbmcr said:


> That gives the UK's current year to date trading results for 2016.



Source? It says it is monthly data.

I was trying to avoid 2008 etc skew by suggesting 20 years,but last month is bit silly no?


----------



## Jake

rafezetter":1612n8f3 said:


> Jake":1612n8f3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":1612n8f3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?
> 
> I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you REALLY just state that Jake? The EU has been introducing LAWS on us that we don't want, didn't ask for and that are detrimental to our economic situation. Let me just state that again, LAWS that we cannot ignore and if a person breaches said law, they can and will be charged (or detained, possibly indefinitely, without charge).
> 
> The laws are being passed by the EU legislators regardless of WHAT WE WANT, with NO VETO option to say that the UK does not wish to adopt said law, and the EU leaders have been doing so for FORTY YEARS!!
> 
> What part of this situation makes you believe they won't force us at legal or political gunpoint to adopt the euro or face crippling penalties that they can apply any time they wish. They have the *unlimited and unopposable power* to sue the country into virtual bankruptcy should they so choose, or apply such extreme trade sanctions "we will cut you off at the knees and leave you twitching at the side of the road while we milk you dry if you refuse", that those in Govt at the time will have no choice but to agree or face riots in the streets.
> 
> All it will take is a group of EU leaders to decide they want the UK to adopt the Euro as it's national currency and it'll happen - we don't have it now because the pound is and always had been a very strong currency internationally, and also quite possibly because the EU leaders know it's a watershed event that until the referendum became a thing - might have sparked one, but were that to change - quite possibly if the #leave vote fails, then the EU will be pretty much free to do as it wishes with impunity.
> 
> I'm sorry but not even grasping w much power and change the EU has already been exerting on the UK without our best interests as heart, just proves how little grasp you have of the realities of being in the EU.
Click to expand...


You can make as much dung up as you like but it doesn't make it true. Everything in your post is imaginary fearful fantasy which could not actually happen under the treaty. You literally have not a clue about how law, international relations, and international law works. It may seem very distant,but what you are writing is complete fantasy with no basis at all in fact.


----------



## rafezetter

Rhossydd":13n37fbc said:


> t8hants":13n37fbc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to be subject to British laws voted on by a British Parliament, not foreign ones rubber stamped by a lap dog parliament here, or in Brussels.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue shouldn't be where the legislation is made, but if it's good legislation.
> There's a lot of disabled people that haven't been too happy lately about the laws made in the UK by a British elected government.
Click to expand...


The difference being the laws passed by british govt can be REPEALED by british Govt. EU laws are untouchable while we remain in the EU. They could introduce an amendment to the health and safety laws that stated all persons required to wear high viz gear must also wear a tutu - because a guy in a neon pink tutu is pretty damn well impossible to miss - and you would be forced to comply because (just for jake) EU law has primacy over domestic law; whereas in the UK, if evidence PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that a tutu offered no futher visibility or hazard awareness, the amendment could be REPEALED and wiped from the books.

"good legislation"... good for whom Rhossydd? was it "Good" for the uk to have the majority of our rich fishing grounds we had had relied on for hundreds of years given away because other nations had poorer grounds and wanted to jump ..no .... BREAK DOWN the fence to get at ours? Or that of the fish we are allowed to catch, there are such heavy restrictions that 40% (sometimes more) has to be returned to the sea (dead by the way, so not even good for the eco system either). Perfectly good edible fish, utterly wasted because of catch sanctions that favor foreign nations fishing OUR WATERS!!!!!

As I recall when Iraq fancied a dip into Kuwait's oil reserves, a war happened.... I have no doubt as reserves run out any of the EU countries that has a state owned commodity such as gas will be heavily leaned on to "share" as opposed to "sell", whether they wanted to or not. It's a good job our gas fields are privately owned, although iirc private assets have been seized in the past for the "national good".

@Jake - you are being far too nearsighted; maybe you are an older person with little care of what happens in the decades to come, or a younger person with limited knowledge of international history and what dominant govt's have done on a domestic level, which btw that's not meant to be a criticism as it applies to a great deal of the general population too. I however am taking the LONG view, not 5 or 10 years but 25, 50 or 100. International relations can change, look at the last 70 years for proof. International law can and has increasingly been challenged by domestic law whereby a conflict has been considered to occurr and since EU law has primacy over national law, therein lies the possibility that international law may not be safeguard you think it is, and if you have not heard the open warning that if UK leaves the EU our so called biggest ally might "put us at the back of the queue", then hear it now. Our biggest ally has openly threatened to make the UK's life difficult should we leave the EU. While I doubt it will happen, at least as far as trade goes (and I'm not deterred to #voteleave by it) it's a hint that if our biggest ally is willing to make such an open statement, other allies not part of the EU might too under the right conditions; so the whole "we will be protected from the big bad EU by international treaties and law etc etc", is just foolish expectation. International laws have been broken in the past as have international treaties between "allies" - Neville Chamberlain has been mentioned in this thread several times already - If it suits an "ally" not to or they just don't wish to get involved, they won't.

You have far too much faith in a system that is so obviously flawed RIGHT NOW, and if allowed to continue on the same path may entirely subsume the whole of Europe into one superstate, with what's left of the UK govt as little more than a figurehead group.

I suggest you read some of the documents Erik the Viking has citied - I have and it's extremely disturbing.


----------



## Jake

rafezetter":2ikt3j6q said:


> The difference being the laws passed by british govt can be REPEALED by british Govt. EU laws are untouchable while we remain in the EU. They could introduce an amendment to the health and safety laws that stated all persons required to wear high viz gear must also wear a tutu - because a guy in a neon pink tutu is pretty damn well impossible to miss - and you would be forced to comply; whereas in the UK, if evidence PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that a tutu offered no futher visibility or hazard awareness, the amendment could be REPEALED and wiped from the books.



Could you pick a less fantastical example? Perhaps one with a real issue in practice rather than lots of tutu-wearing hysteria.



rafezetter":2ikt3j6q said:


> Jake - International relations can change, International law can and has increasingly been challenged by domestic law whereby a conflict has been considered to occurr and since EU law has primacy over national law, therein lies the possibility that international law may not be safeguard you think it is. You have far too much faith in a system that is so obviously flawed. I suggest you read some of the documents Erik the Viking has citied - I have and it's extremely disturbing.



This does not make much sense either. I read everything which Eric the Retired Viking wrote and linked to. Could point me to the ones I have not addresed please in case I have missed something important? Sadly after being called out for talking non-factual stuff Eric declared it time for this thread to be shut. I understand the sentiments he gave for that of course.


----------



## beech1948

Jake,

You are being unrealistic and naive to think that this will not happen. To use words such as "dung" merely confirms your poor understanding and lack of research. Do you believe every bit of tripe fed to you by newspapers and polititions with no uncritical personal challenge.

Today UK civil servants in all ministries spend in excess of 61% of their time wading through EU legislation or proposed legislation ( figures from No 10 policy unit). The UK parliament is on the verge of becoming invisible in the making of our laws through an unelected EU state such that we can change nothing, repeal nothing, modify nothing, complain about nothing. Think man, do some research and understand and become aware.


----------



## rafezetter

Jake":9rtabn5r said:


> rafezetter":9rtabn5r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being the laws passed by british govt can be REPEALED by british Govt. EU laws are untouchable while we remain in the EU. They could introduce an amendment to the health and safety laws that stated all persons required to wear high viz gear must also wear a tutu - because a guy in a neon pink tutu is pretty damn well impossible to miss - and you would be forced to comply; whereas in the UK, if evidence PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that a tutu offered no futher visibility or hazard awareness, the amendment could be REPEALED and wiped from the books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you pick a less fantastical example? Perhaps one with a real issue in practice rather than lots of tutu-wearing hysteria.
> 
> 
> 
> rafezetter":9rtabn5r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - International relations can change, International law can and has increasingly been challenged by domestic law whereby a conflict has been considered to occurr and since EU law has primacy over national law, therein lies the possibility that international law may not be safeguard you think it is. You have far too much faith in a system that is so obviously flawed. I suggest you read some of the documents Erik the Viking has citied - I have and it's extremely disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This does not make much sense either. I read everything which Eric the Retired Viking wrote and linked to. Could point me to the ones I have not addresed please in case I have missed something important? Sadly after being called out for talking non-factual stuff Eric declared it time for this thread to be shut. I understand the sentiments he gave for that of course.
Click to expand...



The tutu was a deliberate fantastical example meant to highlight how little power our Govt has on domestic law being handed down from the EU. I'm sure you know how it was meant to be taken, but decided to bait instead, however I'll bite anyway. Rather than request I cite such an instance, as you are claiming to be something of an expert "you have no clue" = "I know more than you"; can _you_ tell me of a UK law imposed by UK govt of the ilk "all cucumbers must be straight and X length", or any other UK law set that's akin to the untold numbers of other EU laws deemed "nonsensically excessive" such as why there are 454 on towels (bath not sanitary) - I'm fairly sure you don't need that many for safety reasons, and previous to the EU ones - there probably wasn't, which was my entire point.

I don't know what points you addressed previously, and to be perfectly honest I'm not going to check as it's obvious you and I are at opposite ends and thus nothing I say will sway you, so I'm not going to waste time trying, suffice to reiterate International relations change; International treaties have been either bent or broken, and even exerting significant pressure more often than not yields ZERO positive results; shall I mention Ukraine? You know the place Russia *INVADED* more than a year ago and thus far, Russia, despite significant pressure and sanctions has essentially told the entire international community to F Off. Thinking international laws traties and other such bits of paper provide enough safeguards so the UK doesn't get a "comply or else" notice from the EU about something is to ignore the old proverb "those who fail to reference history are doomed to repeat it."


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":2hy7ep58 said:


> Inoffthered":2hy7ep58 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That gives the UK's current year to date trading results for 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source? It says it is monthly data.
> 
> I was trying to avoid 2008 etc skew by suggesting 20 years,but last month is bit silly no?
Click to expand...



Look, you have been rumbled, you clearly didn't look at the other information options on the HMRC site

The inför
mation on that page had all of the trade statistics you could wish for, including quarterly stats for several years and annual stats summarised since 2008. It was far more meaningful than the link to Eurostat page you included in your post.

You may think that saying you need 20 years information makes you appear knowledgable but it actually demonstrates the opposite. I repeat my earlier question, what possible relevance are trading result of 20 years ago?

When in difficulty you are great at posing questions as a means of trying to manipulate an argument. Well if you want a demonstration of how undemocratic you only have to look at how the Commission treats democratically elected MEP.

The link below relates to what happened to an Irish MEP when he wanted to see the details of the TTIP agreement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9RMWvYqkxk

I look forward to your comments on this.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

In thinking about this whole question, I find both "in" and "out" options pretty undesirable. I wish there was a "none of the above" option.

I also think that uncontrolled, large-scale, immigration of low-skilled people (however highly motivated to work hard at menial jobs they may be in the short/medium term) is storing up trouble for future generations, if not this one, on our densely populated little island. I have little confidence that an "in" or an "out" vote will actually affect levels of immigration very much. For me, this is the worst aspect of the referendum - most people will be voting (either way) for the wrong reason (either for/against immigration)!

A radio programme I listened to yesterday was very thought-provoking and confirmed my suspicions that there is a lot of spin on both sides of the debate; I heartily recommend it to those who are tempted to believe "facts" put about by the politicians of all flavours: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jczmc (Radio 4 More or Less - Referendum by numbers - omnibus parts 1 and 2).

Cheers, W2S


----------



## Mark Hancock

I would strongly suggest that those who want a more factual view of this topic watch this video. Those that believe the hype from both sides and the media ignore it.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/0...ale-eu-law-expert-analyses-referendum-debate/


----------



## Jake

rafezetter":2e05us04 said:


> The tutu was a deliberate fantastical example meant to highlight how little power our Govt has on domestic law being handed down from the EU. I'm sure you know how it was meant to be taken, but decided to bait instead, however I'll bite anyway. Rather than request I cite such an instance, as you are claiming to be something of an expert "you have no clue" = "I know more than you"; can _you_ tell me of a UK law imposed by UK govt of the ilk "all cucumbers must be straight and X length",



Myth. http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/straight-cucumbers/



> or any other UK law set that's akin to the untold numbers of other EU laws deemed "nonsensically excessive" such as why there are 454 on towels (bath not sanitary) - I'm fairly sure you don't need that many for safety reasons, and previous to the EU ones - there probably wasn't, which was my entire point.



These things are just trade standards, not laws in any meaningful sense. They help people do deals knowing what they are getting.



> I don't know what points you addressed previously, and to be perfectly honest I'm not going to check as it's obvious you and I are at opposite ends and thus nothing I say will sway you, so I'm not going to waste time trying



That's actually not the case, I have not decided how to vote and I am sceptical about the claims made on both sides. I know the constitutional side of the EU quite well, but have to research most other points. Most of the leave points I have looked at so far do not seem to be well made, but that doesn't mean that leave is the wrong decision - just that if leave is the right decision it is not the right decision for most of the reasons I have seen set out. The pure sovereignty argument is the one I have most sympathy with, but the cost of reclaiming the delegated sovereignty seems to be quite and probably too high, based on my preferences. And, I personally suspect that the EU will have to change radically in the next decade to accommodate more of a two tier approach, for the outer tier of which there will be less of a sovereignty issue.



> suffice to reiterate International relations change; International treaties have been either bent or broken, and even exerting significant pressure more often than not yields ZERO positive results; shall I mention Ukraine? You know the place Russia *INVADED* more than a year ago and thus far, Russia, despite significant pressure and sanctions has essentially told the entire international community to F Off. Thinking international laws traties and other such bits of paper provide enough safeguards so the UK doesn't get a "comply or else" notice from the EU about something is to ignore the old proverb "those who fail to reference history are doomed to repeat it."



If the EU decides to get Russian on us, it doesn't matter if we are a member or not. Then there is the fact that Putin wants an exit vote. I think the reason for that is obvious,and it isn't about our interests.


----------



## Mark Hancock

Jake":34fx187w said:


> rafezetter":34fx187w said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tutu was a deliberate fantastical example meant to highlight how little power our Govt has on domestic law being handed down from the EU. I'm sure you know how it was meant to be taken, but decided to bait instead, however I'll bite anyway. Rather than request I cite such an instance, as you are claiming to be something of an expert "you have no clue" = "I know more than you"; can _you_ tell me of a UK law imposed by UK govt of the ilk "all cucumbers must be straight and X length",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myth. http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/straight-cucumbers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or any other UK law set that's akin to the untold numbers of other EU laws deemed "nonsensically excessive" such as why there are 454 on towels (bath not sanitary) - I'm fairly sure you don't need that many for safety reasons, and previous to the EU ones - there probably wasn't, which was my entire point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These things are just trade standards, not laws in any meaningful sense. They help people do deals knowing what they are getting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what points you addressed previously, and to be perfectly honest I'm not going to check as it's obvious you and I are at opposite ends and thus nothing I say will sway you, so I'm not going to waste time trying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's actually not the case, I have not decided how to vote and I am sceptical about the claims made on both sides. I know the constitutional side of the EU quite well, but have to research most other points. Most of the leave points I have looked at so far do not seem to be well made, but that doesn't mean that leave is the wrong decision - just that if leave is the right decision it is not the right decision for most of the reasons I have seen set out. The pure sovereignty argument is the one I have most sympathy with, but the cost of that seems to be quite and probably too high, based on my preferences. And, I personally suspect that the EU will have to change radically in the next decade to accommodate more of a two tier approach, for the outer tier of which there will be less of a sovereignty issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> suffice to reiterate International relations change; International treaties have been either bent or broken, and even exerting significant pressure more often than not yields ZERO positive results; shall I mention Ukraine? You know the place Russia *INVADED* more than a year ago and thus far, Russia, despite significant pressure and sanctions has essentially told the entire international community to F Off. Thinking international laws traties and other such bits of paper provide enough safeguards so the UK doesn't get a "comply or else" notice from the EU about something is to ignore the old proverb "those who fail to reference history are doomed to repeat it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the EU decides to get Russian on us, it doesn't matter if we are a member or not. Then there is the fact that Putin wants an exit vote. I think the reason for that is obvious,and it isn't about our interests.
Click to expand...


The video link I posted above will explain the facts about the sovereignty issue.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":37qdpst2 said:


> Look, you have been rumbled, you clearly didn't look at the other information options on the HMRC site



Howhave I been rumbled? I have looked at that page, but you had linked to the monthly data,so I was asking if that was what you had cited. If so, that's a bit meaningless. One big deal could skew a monthly figure. 



> The införmation on that page had all of the trade statistics you could wish for, including quarterly stats for several years and annual stats summarised since 2008. It was far more meaningful than the link to Eurostat page you included in your post.



Oh really, why's that? 



> You may think that saying you need 20 years information makes you appear knowledgable but it actually demonstrates the opposite. I repeat my earlier question, what possible relevance are trading result of 20 years ago?



I asked if you would agree to that being a sensible period. It makes no sense to look at one month's data, or one year's, on something like this and I don't have time to look at every basis. If you won't agree on a sensible period to look at, I will be wasting my time finding the data as you will just say I am looking at the wrong period (as you have already done). 



> When in difficulty you are great at posing questions as a means of trying to manipulate an argument. Well if you want a demonstration of how undemocratic you only have to look at how the Commission treats democratically elected MEP. The link below relates to what happened to an Irish MEP when he wanted to see the details of the TTIP agreement.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9RMWvYqkxk I look forward to your comments on this.



I cannot be bothered to look at videos, it is too slow a means of getting information. I take it this is this story.

http://www.thejournal.ie/luke-flanagan- ... 1-May2016/

I don't know I think very much about that. I can see why the Commission does not want the content of its discussions with the US revealed. I doubt Whitehall would be anymore transparent with an MP, possibly less so.


----------



## Jake

Mark Hancock":3unz3fo8 said:


> The video link I posted above will explain the facts about the sovereignty issue.



Probably, I cba watching videos but googled for a precis of his views in that, which seem to be that parliament is still sovereign which is both right and wrong. Ultimately it is right of course, which is the point of the referendum (as parliament can ditch the EU if it chooses to do so). Practically speaking, it is a bit overstated in that parliament in its sovereignty has delegated some of its sovereignty to the EU via the international treaty and is obliged to respect the EU decision making for so long as it is a member.

I don't personally have any objection to the delegation and sharing of sovereignty per se, which is why I am interested in checking out the examples which are given which are said to be objectionable. I would not be happy, for instance, if the EU had the power to declare war. But it clearly does not. The fact that it can legislate about grading standards for cucumbers does not bother me one iota - it seems very sensible as a means of facilitating trade.


----------



## Jake

beech1948":22n2ts88 said:


> Jake, You are being unrealistic and naive to think that this will not happen. To use words such as "dung" merely confirms your poor understanding and lack of research. Do you believe every bit of tripe fed to you by newspapers and polititions with no uncritical personal challenge.



Just because I do not accept the leave line without questioning does not mean I am not an independent thinker, thank you. I will not return the compliment, but it can easily be directed at those who believe some of the piffle which is being spouted. There is a perfectly sensible and valid debate to be had, but making up nutso stuff like that is not part of it.



> Today UK civil servants in all ministries spend in excess of 61% of their time wading through EU legislation or proposed legislation ( figures from No 10 policy unit).



Does that have significance in itself?



> The UK parliament is on the verge of becoming invisible in the making of our laws through an unelected EU state such that we can change nothing, repeal nothing, modify nothing, complain about nothing.



That's just rhetoric (and contains patent falsities like the reference to an "unelected EU state" which does not exist).



> Think man, do some research and understand and become aware.



I guess you mean that only people who do not understand could have a view other than your own? That seems a bit arrogant if you do not mind me saying so.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":3lcb0ak0 said:


> Actually Jake, I'll help you out.
> 
> Figures for 2016 in millions (Exports = our exports, Imports = our imports) Source HMRC
> 
> Germany: Exports £10,452 Imports £20,456
> France: Exports £6,268 Imports £7,978
> Netherlands Exports £5,965 Imports 10,930
> Belgium Exports £3,649 Imports £7,112
> Spain Exports £2,908 Imports £5,282
> Ireland Exports £5,115 Imports £3,875
> Poland Exports £1,260 Imports £2,746
> Sweden Exports £ 1,496 Imports £2,003
> 
> With the exception of Ireland all countries listed above sell more to us than we sell to them. Only a fool or a poor negotiator would fail to take that into account in any post brexit negotiations. The EU will be looking for some way of funding the UK's contribution to its budget, they are not going to make worse by stopping Germany and co trading with us.



Here are the averaged figures for 2008-2016 from HMRC (in billions, negative is a UK trade deficit). They back up what I said.







The Netherlands is presumably skewed by the "Rotterdam effect" which Leave campaigners (probably rightly) say exaggerates the scale of trade with the EU.

Other than that, the differences are tiny in international trade terms. A couple of billion surplus will not influence Paris in the same way the 20bn plus German surplus might (and only might) influence Berlin. The rest really are completely irrelevant, and all will have a vote.

This table from document I posted earlier illustrates how important our trade is to the other member states. None of this suggests a deal would not be done, but none of it suggests to me that they will all be falling over themselves to do a favourable deal (for us) and quickly.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Some interesting and factual tables. I agree with you that they will not be in any hurry to sign up a deal. Any impact of Brexit on trade is unlikely to be precipitate - either imports or exports. 

But (all things being equal etc) trade will probably decline as tariffs reduce trade. It will impact on inflation and jobs. The rapidity of decline is open to debate, as is the relative impact on different products and markets. I am personally convinced that the only basis upon which they will likely do a deal is in Norway style - which includes free movement of people, compliance with most regulation and a contribution to the EU budget.


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":3q61tcuf said:


> Other than that, the differences are tiny in international trade terms. A couple of billion surplus will not influence Paris in the same way the 20bn plus German surplus might (and only might) influence Berlin. The rest really are completely irrelevant, and all will have a vote.
> 
> This table from document I posted earlier illustrates how important our trade is to the other member states. None of this suggests a deal would not be done, but none of it suggests to me that they will all be falling over themselves to do a favourable deal (for us) and quickly.



Congratulations you have found the underlying information, wasn't that difficult was it?.
From an economic analysis perspective, using an average of an 8 year period when most of it was effected by the most severe recession which will skew results. (but better than going into a trade negotiation quoting data that is 20 years old which would undoubtedly raise a smile on the other side).

I dont mean to offend and I'm not sure whether you are doing it deliberately or whether it is lack of experience in the commercial world but you constantly seem to conflate two issues. You dismiss insignificant trade deficits and state that no-one would be bothered about them. That is nonsense because the net position is made up of importers and exporters and they are not the same people. The net position may be a trade deficit of a mere £1bn in a year, but that £1bn could be the net of £11bn imports and £10bn exports, so the relevant figure for the european country is not the net loss of £1bn, but the loss of trade of £11n and that is not something any EU country would want to face.

Notwithstanding the above, if we do just look at the net figure Germany will not want to face a £21billion trade hit, so a deal will be done. 

PS .Reference to the Rotterdam (or Antwerp) effect may get you an extra mark in an economics O level exam but for the purposes of this debate it is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":11dg68l5 said:


> Congratulations you have found the underlying information, wasn't that difficult was it?.



Nope, I had seen it before but was asking you for clarification of what time series you were quoting.



> From an economic analysis perspective, using an average of an 8 year period when most of it was effected by the most severe recession which will skew results. (but better than going into a trade negotiation quoting data that is 20 years old which would undoubtedly raise a smile on the other side).



I agree with the first but not the second. Anyhow, 2008 to now is all that I could find on that site.



> I dont mean to offend and I'm not sure whether you are doing it deliberately or whether it is lack of experience in the commercial world but you constantly seem to conflate two issues.



Don't worry, I'm not going to be offended by anything you have to offer including that rather risible attempt to patronise me. 



> You dismiss insignificant trade deficits and state that no-one would be bothered about them.



That's because I am examining the truthfulness of the claim that all of the EU will fall over themselves to grant us a very favourable alternative trade deal because (it is said) they all run big trade surpluses with the UK so they need us more than we need them. With that as the starting point, it doesn't make sense to look at anything other than the trade balances as that is what is and was being put up as the justification for the argument.



> That is nonsense because the net position is made up of importers and exporters and they are not the same people.



OK,you seem to be saying that this Leave argument is nonsense?



> The net position may be a trade deficit of a mere £1bn in a year, but that £1bn could be the net of £11bn imports and £10bn exports, so the relevant figure for the european country is not the net loss of £1bn, but the loss of trade of £11n and that is not something any EU country would want to face.



I have not seen the argument put like this before, probably because it is an argument based on relative bargaining powers between nation states, for which the trade balance does seem more relevant. If the trade balance is uneven, then that would seem to me to be potential negotiation leverage. If there are, say, equal flows then the threat on both sides will effectively cancel out.



> Notwithstanding the above, if we do just look at the net figure Germany will not want to face a £21billion trade hit, so a deal will be done.



QMV remember. And the dreaded Commission.



> PS .Reference to the Rotterdam (or Antwerp) effect may get you an extra mark in an economics O level exam but for the purposes of this debate it is totally irrelevant.



It wasn't in my economics O or A level course that I remember, although that was some time ago so I may have forgotten. 

I mentioned it mainly because it does affect the Netherlands figure in particular although nobody seems to be able to put a figure or proportion on it and it is frequently cited on the Leave side as a factor reducing the 45% of exports to the EU. It plainly is relevant to the interest which the Netherlands would take.


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":xlh1we6d said:


> OK,you seem to be saying that this Leave argument is nonsense?
> 
> I have not seen the argument put like this before, probably because it is an argument based on relative bargaining powers between nation states, for which the trade balance does seem more relevant. If the trade balance is uneven, then that would seem to me to be potential negotiation leverage. If there are, say, equal flows then the threat on both sides will effectively cancel out.
> 
> 
> 
> The net position may be a trade deficit of a mere £1bn in a year, but that £1bn could be the net of £11bn imports and £10bn exports, so the relevant figure for the european country is not the net loss of £1bn, but the loss of trade of £11n and that is not something any EU country would want to face.
Click to expand...






> No, you are looking at leverage from the perspective of a net position. I am saying that you need to look at it from a gross position.
> Referring to Germany, our imports from Germany in 2015 amounted to £61 billion, our exports to Germany in the same period amounted to £30 billion a net balance of trade of £29 billion.
> You seem to be saying that Germany's trading decision is based on losing a net £29bn. I am saying you are wrong because if the EU put up barriers they will lose sales of £61bn which would be a significant hit to their GDP, especially if you factor in the multiplier effect. The values for other EU countries may not be as high as Germany, but the loss of trade if they adopt the nuclear option would hurt most of them. That is just not going to happen.
> 
> To suggest that this doesn't support the Leave argument speaks volumes.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":2b2i5wd7 said:


> RogerS":2b2i5wd7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been countless simulations from both sides but none are conclusive since they depend on the initial data being fed in and whether or not the 'other' side, as it were, accepts that data.
> 
> 
> 
> What this means in practice is that the leave camp don't accept the vast majority of projections and only accept projections based on very optimistic and favourable assumptions.
> There was an interesting interview with one of the few economists in favour of leaving on R4 earlier this week. What he said was that his assumptions were based on best possible cases and wouldn't accept that anything could go wrong. Sounded very naive to me.
> 
> The problem is that only a tiny 0.6% fall in our economy will wipe out any financial saving won from not paying any EU membership costs. The majority of projections are VERY significantly worse than that.
Click to expand...


No, what this means in practice is that no-one knows for sure either way - whether we are In or Out.


----------



## RogerS

There's nothing wrong with a Hi-Viz tutu  





(In the interest of introducing a little bit of levity).


----------



## Inoffthered

RogerS":20dgp5dd said:


> Rhossydd":20dgp5dd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what this means in practice is that no-one knows for sure either way - whether we are In or Out.
Click to expand...



The "Treasury" forecasts are based on doomsday scenarios, including a collapse of the £. They also assume that if the £ collapsed even though our goods would therefore be cheaper there would be no impact on international trade. Absolute nonsense and a measure of how rattled the Remainiacs have become...just like announcing that Baroness Warsi (who was never part of the Leave campaign) has left the Leave campaign...you couldn't make it up.


----------



## paulm

Inoffthered":2xzzy8tq said:


> RogerS":2xzzy8tq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhossydd":2xzzy8tq said:
> 
> 
> 
> /quote]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "Treasury" forecasts are based on doomsday scenarios, including a collapse of the £. They also assume that if the £ collapsed even though our goods would therefore be cheaper there would be no impact on international trade. Absolute nonsense and a measure of how rattled the Remainiacs have become...just like announcing that Baroness Warsi (who was never part of the Leave campaign) has left the Leave campaign...*you couldn't make it up*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Some on here do, regularly, look at Rhossydd's recent thread on Yandles and other nonsense on here !

Perhaps he has been working on the Treasury forecasts for them too :lol:


----------



## Cheshirechappie

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable" - John Kenneth Galbraith.

It does seem that in this debate, one can choose the economic forecast that most fits one's position on leaving or remaining. It's also true that many institutions forecast that the UK would be better off if it adopted the Euro; many feel they have been proved wrong.

About the only thing I will take from this debate on the economics is a considerable cynicism about economic forecasts. The only way to check the accuracy of a ten-year economic forecast is to wait ten years and see what happened.

It's not, in my view, a basis on which to decide whether leaving or remaining is the better option.

For me, the question is under which system of government are the people of the UK (and ultimately Europe as a whole) likely to enjoy a better life, and be able to contribute positively to the wider world. For me, that's democracy. I judge the UK system to be more democratic than the EU system, so my decision is to vote to leave.


----------



## RogerS

This website claims to be impartial

www.ukandeu.ac.uk


----------



## Mark Hancock

One factor that seems to be ignored in all this is the time scale. If we leave how long will it be before the new trade agreements will be in place? What happens to our economy during that period? I understand Switzerland still hasn't completed all trade agreements with the EU and how long has that been? I believe there is a similar situation with Canada?


----------



## paulm

Cheshirechappie":19rls2ng said:


> "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
> 
> It does seem that in this debate, one can choose the economic forecast that most fits one's position on leaving or remaining. It's also true that many institutions forecast that the UK would be better off if it adopted the Euro; many feel they have been proved wrong.
> 
> About the only thing I will take from this debate on the economics is a considerable cynicism about economic forecasts. The only way to check the accuracy of a ten-year economic forecast is to wait ten years and see what happened.
> 
> It's not, in my view, a basis on which to decide whether leaving or remaining is the better option.
> 
> For me, the question is under which system of government are the people of the UK (and ultimately Europe as a whole) likely to enjoy a better life, and be able to contribute positively to the wider world. For me, that's democracy. I judge the UK system to be more democratic than the EU system, so my decision is to vote to leave.



Very much my view also, I posted similar back on page 20, some time ago now !

Trying to decide long term, major, strategic issues such as this based on points of detail or forecast outcomes is to descend into a spiral of ever decreasing circles and paralysis by analysis !

The only way to sensibly deal with it is considering the fundamentals at a strategic level, and then deal afterwards with the details and inevitable bumps in the road that will arise whichever way you jump.

Seems to me that fundamentally it is an exceedingly poor idea to mortgage your trust and future well being of yourselves and future generations to an unelected, unaccountable massive quango with a heavily socialist agenda, that has a substantial track record of serial incompetence, corruption and wide ranging and self serving agendas and heavily biased and exceedingly poor political decision making.

It will never be in our best interests to tie ourselves to such an organisation with such an appalling track record and every prospect of falling apart at the seams in the not too distant future.

Those with a short term agenda of personal and corporate enrichment as part of the EU gravy train will of course claim it is the only way forwards, that is to be expected, but it doesn't mean they are objective, independent, truthful, or correct !

Those worried souls who want certain outcomes and forecasts and guarantees and won't get out of their beds in the morning in case the sky falls on their heads, and those who seek the opportunity for short term personal enrichment at the expense of the long term, will likely never be persuaded to vote to take control and vote leave, while those with a degree of real world experience and the ability and experience to see the way forwards through the clouds of FUD thrown up by the vested, self serving interests, will hopefully continue their efforts to drag the UK away from the failing and flawed EU model that has been hijacked and corrupted out of all recognition from it's early and simplistic ideals. 

Look at the appalling EU track record in fraud, awful political decision making, and complete inepitude in major practical issues, and at the various changes they are trying to keep hidden from us until after the vote, and ask yourself why you would want more of the same for the foreseeable future !


----------



## paulm

Mark Hancock":gaoqo4pm said:


> One factor that seems to be ignored in all this is the time scale. If we leave how long will it be before the new trade agreements will be in place? What happens to our economy during that period? I understand Switzerland still hasn't completed all trade agreements with the EU and how long has that been? I believe there is a similar situation with Canada?



I would strongly suspect that the ability of the numerous countries within the EU to agree amongst themselves is the hold up with finalising agreement with Switzerland and elsewhere, another reason to vote leave !

Has the EU not been trading with Switzerland and Canada in the meantime in any event ?


----------



## Mark Hancock

paulm":b21ap94v said:


> Mark Hancock":b21ap94v said:
> 
> 
> 
> One factor that seems to be ignored in all this is the time scale. If we leave how long will it be before the new trade agreements will be in place? What happens to our economy during that period? I understand Switzerland still hasn't completed all trade agreements with the EU and how long has that been? I believe there is a similar situation with Canada?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would strongly suspect that the ability of the numerous countries within the EU to agree amongst themselves is the hold up with finalising agreement with Switzerland and elsewhere, another reason to vote leave !
> 
> Has the EU not been trading with Switzerland and Canada in the meantime in any event ?
Click to expand...


This may answer your last question regarding Switzerland
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/is-the-swiss-model-a-brexit-solution/
It seems negotiating deals is not quite as simple as the media has been making out and we would still have to comply with EU regulations.


----------



## Mark Hancock

RogerS":21ealrf4 said:


> This website claims to be impartial
> 
> http://www.ukandeu.ac.uk



Just been through the 4 pages of Facts and it is fascinating to see the difference between those and what is being put out in the media.


----------



## RogerS

paulm":2xpa8xfj said:


> ......
> Seems to me that fundamentally it is an exceedingly poor idea to mortgage your trust and future well being of yourselves and future generations to an unelected, unaccountable massive quango with a heavily socialist agenda, that has a substantial track record of serial incompetence, corruption and wide ranging and self serving agendas and heavily biased and exceedingly poor political decision making.
> 
> ....!



Damn you, Paulm.  ..just when I thought I'd had things clear in my own mind, this does strike a chord with me. I'm now back on the fence...veering towards Leave. 

To my mind, the question of 'how will Brexit affect the economy' is too open, has too many variables to say if it will be positive or negative. If you are firmly in one camp or the other then you will believe the forecasts that support your view. Impossible to say who is right and so let's ignore this point.

EU regulations. If we want to sell into the EU then our goods need to adhere to any EU regulations. Fact. Whether we are In or Out. So another red herring. Some of the other Directives such as reducing emissions etc are a global issue and not some idea dreamt up by the EU. But then again other are..like that daft Cookie Law and that equally daft directive discouraging reward schemes on credit cards.

Comes back to Paulm's paragraph above. Mmmmmm :-k


----------



## slimshady

If we vote leave, will Tesco still stock Evian water, Grolsch beer, Parma ham etc. 
Will Saudi Arabia (and others) still sell us Petrol, buy fighter jets, etc.

Alex.


----------



## paulm

RogerS":25o35bye said:


> paulm":25o35bye said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> Seems to me that fundamentally it is an exceedingly poor idea to mortgage your trust and future well being of yourselves and future generations to an unelected, unaccountable massive quango with a heavily socialist agenda, that has a substantial track record of serial incompetence, corruption and wide ranging and self serving agendas and heavily biased and exceedingly poor political decision making.
> 
> ....!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you, Paulm.  ..just when I thought I'd had things clear in my own mind, this does strike a chord with me. I'm now back on the fence...veering towards Leave.
> 
> To my mind, the question of 'how will Brexit affect the economy' is too open, has too many variables to say if it will be positive or negative. If you are firmly in one camp or the other then you will believe the forecasts that support your view. Impossible to say who is right and so let's ignore this point.
> 
> EU regulations. If we want to sell into the EU then our goods need to adhere to any EU regulations. Fact. Whether we are In or Out. So another red herring. Some of the other Directives such as reducing emissions etc are a global issue and not some idea dreamt up by the EU. But then again other are..like that daft Cookie Law and that equally daft directive discouraging reward schemes on credit cards.
> 
> Comes back to Paulm's paragraph above. Mmmmmm :-k
Click to expand...


Always thought you would come back Roger, welcome and please do stay, with Brexit that is :lol: 

Leaving and/or hiding stuff till immediately after the vote concerns me also and I think is consistent with the EU and politicians approach of misleading us in the past.

The European army, even if we don't have to join, we'll almost certainly have to contribute to financially either directly or indirectly I would expect, as well as it under mining NATO and generally be unnecessary, unhelpful and inefficient duplication.

I am concerned that Cameron is also side stepping the possibility of mass immigration from Turkey. We are told Turkey are years away from being admitted to the EU yet talks seem to be underway to fast track it which suggests otherwise. Isn't it the case that large numbers of Turkish citizens will be granted the right to free movement in the EU imminently anyway, before and without Turkey being formally admitted ?

I don't know what other surprises await us as soon as we are done voting if we stay in, I'm pretty sure there will be more.

Probably just me being paranoid though, I haven't got the time or energy to check out all the possibilities and details, but history tells me not to trust and be too optimistic where the EU is concerned !


----------



## paulm

slimshady":m58kubjp said:


> If we vote leave, will Tesco still stock Evian water, Grolsch beer, Parma ham etc.
> Will Saudi Arabia (and others) still sell us Petrol, buy fighter jets, etc.
> 
> Alex.



Why wouldn't they ?


----------



## Mark Hancock

Can someone point me to The European Army?
All I can find is this
https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/


----------



## slimshady

My basic comment was to suggest that the vast day-to-day buying/selling that "we the peoples of Europe" do over the years is more than the governments of Europe spend.

Will the UK's MEP's be out of a job as well. Such a shame.

PaulM. I'm definitely vote leave.

Alex.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Roger - yes I have to satisfy EU regs. to trade with the EU - but if I trade with Brazil, Mongolia, Vietnam, wherever, I don't have to comply with EU regs. - which at the moment as a member of the EU I do. I've seen a figure as high as 92% for the companies that do not export to the EU, but still have to comply with all regs.


----------



## RogerS

phil.p":3bd230km said:


> Roger - yes I have to satisfy EU regs. to trade with the EU - but if I trade with Brazil, Mongolia, Vietnam, wherever, I don't have to comply with EU regs. - which at the moment as a member of the EU I do. I've seen a figure as high as 92% for the companies that do not export to the EU, but still have to comply with all regs.



If I was, say, a manufacturing business and wanted to maximise my sales then I'd make sure that my products met EU regs. Simple as that. I wouldn't have two separate production lines.

But 92% of what, Phil? Mom'n'Pop shops?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

92% of businesses.


----------



## iNewbie

slimshady":7gbl7xny said:


> If we vote leave, *will Tesco still stock* Evian water, Grolsch beer, Parma ham etc.
> Will Saudi Arabia (and others) still sell us Petrol, buy fighter jets, etc.
> 
> Alex.



I don't know. Allegedly Donald Trump says once he's in 501's won't be an issue again...


----------



## RogerS

phil.p":3dka261f said:


> 92% of businesses.



But that covers everything from companies who will never ever export to car manufacturers.


----------



## lurker

roll on Friday morning 
Then we can get back to arguing about sharpening


----------



## Inoffthered

I'm not sure it will be over by Friday.

This is an interesting article about what happened in Holland when they had a referendum (on a different topic) seems that their government and the EU ignored the electorates decision. 

https://peterreedijk.wordpress.com/2016 ... -brussels/

"It also appears that the people who opposed the EU expansionist agenda were warned of threats of chaos and catastrophe, and warnings of a “continental crisis”. Added to which the pro EU factions resorted to character assassination and the opposition were painted as liars, clowns, senseless troublemakers, even racists" (as Juncker has said if all else fails lie)

This sounds like the Remainiac's campaign


----------



## t8hants

lurker":1ygudznm said:


> roll on Friday morning
> Then we can get back to arguing about sharpening


You don't believe that do you, unless there is a massive majority to stay this will not be over.
We will stay as we have already seen examples of cheating and moving the goal posts, but the real clincher will be the huge postal vote that will suddenly tip the balance.


----------



## Mark-numbers

I am Out

I believe in immigration, but the controlled stuff............We are missing out on great people from the rest of the world due to the free movement within Europe.

I believe we need to take control of our finances again (if we remain then the Euro is a certainty)

I believe there are only half of the countries in Europe that are financially sound, so effectively we will prop up the other half.

I believe us Brits and anyone who has adopted our culture will always perform when our backs are against the wall.

I hate the fact that we have people who don't understand us and our identity controlling our day to day lives (MP's who have been born and bread into money are bad enough) 

I say we need to take control of our laws, our rights and our sovereignty.

The EU will continue to buy from us, we will continue to buy from them (this won't really change)

We will start trading without penalty with the rest of the world.

If we brexit, that will be the end of the EU as we know it and to me that will be bloody brilliant.


----------



## Inoffthered

=D>


Mark-numbers":xeh3uoo7 said:


> I am Out
> 
> I believe in immigration, but the controlled stuff............We are missing out on great people from the rest of the world due to the free movement within Europe.
> 
> I believe we need to take control of our finances again (if we remain then the Euro is a certainty)
> 
> I believe there are only half of the countries in Europe that are financially sound, so effectively we will prop up the other half.
> 
> I believe us Brits and anyone who has adopted our culture will always perform when our backs are against the wall.
> 
> I hate the fact that we have people who don't understand us and our identity controlling our day to day lives (MP's who have been born and bread into money are bad enough)
> 
> I say we need to take control of our laws, our rights and our sovereignty.
> 
> The EU will continue to buy from us, we will continue to buy from them (this won't really change)
> 
> We will start trading without penalty with the rest of the world.
> 
> If we brexit, that will be the end of the EU as we know it and to me that will be bloody brilliant.




=D>


----------



## CHJ

If you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.


----------



## Woodmonkey

Mark-numbers":18n0vkus said:


> The EU will continue to buy from us, we will continue to buy from them (this won't really change)
> 
> We will start trading without penalty with the rest of the world.



This will almost certainly change, at least the terms on which we trade will change. I was listening to a piece on radio 4 today, i only caught the end of it but they were saying that both the Germans and French have indicated that they would not be in favour of giving us a fast favourable trade deal should we leave, obviously they do not want to encourage other countries to follow our lead, in fact they will be looking to actively discourage it.


----------



## Jake

CHJ":dr284rzg said:


> I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.



Interesting indeed. The objection seems to be that quackery is not allowed. Quacks for Brexit!


----------



## paulm

CHJ":jcvbplzh said:


> I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.



Very interesting Chas and continues the background story of large corporate and other vested interests lobbying for and achieving changes and regulations to protect and further their own interests at the expense of smaller independents and individuals, such as the recent rules on vacuum cleaner power and soon to be extended to other domestic appliances.

Always dressed up though with a fig leaf of moral or green or other self serving justification !

Was there not a similar situation a while ago with regard to horticulture and testing and registration of different plant seeds resulting in many traditional heritage varieties of vegetables and similar being lost due to the excessive, unreasonable and uneconomic requirements forced on them to become licensed and permitted ? Maybe it was all UK self inflicted though, I stand to be corrected as I can't recall the details.

What else is in the pipeline in similar vein I wonder ?


----------



## RobinBHM

CHJ":12cvz79d said:


> I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.



Even making for a big allowance for the commercial bias, it makes for fascinating if scary reading.

Regulations such as these stop small companies being able to compete. It means the consumer has ever less and less choice as the market becomes more and more dominated by large organisations.

And what is the EU......a large, very very large organisation.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":2lzxen22 said:


> 92% of businesses.



ONS estimates that 89.2% of all businesses do not export at all.


----------



## Jake

RobinBHM":jy1znpks said:


> Even making for a big allowance for the commercial bias, it makes for fascinating if scary reading.
> 
> Regulations such as these stop small companies being able to compete. It means the consumer has ever less and less choice as the market becomes more and more dominated by large organisations.



http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/09 ... e-law.html


----------



## Rhossydd

paulm":23znn03f said:


> Some on here do, regularly, look at Rhossydd's recent thread on Yandles and other nonsense on here !


Nothing made up, but if you don't like supportive posts of good businesses that have gone through some trying times.........


----------



## Jake

paulm":2ef0u8nv said:


> Was there not a similar situation a while ago with regard to horticulture and testing and registration of different plant seeds resulting in many traditional heritage varieties of vegetables and similar being lost due to the excessive, unreasonable and uneconomic requirements forced on them to become licensed and permitted ? Maybe it was all UK self inflicted though, I stand to be corrected as I can't recall the details.



That was the Commission getting it all wrong. it got nixed by the European Parliament.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/n ... regulation

And then dropped

https://www.euroseeds.eu/commission-wit ... u-seed-law


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jake":h9o2y08b said:


> phil.p":h9o2y08b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 92% of businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONS estimates that 89.2% of all businesses do not export at all.
Click to expand...

That ties up - I've read 92% and 86%.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":k3o4oo2w said:


> Jake":k3o4oo2w said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":k3o4oo2w said:
> 
> 
> 
> 92% of businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONS estimates that 89.2% of all businesses do not export at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ties up - I've read 92% and 86%.
Click to expand...


86% is probably from the same data - adding up exporters of both goods and services individually gives a figure of around 15% of businesses, but the ONS de-duplicates for the businesses that export both good and services to get to 10.8% of businesses which export (at all). So seems likely someone has been a bit careless or is seeking to exaggerate the 3% into a 6%. Either way, it is a long, long way shy of 92%!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":24q5wy2d said:


> paulm":24q5wy2d said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there not a similar situation a while ago with regard to horticulture and testing and registration of different plant seeds resulting in many traditional heritage varieties of vegetables and similar being lost due to the excessive, unreasonable and uneconomic requirements forced on them to become licensed and permitted ? Maybe it was all UK self inflicted though, I stand to be corrected as I can't recall the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the Commission getting it all wrong. it got nixed by the European Parliament.
> 
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/n ... regulation
> 
> And then dropped
> 
> https://www.euroseeds.eu/commission-wit ... u-seed-law
Click to expand...


I think the regulation Paul was referring to was one passed some years ago requiring all seeds sold commercially to be trialled and entered on a National List. That was fine for seeds sold in 'normal commercial' quantities (most nurserymen would trial new varieties as a matter of course before commercial release, though the additional cost of adding the variety to the National List probably wasn't particularly welcome). However, there was at least one small company selling heritage varieties of vegetable seeds in very small quantities, but a great number of varieties; the regulation killed their business. The point that the varieties were of great age and therefore 'proven' didn't fit the new regulation.

It was probably inadvertent on the part of the EU, but it nonetheless killed a small business, with no increase at all in safety of the public or environment. To get round the problem, a seed library was set up under the auspices of Garden Organic ( http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/hsl ), so members can still swap seeds. However, the general public can't just buy a packet or two of obscure Victorian varieties as they used to be able to.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Actually, just to pick up on CHJ's post, and extend the seed example above - why do these things need to be regulated? If something is proven to do harm, by all means ban it for the common good. However, if it does no harm, why does it need regulating?

Let's imagine that regulations are put in place to List approved woodworking hand tools. Tools can be dangerous in the wrong hands, so regulation might save somebody from injury. A rare late 18th century Kenyon handsaw comes to light, and is offered for sale - obviously there would be interest from collectors. However, that particular design of saw is not entered on the National List, so selling it would be illegal. The authorities step in, confiscate the saw and scrap it to ensure public safety.

Ridiculous? Yes, of course it is - but that's the mentality of the people who think everything needs regulating. Alternative health products and heritage seeds today, unusual hand tools tomorrow - then what? Do we really want to live in a sanitised world were only items deemed approved by a remote, unaccountable committee somewhere in Brussels are permitted?

Think about it.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":3oqaod5t said:


> I think the regulation Paul was referring to was one passed some years ago requiring all seeds sold commercially to be trialled and entered on a National List. That was fine for seeds sold in 'normal commercial' quantities (most nurserymen would trial new varieties as a matter of course before commercial release, though the additional cost of adding the variety to the National List probably wasn't particularly welcome). However, there was at least one small company selling heritage varieties of vegetable seeds in very small quantities, but a great number of varieties; the regulation killed their business. The point that the varieties were of great age and therefore 'proven' didn't fit the new regulation.



Ah OK fair enough. Would be interesting to know if that was Whitehall doing its regrettable habit of gold-plating, but it does sound heavy handed. 

I guess the commercial point of regulating it will be the equivalent of IP for seed producers, but there ought to be exceptions for things which are long outside of the IP-equivalent.

Heritage seed people I have sympathy with. Quacks who sell dying people fake cancer treatments I hope get regulated out of existence by someone.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":142xx9fy said:


> Let's imagine that regulations are put in place to List approved woodworking hand tools. Tools can be dangerous in the wrong hands, so regulation might save somebody from injury. A rare late 18th century Kenyon handsaw comes to light, and is offered for sale - obviously there would be interest from collectors. However, that particular design of saw is not entered on the National List, so selling it would be illegal. The authorities step in, confiscate the saw and scrap it to ensure public safety.
> 
> Ridiculous? Yes, of course it is.



I agree with that too. Especially the last bit. There's nothing like taking a concept and running into the distance with it!


----------



## Jake

I think this must be the relevant bit of the earlier seed directive re national lists and heritage varieties.



http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002L0055":1oe22hlc said:


> Article 44
> 
> 1. [irrelevant snip]
> 
> 2. Specific conditions shall be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2) to take account of developments in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing of seed of:
> 
> (a) landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and threatened by genetic erosion without prejudice to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture(8);
> 
> (b) varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions.
> 
> 3. The specific conditions referred to in paragraph 2 shall include in particular the following points:
> 
> (a) in the case of paragraph 2, point (a), the landraces and varieties shall be accepted in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. In particular the results of unofficial tests and knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use and the detailed descriptions of the varieties and their relevant denominations, as notified to the Member State concerned, shall be taken into account and, if sufficient, shall result in exemption from the requirement of official examination. Upon acceptance of such a landrace or variety, it shall be indicated as a "conservation variety" in the common catalogue;
> 
> (b) in the case of paragraph 2, points (a) and (b), appropriate quantitative restrictions.



That seems to like a right to have an exemption for heritage varieties to me. The next step would be to check what Whitehall then made of it (they often over-egg things, and we aren't getting rid of them in a hurry!)


----------



## RogerS

CHJ":1t12go5t said:


> If you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.



Chas..many thanks for posting this. It has helped me make up my mind.

Out!


----------



## RogerS

Jake":504tm8ny said:


> CHJ":504tm8ny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting indeed. The objection seems to be that quackery is not allowed. Quacks for Brexit!
Click to expand...


Absolutely... I mean to say ...all that ayurvedic medicine that's been practised in India for centuries, that's quackery and must be banned. Might as well ban yoga as well...codswallop. Pilates? Ban that too. EU - way to go.

God, I'm beginning to sound like Jacob !


----------



## RogerS

Cheshirechappie":2qv82okc said:


> Actually, just to pick up on CHJ's post, and extend the seed example above - why do these things need to be regulated? If something is proven to do harm, by all means ban it for the common good. However, if it does no harm, why does it need regulating?
> 
> Let's imagine that regulations are put in place to List approved woodworking hand tools. Tools can be dangerous in the wrong hands, so regulation might save somebody from injury. A rare late 18th century Kenyon handsaw comes to light, and is offered for sale - obviously there would be interest from collectors. However, that particular design of saw is not entered on the National List, so selling it would be illegal. The authorities step in, confiscate the saw and scrap it to ensure public safety.
> 
> Ridiculous? Yes, of course it is - but that's the mentality of the people who think everything needs regulating. Alternative health products and heritage seeds today, unusual hand tools tomorrow - then what? Do we really want to live in a sanitised world were only items deemed approved by a remote, unaccountable committee somewhere in Brussels are permitted?
> 
> Think about it.



Exactly my point from way, way back.

The EU dogma - 'Thou canst only do what we say you can do'

The Uk approach - 'Thou canst _do whatever you like_ unless we say you can't'


----------



## RogerS

Jake":36x630f4 said:


> I think this must be the relevant bit of the earlier seed directive re national lists and heritage varieties.
> 
> 
> 
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002L0055":36x630f4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 44
> 
> 1. [irrelevant snip]
> 
> 2. Specific conditions shall be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2) to take account of developments in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing of seed of:
> 
> (a) landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and threatened by genetic erosion without prejudice to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture(8);
> 
> (b) varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions.
> 
> 3. The specific conditions referred to in paragraph 2 shall include in particular the following points:
> 
> (a) in the case of paragraph 2, point (a), the landraces and varieties shall be accepted in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. In particular the results of unofficial tests and knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use and the detailed descriptions of the varieties and their relevant denominations, as notified to the Member State concerned, shall be taken into account and, if sufficient, shall result in exemption from the requirement of official examination. Upon acceptance of such a landrace or variety, it shall be indicated as a "conservation variety" in the common catalogue;
> 
> (b) in the case of paragraph 2, points (a) and (b), appropriate quantitative restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to like a right to have an exemption for heritage varieties to me. The next step would be to check what Whitehall then made of it (they often over-egg things, and we aren't getting rid of them in a hurry!)
Click to expand...


Even if Whitehall over-egged things, why did the EU bother to legislate this in the first place? Heavy-handed and unnecessary and typical of the EU's mentality.

Where are we now? On Friday, 6th March 2015, Garden Organic learned that the current EU Seed Regulation legislation has been withdrawn, this was confirmed the following day when the official notification was posted on the EU official journal.

But someone hasn't alerted Defra https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-marketi ... -varieties

On digging a bit further, Jake is spot-on and Defra have done their usual 'Let's screw things up again'. If you look at the relevant page on the Defra site, it says..

_If you want to market the seeds of the main varieties of agricultural crops or vegetables in England and Wales, you must:

have a licence for your business to market seed
have successfully applied to have your seeds certified - this shows that they meet EU quality standards_

They then go on to provide a list. But this list is not varietal specific but generic. Take, for example, the carrot, Daucus carota L. That is the generic for a carrot. Which means that if you have a heritage variety - if it's a carrot - then it needs to be registered etc and tested etc - otherwise you can't market it. But if the EU hadn't introduced this in the first place then there is a good chance that Defra would not either.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":1o7krd30 said:


> I think this must be the relevant bit of the earlier seed directive re national lists and heritage varieties.
> 
> 
> 
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002L0055":1o7krd30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 44
> 
> 1. [irrelevant snip]
> 
> 2. Specific conditions shall be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2) to take account of developments in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing of seed of:
> 
> (a) landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and threatened by genetic erosion without prejudice to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture(8);
> 
> (b) varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions.
> 
> 3. The specific conditions referred to in paragraph 2 shall include in particular the following points:
> 
> (a) in the case of paragraph 2, point (a), the landraces and varieties shall be accepted in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. In particular the results of unofficial tests and knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use and the detailed descriptions of the varieties and their relevant denominations, as notified to the Member State concerned, shall be taken into account and, if sufficient, shall result in exemption from the requirement of official examination. Upon acceptance of such a landrace or variety, it shall be indicated as a "conservation variety" in the common catalogue;
> 
> (b) in the case of paragraph 2, points (a) and (b), appropriate quantitative restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to like a right to have an exemption for heritage varieties to me. The next step would be to check what Whitehall then made of it (they often over-egg things, and we aren't getting rid of them in a hurry!)
Click to expand...


Jake - try reading it. In order to exempt a variety from Listing, somebody still has to put together a load of documentation (for each variety) proving it's heritage, describing it exactly, recording practical experience of it's cultivation - that's a lot of work. It's just bureaucracy for no real benefit.

You may also care to re-read CHJ's link - http://www.thefinchleyclinic.com/PHPLis ... upplements - particularly the bits lower down about the EU Clinical Trials Directive and subsequently. This looks very much like a rather more serious restriction of freedom to me, and it's a good indication of what I was trying to say - heritage seeds and woodworking hand tools today, restricting the ability of doctors in the NHS to carry out clinical trials without needing the direct involvement of big pharmaceutical companies the next - and other serious problems. Who, exactly, does that benefit?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

RogerS":nf6n4tnc said:


> Jake":nf6n4tnc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHJ":nf6n4tnc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting indeed. The objection seems to be that quackery is not allowed. Quacks for Brexit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely... I mean to say ...all that ayurvedic medicine that's been practised in India for centuries, that's quackery and must be banned. Might as well ban yoga as well...codswallop. Pilates? Ban that too. EU - way to go.
> 
> God, I'm beginning to sound like Jacob !
Click to expand...

Naahh ... impossible ... 
Anyway, I dare say ayurvedic medicine would be banned if it were sold as "curing cancer". It's the misselling that's a no no, not so much the product. http://www.thefinchleyclinic.com/PHPLis ... upplements was probably a poor example to make to make a good point.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Irrespective of who wins, it's time to be realistic about laws - maybe every time a new one is brought in regardless of from where it came it should be law that two laws are scrapped? The statute books are full of archaic laws that have never been repealed, to start with.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

phil.p":xjdmghsi said:


> Irrespective of who wins, it's time to be realistic about laws - maybe every time a new one is brought in regardless of from where it came it should be law that two laws are scrapped? The statute books are full of archaic laws that have never been repealed, to start with.



That's already started - the European Arrest Warrant legislation repealed part of Habeas Corpus, for example. The real problem isn't the archaic laws, it's the ones being put in place recently and currently!


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":29agosrf said:


> the bits lower down about the EU Clinical Trials Directive and subsequently. This looks very much like a rather more serious restriction of freedom to me, and it's a good indication of what I was trying to say - heritage seeds and woodworking hand tools today, restricting the ability of doctors in the NHS to carry out clinical trials without needing the direct involvement of big pharmaceutical companies the next - and other serious problems. Who, exactly, does that benefit?



Interesting subject. The quack does much quoting from a failed UKIP MP candidate for Sutton & Cheam.

Here's a thoughtful and careful report from a Parliamentary Committee on the same subject, which has far more credibility in my eyes than some hideous quack preying on the vulnerable and dying by purveying at vastly inflated prices untested plant extracts for which unsubstantiated claims are made. 

Unsurprisingly, it is a much balanced account. The Directive in question takes quite a clattering, and its replacement by a new Regulation is broadly welcomed, Whitehall takes quite some criticism for gold-plating the implementation of the Directive, but interestingly the Committee puts as much or more blame on NHS fragmentation and general UK bureaucracy, and some on the loss of public trust in the pharma industry leading to less volunteering for trials. 


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 04/104.pdf


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":17qteart said:


> Jake - try reading it. In order to exempt a variety from Listing, somebody still has to put together a load of documentation (for each variety) proving it's heritage, describing it exactly, recording practical experience of it's cultivation - that's a lot of work. It's just bureaucracy for no real benefit.



That sounds a bit like you were trained in Whitehall. Any sensible country would have just put all traditional varieties on their national list with the bare minimum of paperwork. You only have to do what is required by the Directive, not more than that and the wording is vague enough to permit the national authority to accept a one line submission. I have grown this "Orange Balls" carrot on my farm in Norfolk for 50 years and its is always orange and ball-shaped. Tick.


----------



## RogerS

Jake":2v1g3adn said:


> Cheshirechappie":2v1g3adn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - try reading it. In order to exempt a variety from Listing, somebody still has to put together a load of documentation (for each variety) proving it's heritage, describing it exactly, recording practical experience of it's cultivation - that's a lot of work. It's just bureaucracy for no real benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds a bit like you were trained in Whitehall. Any sensible country would have just put all traditional varieties on their national list with the bare minimum of paperwork. You only have to do what is required by the Directive, not more than that and the wording is vague enough to permit the national authority to accept a one line submission. I have grown this "Orange Balls" carrot on my farm in Norfolk for 50 years and its is always orange and ball-shaped. Tick.
Click to expand...


That's not what the DEFRA website says. There's a lot more to it than that. And if it's a carrot....you're stuffed!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":3nmy1ma3 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3nmy1ma3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - try reading it. In order to exempt a variety from Listing, somebody still has to put together a load of documentation (for each variety) proving it's heritage, describing it exactly, recording practical experience of it's cultivation - that's a lot of work. It's just bureaucracy for no real benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds a bit like you were trained in Whitehall. Any sensible country would have just put all traditional varieties on their national list with the bare minimum of paperwork. You only have to do what is required by the Directive, not more than that and the wording is vague enough to permit the national authority to accept a one line submission. I have grown this "Orange Balls" carrot on my farm in Norfolk for 50 years and its is always orange and ball-shaped. Tick.
Click to expand...


I was not trained in Whitehall. I was trained - and worked for many years - in an industry that demands very high levels of safety and attention to detail, so I'm no stranger to meticulous documentation - when it's justified.

Why regulate this stuff at all? People have been growing vegetables since time out of mind, without any harm to humanity or the wider world that I know of. Why does the selling of vegetable seed need regulating at all? Where's the risk to human health or the environment? Why do we need a National List of approved varieties? Approved for who's benefit? Yours and mine, or big seed producers and a small army of bureaucratic paper-shufflers?

That's the difference between the UK approach to legislation and regulation (apply if experience shows a need) and the continental approach (regulate everything, then we can control it). Some things just don't need to be controlled. Too much control restricts personal freedom. Personal freedom gives people scope to innovate, tight control restricts innovation. That's the point.


----------



## RogerS

Cheshirechappie":2m7zx7y8 said:


> Jake":2m7zx7y8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":2m7zx7y8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - try reading it. In order to exempt a variety from Listing, somebody still has to put together a load of documentation (for each variety) proving it's heritage, describing it exactly, recording practical experience of it's cultivation - that's a lot of work. It's just bureaucracy for no real benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds a bit like you were trained in Whitehall. Any sensible country would have just put all traditional varieties on their national list with the bare minimum of paperwork. You only have to do what is required by the Directive, not more than that and the wording is vague enough to permit the national authority to accept a one line submission. I have grown this "Orange Balls" carrot on my farm in Norfolk for 50 years and its is always orange and ball-shaped. Tick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not trained in Whitehall. I was trained - and worked for many years - in an industry that demands very high levels of safety and attention to detail, so I'm no stranger to meticulous documentation - when it's justified.
> 
> Why regulate this stuff at all? People have been growing vegetables since time out of mind, without any harm to humanity or the wider world that I know of. Why does the selling of vegetable seed need regulating at all? Where's the risk to human health or the environment? Why do we need a National List of approved varieties? Approved for who's benefit? Yours and mine, or big seed producers and a small army of bureaucratic paper-shufflers?
Click to expand...

I agree with you wholeheartedly.



Cheshirechappie":2m7zx7y8 said:


> That's the difference between the UK approach to legislation and regulation (apply if experience shows a need) and the continental approach (regulate everything, then we can control it). Some things just don't need to be controlled. Too much control restricts personal freedom. Personal freedom gives people scope to innovate, tight control restricts innovation. That's the point.



But on this point, there are many instances - and Seed regulation is a case in point - where our homegrown paper-shuffling bureaucrats - over-egg things. Or in the case of the EU Regulation on the humane slaughter of animals (actually - this IS one of the more sensible regulations or directives to come out of the EU) bottle out completely and render it ineffective. Whitehall is not 'whiter-than-white'.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":1xf6fzns said:


> I was not trained in Whitehall. I was trained - and worked for many years - in an industry that demands very high levels of safety and attention to detail, so I'm no stranger to meticulous documentation - when it's justified.



Why did you want to gold-plate it then? Just misapplying your experience in a more safety critical arena, just for rhetorical effect, or because its a British disease? (It probably is the latter)



> Why regulate this stuff at all? People have been growing vegetables since time out of mind, without any harm to humanity or the wider world that I know of. Why does the selling of vegetable seed need regulating at all? Where's the risk to human health or the environment? Why do we need a National List of approved varieties? Approved for who's benefit? Yours and mine, or big seed producers and a small army of bureaucratic paper-shufflers?



It's primarily about facilitating trade, as it gives seed producers more control over their rights to the varietals they have developed. If I spend £x creating a Yellow Balls F1 hybrid from Orange Balls and Yellow Spear, I want to be able to control the supply (hence all the certified seed etc). If I spend £££Y developing a GM Rainbow Balls varietal, I want that even more, and there is a definite risk to health or environment which needs to be regulated there. If I am a farmer and the cheapest supplier of Rainbow Balls is in Romania, I want to be sure if I buy from them something described as Rainbow Balls I don't get Yellow Balls, and then the Romanian supplier says well sorry we call those ones Rainbow Balls here sorry you misunderstood but that's your problem.



> That's the difference between the UK approach to legislation and regulation (apply if experience shows a need) and the continental approach (regulate everything, then we can control it).



I think it more the difference between an international organisation/free trade agreement and a national government. All the bent cucumber and straight banana grading stuff is straight out of WTO rules, this stuff is not going to go away.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake":2c4e6ri5 said:


> Cheshirechappie":2c4e6ri5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not trained in Whitehall. I was trained - and worked for many years - in an industry that demands very high levels of safety and attention to detail, so I'm no stranger to meticulous documentation - when it's justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you want to gold-plate it then? Just misapplying your experience in a more safety critical arena, just for rhetorical effect, or because its a British disease? (It probably is the latter)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why regulate this stuff at all? People have been growing vegetables since time out of mind, without any harm to humanity or the wider world that I know of. Why does the selling of vegetable seed need regulating at all? Where's the risk to human health or the environment? Why do we need a National List of approved varieties? Approved for who's benefit? Yours and mine, or big seed producers and a small army of bureaucratic paper-shufflers?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Gold plate it? I've just stated that I don't think it needs regulating AT ALL.

This discussion is becoming sterile - a pointless fisking of minutiae. I don't know what you're trying to prove; maybe that Brussels is into light-touch regulation. It isn't. Maybe that you're smarter than everybody else. Whatever.

Just for the record, I'm voting leave. I'm doing so because I believe that freedom and democracy are precious, and that the UK's system of government is more democratic than the EU's. If you have a problem with that, Jake, I'm afraid it's your problem. not mine. You may cast your referendum vote as you see fit - and I'll cast mine as I choose.

Now, as far as this pointless arguing over a regulation about heritage seeds, I've had enough. Over and out.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie":3i41h0mq said:


> Gold plate it? I've just stated that I don't think it needs regulating AT ALL.



You interpreted the EU regulation as being really onerous when there was no need to based on the actual words. This displays a bias in you, conscious or unconscious.



> This discussion is becoming sterile - a pointless fisking of minutiae.



Just dissecting the arguments to see how much truth is in them. There is a bit in this one it seems to me, but not so much as it is being portrayed.



> I don't know what you're trying to prove; maybe that Brussels is into light-touch regulation. It isn't. Maybe that you're smarter than everybody else. Whatever.



We are not heavily regulated by world standards - according to the OECD we are pretty lightly regulated. 

No, I'm not smarter than anyone else, I just like to test things thoroughly and not take propaganda at face value. Call it (actually) sceptical if you will.



> Just for the record, I'm voting leave. I'm doing so because I believe that freedom and democracy are precious, and that the UK's system of government is more democratic than the EU's. If you have a problem with that, Jake, I'm afraid it's your problem. not mine. You may cast your referendum vote as you see fit - and I'll cast mine as I choose.



I have no problem with how you vote - that is your choice and your democratic right to exercise within our constitution, and it's been quite obvious your mind is made up. It's been useful to me to try and find out if your reasons are good ones I should take into account, but I think at heart they are not that evidence based, and more emotional. Which is fine, but not something which will sway me.



> Now, as far as this pointless arguing over a regulation about heritage seeds, I've had enough. Over and out.



OK, bye now, take care. Thanks for pushing me into looking at some stuff I wouldn't have otherwise, as the devil is always in the detail.


----------



## Inoffthered

Just for the record, I'm voting leave. I'm doing so because I believe that freedom and democracy are precious, and that the UK's system of government is more democratic than the EU's..[/quote]

=D> 
Eloquently put.

I would also add that the Remain side have had nothing positive to say to support their case, they have consistently resorted to project fear and personal attacks on anyone from the Leave campaign which continue despite their stated wish for a clean campaign. The way they are using the death of Jo Cox to support their case and go for the sympathy vote is sickening. 

They are now also going for celebrity endorsements with David Beckham and Posh Spice adding their support to Remain. David B may have been a good footballer but why Remain think I will be swayed by the voting intentions of this particular millionaire and his wife escapes me.

It is the Remain side that is poisoning the political debate, not the Leave campaign and they are playing a dangerous game.


----------



## RogerS

Jake":3ha6ritg said:


> I think this must be the relevant bit of the earlier seed directive re national lists and heritage varieties.
> 
> 
> 
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002L0055":3ha6ritg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 44
> 
> 1. [irrelevant snip]
> 
> 2. Specific conditions shall be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2) to take account of developments in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing of seed of:
> 
> (a) landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and threatened by genetic erosion without prejudice to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture(8);
> 
> (b) varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions.
> 
> 3. The specific conditions referred to in paragraph 2 shall include in particular the following points:
> 
> (a) in the case of paragraph 2, point (a), the landraces and varieties shall be accepted in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. In particular the results of unofficial tests and knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use and the detailed descriptions of the varieties and their relevant denominations, as notified to the Member State concerned, shall be taken into account and, if sufficient, shall result in exemption from the requirement of official examination. Upon acceptance of such a landrace or variety, it shall be indicated as a "conservation variety" in the common catalogue;
> 
> (b) in the case of paragraph 2, points (a) and (b), appropriate quantitative restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to like a right to have an exemption for heritage varieties to me. The next step would be to check what Whitehall then made of it (they often over-egg things, and we aren't getting rid of them in a hurry!)
Click to expand...


I checked with them. No way out. You still have to do all the paperwork, etc etc. 

So....a pointless EU regulation, IMO.


----------



## Jake

RogerS":3g67vww2 said:


> I checked with them. No way out. You still have to do all the paperwork, etc etc.
> 
> So....a pointless EU regulation, IMO.





Defra":3g67vww2 said:


> National list conservation varieties: make an application
> 
> Write to APHA’s Cambridge office with:
> •your name, address and contact details
> •a cheque payable to APHA for £175
> •the species and proposed variety name - the variety name will normally be that under which the variety is historically known
> •a description of the variety using the DUS (Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability) criteria - if you can’t describe your variety, contact APHA for advice
> •a brief history of the variety including information from your experience during its cultivation, reproduction and use
> •evidence of the variety’s conservation status and regional adaptation as well as its region of origin, ie where it has historically been grown and is naturally adapted
> •include information on when the variety was removed from the national list if it was previously listed - if you’re unsure, please ask APHA, who’ll check as part of the application process
> 
> If your application is successful you must send a representative sample of the seed to APHA’s Cambridge office.
> 
> Amateur varieties
> 
> You can register amateur vegetables, eg a variety developed with no commercial value, for sale in small packets.
> 
> Apply to add an amateur vegetable to the national list.



So two lower-impact routes are in fact provided, one for conservation varieties and the other for non-commercial seed stock. How low impact they are in practice is DEFRA's responsibility as it will have drafted the SIs.

The Commission's proposed (but ditched) replacement for this lot sounds like a real error of judgment by them, but caught in the decision making process, but this all looks a bit like a storm in a tea-cup.


----------



## RogerS

Jake":hfzjc7ct said:


> ... but this all looks a bit like a storm in a tea-cup.



To you and me, maybe, but to smaller seedsmen, nurseries ?

What's next ? Only allowed to sell certain plants?


----------



## RobinBHM

The regulations on joinery can be frustrating.

Windows should be CE marked, not so easy for a bespoke maker, ok for a large factory.

Of course thats before the U value calculations, window ratings etc (yes I know they are important, but in reality, joiners will use the same glass spec, same timber, pretty much same section, yet conveniently 'trickle vents are energy neutral' for the regulations). These are of course UK regulations, driven by building regulations, driven by Kyoto agreement etc.

Somewhat moving away from the in/out discussion, but its an example of regulations that are punitive to small businesses and favour large businesses, rather like the seedsmen.


----------



## rafezetter

Rhossydd":1xxotwx9 said:


> It would be interesting to hear how many going on about the lack of accountability and democracy have ever done anything more than turn up at a ballot station every few years.
> 
> Policies get made and changed by lobbying and direct contact. I'd guess only a very, very tiny minority ever have bothered actually engaging in the process and discovering how well it works.



I'm somewhat guessing you havent done it either because I know someone who has, and it takes a great deal of time; more time than most people have to spare, lobbying isn't just writing an open letter to your local representative, it's rallying groups of likeminded individuals, planning your schedule to coincide with the person(s) you are trying to lobby schedule (if you manage to get it) and a bunch of other stuff that is very VERY not trivial.

That's why there are PROFESSIONAL lobbyists, because part time lobbyists just don't get the job done adequatly enough.


----------



## Jake

Apparently I am being harsh on DEFRA, who reportedly sensibly turn a blind eye to small scale stuff under the existing Directive (article is discussing the nixed Commission proposal).
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/artic ... resistance


----------



## Jake

Robin, but in practice do you find building inspectors care? Mine wants to see the receipt for the glass to prove spec and that's it (one example, and I know they can be a random power unto themselves).


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The UK is fortunate to have a fairly high level of technical and cultural integrity. We buy goods and services generally expecting that what is delivered is what is promised, and have a legal process to back up consumer rights. Sadly scu**ags do still trade but they are very much in the minority.

Some other member states (particularly more recent joiners) are not so fortunate. Poor quality standards and limited legal redress are common. A very legitimate function of the EU is to ensure all states adhere to a common high standard to protect consumers and other customers.

It follows that trade between member states needs to adhere to similar standards.

Not all regulation makes sense and some is unquestionably frustrating. It is not helped when on implementation it is made yet more impenetrable by our own civil servants. In the case of seeds the Commission eventually withdrew its proposals when it was clear there was no political agreement between the Commission and European Parliament. Interesting because it does illustrate that democratically elected Euro MPs wield at least some power and influence.

But at the end of the day its your choice - accept and act upon harmonisation of standards and regulations as the price for unfettered access to the European market, or go it alone with the risks implicit in that option.


----------



## rafezetter

paulm":ayrdkifp said:


> Look at the appalling EU track record in fraud, awful political decision making, and complete inepitude in major practical issues, and at the various changes they are trying to keep hidden from us until after the vote, and ask yourself why you would want more of the same for the foreseeable future !



Here's a question maybe no-one here has positied yet (or I've missed it in the 50+ pages); if these new addendums and changes are so beneficial to the UK and the general euro populace, why are they not shouting them from the rooftops in a "if you vote to leave, people of the UK, look at all the benefits you could be missing out on in the coming months and years ahead..... aren't they amazing?"

The very fact they have not been fully disclosed does not put them in a positive light, this isn't christmas presents we are talking about now is it?

Oh and those remainers that say the EU will collapse if we leave - surely they can see the stupidity in such a statement - that's just asserting how much it's leaning on us, like the keystone in a bridge.

It should be that the EU instead of threatening sanctions will be saying - "go then, we don't need you and if you don't wish to be here we will gladly release you, you will not be missed, we are strong enough and absolutely fine without you."

Seems to me instead it's a lot like an employee who's always given the pineapple end of the crappiest jobs, threatening to leave unless things change and the employer saying he'll ruin his chances of finding another job anywhere ever again, so he's better off staying and accepting his fate.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Somewhere in the deep recesses of this thread, I mentioned a small firm no longer able to make mercury stick barometers because the EU banned them. They can still buy, sell and restore antique ones, but can't make new ones. I'm not quite sure how this makes the world a safer, better place, though. Is this really a necessary regulation, or the unintended consequence of regulations aimed at industrial handling of mercury?

http://www.barometerworld.co.uk/stick_mercury.htm


----------



## harryd

I’d like to begin by thanking everyone, from whichever side, who has contributed to this monster thread for the plain hard work they have put into it, and for the thought-provoking quality of contributions.

However, I feel that, in common with most people, from either side of the debate, my position hasn’t changed since the beginning of the national debate. I have been deeply unimpressed (absolutely not by this forum) by the quality of both national campaigns.
I’m not swayed at all by the economic arguments – three economists together will notoriously come up with four projections, and then say, ‘On the other hand…’

The immigration question, which can look very threatening, could be managed by adopting a points-based system, so we get the immigrants we actually need.

What does bother me very much, and it’s my main reason for being in the ‘Out’ camp, is the erosion of our sovereignty, and our acquiescence in the continued acceptance of what looks to me like a bureaucratic and very undemocratic tyranny – an apparently benign, tyranny, but a tyranny nonetheless, with ambitions far beyond what we signed up for when we thought we were joining a free trade area.

I offer two observations on the nature of the EU from two long dead but prescient figures, C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton.
C. S Lewis died in 1963, so knew nothing about the Common Market. He wrote, and I think he pinned down the EU machine perfectly:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” 
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

G. K. Chesterton, in ‘The Secret People’ with similar accuracy ( and please don’t dismiss the poem on the basis of a possible anti-Semitic reference – he was of his own time, when attitudes were different) pinned it down:

a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
….But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.


----------



## rafezetter

Cheshirechappie":e1mbi81x said:


> Actually, just to pick up on CHJ's post, and extend the seed example above - why do these things need to be regulated? If something is proven to do harm, by all means ban it for the common good. However, if it does no harm, why does it need regulating?
> 
> Let's imagine that regulations are put in place to List approved woodworking hand tools. Tools can be dangerous in the wrong hands, so regulation might save somebody from injury. A rare late 18th century Kenyon handsaw comes to light, and is offered for sale - obviously there would be interest from collectors. However, that particular design of saw is not entered on the National List, so selling it would be illegal. The authorities step in, confiscate the saw and scrap it to ensure public safety.
> 
> Ridiculous? Yes, of course it is - but that's the mentality of the people who think everything needs regulating. Alternative health products and heritage seeds today, unusual hand tools tomorrow - then what? Do we really want to live in a sanitised world were only items deemed approved by a remote, unaccountable committee somewhere in Brussels are permitted?
> 
> Think about it.



Taking that a step further, all these wooden planes that require a hammer to adjust, surely one day someone will miss and hit themselves on the hand, or slice their fingers open on the blade (which they undoubtedly have) **, so all those must be banned and only "approved" handplanes with the stanley bailey (or possibly other) adjustment system is allowed; all other forms of plane must be handed in for destruction or owners fined.

** maybe they will deem home sharpening too dangerous and only a commercial company, with approved trained specialists (conforming to H & S directives X,Y, and Z ofc) will be allowed to go anywhere near a blade, and even then will only be allowed to sharpen it to a rating of X sufficient for planing these approved types of wood, because all the exotics with even mild physiological sawdust effects have been banned.

no crazier than cucumbers must be straight and of X length is it.


----------



## Jake

Someone mentioned the EU record on fraud, which is a real weakness. They need to be given an enforcement division to chase things up, as all they can do at present is ask the member state kindly to investigate and prosecute, which is obviously a bit weak. For balance though, I see that estimates put EU fraud as high as €4bn annually (Telegraph) although the EU would put it lower (OLAF says €900m). That's obviously still a lot of money out of a €143bn budget - 2.7% at the Telegraph number, getting on for 1% at the official investigator's number. By comparison, the UK government fraud figures are estimated as between £21bn (official) and £38bn (McIntyre Hudson), of a total budget of around £780m - i.e. between 2.7 and 4.8%. Those UK figures include about £15bn/£22bn of tax fraud however, which is not so less of an issue for the EU where the fraud is mostly on the expenditure side. So the numbers for both are very bad and a terrible misuse of public funds, but the stats do not paint a picture of the EU being much worse than the UK government.


----------



## Jake

rafezetter":1w8dqtr0 said:


> no crazier than cucumbers must be straight and of X length is it.



Better hope the WTO don't start thinking about planes in that way then.

(Those are just standard international cucumber grading rules which are as applicable under WTO rules as they are in EU law, so we won't be having high grade expensive curly cucumbers if we leave (if the supermarket would buy them anyway), we'll still be stuck with the same old lower grade cheaper curly ones or the same old higher grade straighter ones. Which is a real nuisance I have to say.)


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":3jdhf3tn said:


> Someone mentioned the EU record on fraud, which is a real weakness. They need to be given an enforcement division to chase things up, as all they can do at present is ask the member state kindly to investigate and prosecute, which is obviously a bit weak. For balance though, I see that estimates put EU fraud as high as €4bn annually (Telegraph) although the EU would put it lower (OLAF says €900m). That's obviously still a lot of money out of a €143bn budget - 2.7% at the Telegraph number, getting on for 1% at the official investigator's number. By comparison, the UK government fraud figures are estimated as between £21bn (official) and £38bn (McIntyre Hudson), of a total budget of around £780m - i.e. between 2.7 and 4.8%. Those UK figures include about £15bn/£22bn of tax fraud however, which is not so less of an issue for the EU where the fraud is mostly on the expenditure side. So the numbers for both are very bad and a terrible misuse of public funds, but the stats do not paint a picture of the EU being much worse than the UK government.




The accounts for the EU have not been signed off with a clean audit report for years and years. 
There are reports of huge amounts of money being paid for road schemes in Italy that have never been built.

When someone in the finance department exposed some of the corrupt practices, the commissioner responsible at that time , a certain Neil Kinnock, had her fired. They know there is widespread fraud but they choose to do nothing about it.

As for the culture towards wrong doing in Brussels, this makes interesting reading:-

http://order-order.com/2016/06/21/sex-p ... qus_thread


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Of course they've been signed off. They employ a department to do it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Anyone watch The Great Debate? I don't think the remain side did themselves any favours with the selection of spokesmen/women.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Is it just me or did the Scottish people on the remain side come over to other people as well as arrogant, ignorant and rude?
Gisela Stuart is brilliant, imo. I don't dislike Boris, but I doubt he does the leavers any favours. Frances Grady just loves the sound of her own voice, preaching from the top of the huge mound of self righteousness that is her very own. If anyone could persuade me to do the opposite of what they asked it would be Farron and Lucas. Lucas in particular is a hypocrite - it's up to the government to build more hospitals, roads, etc. - Yeah? and who's going to be first to object to them, I wonder? Farron is just a joke leader of a joke Party. Of course Cameron was absent - he couldn't conceivably remember what he said when - as when he said he was looking forward to the road being paved from Brussels to Ankara - presumably to the Turkey that's not going to join the EU? The Turkey whose accession is being paid towards by us? The same Cameron who couldn't remember being warned that he couldn't limit EU immigration?


----------



## Inoffthered

phil.p":23m21c4e said:


> Of course they've been signed off. They employ a department to do it.



Actually you're right, they have been signed off but in a way that could only happen in the EU. The accounts accurately show what money has been spent so commissioners can say the accounts have been signed off, it's just that a material amount each year since 1994 shouldn't have been spent.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Oh, I knew I was right.


----------



## BearTricks

The banana thing should be a non-issue. There are more important things to worry about but this has been co-opted as something which sounds ridiculous enough to give people looking to be angry about something a problem they can actually understand and quote.

I heard that the regulations in curvature are to do with handling and shipping. If they have a relatively uniform curve they can get more in the shipping container and there's less likely that they get damaged. Sounds reasonable to me but it could be hearsay. I don't actually care while there are issues like the NHS to be raised.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The irritating thing with regulation is the apparent necessity to regulate EVERYTHING. If I don't want to buy an apple with a mark on it, a bent banana, a three ounce watermelon or a twelve ounce grape, I'd like to decide for myself thank you - rather than pay someone earning way more than I ever earned decide for me.


----------



## Jake

You can Phil, you can (or perhaps rather you could if you could find a shop which will take the risk of stocking them as most people are so hung up on cosmetics etc). They are just to be found in the cheaper grades. End up on market stalls etc.


----------



## Rhossydd

BearTricks":3v55e45x said:


> I don't actually care while there are issues like the NHS to be raised.


If you care about the NHS the only way to vote is to remain.
The only possible benefits from leaving are very distant in the future; Less people in the UK to put pressure on services (that won't change for very many years) _and_ a government with the will to increase funding _and_ having the resources to allow that to happen (again there's little chance of major economic benefit soon).
On the other hand; Leaving is highly likely to give immediate economic problems that will put further pressure on funding public services generally.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":2djwpu3x said:


> Anyone watch The Great Debate? I don't think the remain side did themselves any favours with the selection of spokesmen/women.


Yes, I worked on it.
This is probably the first thing you've said I'd agree with.

You might have a different view of the Brexiters if you'd had to spend the whole two hours watching just them as I had to.


----------



## Inoffthered

Rhossydd":2ta9mym3 said:


> BearTricks":2ta9mym3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually care while there are issues like the NHS to be raised.
> 
> 
> 
> If you care about the NHS the only way to vote is to remain.
> The only possible benefits from leaving are very distant in the future; Less people in the UK to put pressure on services (that won't change for very many years) _and_ a government with the will to increase funding _and_ having the resources to allow that to happen (again there's little chance of major economic benefit soon).
> On the other hand; Leaving is highly likely to give immediate economic problems that will put further pressure on funding public services generally.
Click to expand...



Nonsense.
How is the electorate supposed to fund the NHS with an annual increase in population of 300,000+ above the natural growth rate, and please don't quote the mythical figure regarding the alleged contribution of migrant labour.

This is a BBC clip of an the assessment of the situation by an economist (that predicted the dangers of the Euro).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlHY7vfb7A


As well funding the NHS, who is going to build all of the houses needed and where are they going to be built?

This is yet an another lie promoted by the Remaniacs, similar to Camerons dodgy answer about Turkey being nowhere near joining the EU.

http://order-order.com/2016/06/22/turke ... supporter/

Of course we know who Cameron is lying to and it 'aint the Turks


----------



## Droogs

My impression after being on the fence through this is that immigration and economics are basically smokescreens as they are driven by global events rather than localised Eu ones for the greater part and fluctuate far too rapidly and at times excessively for our position in or out to have any bearing. For me the matter of greater import is more eosotaric. And to put it to it's lowest common denominator is do we as a people wish to live in a society to do as we wish unless prohibited for the greater good or in one where we can do as we are told and only as we are told. So do we want to be in effect a democratic self ruling free people or "serfs" in a beneign benevolent totalitarian dictatorship. 

Now this may sound like I am for leaving, but I am at heart really not. My entire adult life has been devoted to the defence of the ideals originally portrade in the founding of the EEC and for the ideals held dear by the British in general, such as democracy and it's associated rights, our safety and security and the right to try to be as successful as one can be. Not only for Brittans but for everyone. I will defend to the death these rights and have put myself on the parapett in order to do so. Yet, I was still unsure as to how to vote. 

I would like to thank all of the posters who contributed to this thread on both sides. This place has had some of the most coherent and unbiased arguement put forward (especially compared to the rhetoric of the main stream). I suppose as someone with no offspring, it is even more important that I consider these arguement in as ultruistic a manner as possible as my decision will affect those who follow, even though in the long term I have no stake in it's outcome or how it will effect my lineage. So for me it boils down to will I be selfish and think of only my benefit (ie for the time covering my expected lifespan) or for the whole. 

After much deliberation I feel that I must say, as things currently stand it is in my best interest for the UK to leave the EU both economically and politically and ethically. But that is not how I will be voting, I have to believe that this referendum will act as a wake up call to the EU that it does not have the will of it's peoples and that it must deal with it's flaws now before it is torn apart by them. Therefore I feel this course must be given a chance to succeed. I feel this is the right course of action after all, if the EU does not reform each and every member country with the will of it's people can leave at any point in the future regardless of what the EU thinks if that country decides it wishes to do so and tell the EU to get stuffed it will not be able to stop them short of invasion and no state within the EU would aquiess to that course of action. 

So therefore with a very heavy heart I am voting to remain


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Why do you suppose this referendum will make the EU think any differently? No other Country's has. If the EU had any foresight at all (which it hasn't) maybe it would have been more accommodating to Cameron?


----------



## DennisCA

You're viewed much differently abroad than you look at yourselves you know. Over here people think you've gotten all kinds of special "kids gloves" treatment from the EU that you shouldn't have. Britain isn't really seen as the champion for democracy or human rights either abroad, if anything it's seen as generally conservative and lagging behind. 

Figured I should post an outsiders perspective, the self-aggrandizing is poured on really thick here sometimes. You do have a lot in common with the americans in this respect, I've observed.


----------



## RogerS

Inoffthered":17geawxm said:


> .....
> ..... similar to Camerons dodgy answer about Turkey being nowhere near joining the EU.
> 
> ....



He's right. If you check the facts rather than rely on a clip from a Turk with vested interest then you will find that they are a very, very long way off..if ever since any EU country can veto them joining.


----------



## RogerS

Droogs":3b7gw09z said:


> .....
> So therefore with a very heavy heart I am voting to remain



=D> =D> 

Well said, Droogs, as you echo my own viewpoint.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

DennisCA":2v98jokh said:


> You're viewed much differently abroad than you look at yourselves you know. Over here people think you've gotten all kinds of special "kids gloves" treatment from the EU that you shouldn't have. Britain isn't really seen as the champion for democracy or human rights either abroad, if anything it's seen as generally conservative and lagging behind.
> 
> Figured I should post an outsiders perspective, the self-aggrandizing is poured on really thick here sometimes. You do have a lot in common with the americans in this respect, I've observed.


If we get all kinds of special kid gloves treatment, it's bloody expensive kid gloves treatment at about £150million a week.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Turkey, Albania and Serbia are not going to join the EU apparently - so why is Cameron supposedly paying £2billion towards their accession? This is the same Turkey that's at the end of the road from Brussels to Ankara that Cameron wants paved?
It would be good if he were to make his mind up instead of saying what's expedient on the day.


----------



## NazNomad

DON'T FORGET FOLKS ...


----------



## Phil Pascoe

If Labour want it that's a good reason for doing the opposite.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

On a serious note - it does seem odd that Labour and the unions both want in when worker's wages are kept down by immigrant labour.


----------



## iNewbie

I'm so confused I'm emigrating to Remania for a life of EU benefits.


----------



## Jake

Too many lies on the Brexit side for me. I can't see the risk/benefit analysis being in favour of Leave, as everything I have looked or seen other people look at is either completely fabricated, massively exaggerated or just completely skewed for political effect. There is a great groundswell of anti-emotion, which is leading people to regurgitate a complete tissue of lies, you see the same stories and lines everywhere, and whenever they are examined for truth, they fail. It is a very clever, highly manipulative, deeply orchestrated propaganda campaign which has deliberately targeted the emotional shallow grip of social media as a political weapon. 

I am also deeply suspicious that much of this is driven by at the core by extreme right wing desires to exit the EU in order to be able to leave the ECHR and dismantle this country's commitment to human rights. 

I also do not like the element of the leave camp which is driven by racism and xenophobia (which is not all of the leave camp by any means, but enough of that I do not want to be associated with it).

This is the most dispiritingly dishonest political campaign I have ever witnessed. Neither side has completely clean hands, but the Brexit camp have taken lying in politics to a whole new level. It is ironic (but too sad to be funny) that so many of them do this whilst condemning the honesty of mainstream politicians, some of whom are venal but most of whom are on the spectrum of decent human beings (however politically misguided).

And the thought of voting in a way that someone with Nazi tendencies would be pleased with is pretty untenable.

So I'm, err, in. I think.


----------



## RobinBHM

It is a shame that the referendum campaign has been fought with the same tactics as electioneering for a general election. 

The result has been massive over simplification of the issues. 

For me it is a balance between staying in a system which has spent many years unifying legislation, trade agreements etc so that there is a single market, free flow of people, jobs etc. That has to be balanced against the disadvantage of getting 28 countries to agree and arrive at decisions that are fair to all members. Also the EU, like all huge organisations is naturally inefficient, expensive and slow (trade agreements with Brazil, China, US etc). 

The second balance is if we stay, will our government have the power and will to force through reform and stop the drift towards a federal Europe. But if we leave, will our government have the flair, influence and drive to quickly develop trade agreements around the world. Can our civil servants act quickly to do this? -it seems unlikely.

I'm err, out......but still a bit in


----------



## RogerBoyle

And For me I'm out 

The PM has for several years stated that immigration from the EU needs to be reduced . LOL it turns out there is nothing that we can do to stop it so he was lying through his teeth. 

We keep getting told that only from within can we make things better. So why for the amount of time that we have been involved in the EU have things been on a steady decline for the worse.

If things were so good why would we need a referendum and why so much Vitriol from both sides

Its been alluded to that we appear to get beneficial treatment from EU if this is the case can you imagine just how much worse things will get for us if we vote to remain................ Doesn't bear thinking about.

Each side of the debate has lied through their teeth and will continue to do so Long after the result of the vote is known. Its what politicians do ,have always done and will always do 

I've had enough of our own politicians lying and trying to deceive us so the last thing I want is to be controlled by the EU with our Government as nothing more than a mouth piece for them. Unfortunately if we remain then that's what I think will happen.

Time to be gone from the EU and put our own country to rights before fighting battles for other countries, Especially other countries where Corruption, greed and lack of human rights are rife


----------



## Fitzroy

RobinBHM":20emhhg6 said:


> It is a shame that the referendum campaign has been fought with the same tactics as electioneering for a general election.
> 
> The result has been massive over simplification of the issues.
> 
> For me it is a balance between staying in a system which has spent many years unifying legislation, trade agreements etc so that there is a single market, free flow of people, jobs etc. That has to be balanced against the disadvantage of getting 28 countries to agree and arrive at decisions that are fair to all members. Also the EU, like all huge organisations is naturally inefficient, expensive and slow (trade agreements with Brazil, China, US etc).
> 
> The second balance is if we stay, will our government have the power and will to force through reform and stop the drift towards a federal Europe. But if we leave, will our government have the flair, influence and drive to quickly develop trade agreements around the world. Can our civil servants act quickly to do this? -it seems unlikely.
> 
> I'm err, out......but still a bit in



I'm very aligned with your thinking. I liken it having a choice of two soups, pea and mint or carrot and coriander, I want soup but i actually want chicken broth. I want to stay in the EU but not on the deal that the current government is aligned with. I want the EU but I want reform.

JK Rowling wrote a great piece that i've only just seen (http://www.jkrowling.com/en_GB/#/timeli ... referendum), in which she writes:
_"For many of our countrymen, I suspect a 'Leave' vote will be a simple howl of frustration, a giant two fingers to the spectres that haunt our imaginations, against terrorism that seems almost supernatural in its ability to hit us in our most vulnerable places, against huge corporations who refuse to meet their basic moral obligations, against bureaucracy we are afraid will strangle us, against shadowy elites we are told are working to do us down. How easy to project all of this onto the EU, how satisfying to turn this referendum into a protest against everything about modern life that scares us, whether rationally or not. "_

And i admit it is very tempting. So, I'm err, in......but still a bit out.


----------



## Grahamshed

Foreign businesses have to manufacture goods to a standard acceptable to the EU. It is worth their while doing so because there is a 500m customer pool. We will not be subject to that requirement and will not be big enough to enforce our own standards so they can sell us all their junk and death traps.


----------



## Inoffthered

phil.p":3drt8gjy said:


> Turkey, Albania and Serbia are not going to join the EU apparently - so why is Cameron supposedly paying £2billion towards their accession? This is the same Turkey that's at the end of the road from Brussels to Ankara that Cameron wants paved?
> It would be good if he were to make his mind up instead of saying what's expedient on the day.




Talks for the accession of Turkey start next week.

http://order-order.com/2016/06/22/eu-op ... s-june-30/

John Major says they could be members within 10 years.


----------



## RobinBHM

Turkey....not any time soon I think:

'A country has to adopt and enforce all the current EU rules before it can be admitted to the bloc. EU rules are divided into 35 policy areas and in 10 years Turkey only managed to adopt the rules on one: science and research. In most other areas it has not even made a start.'

12th of never seems a good date


----------



## Inoffthered

Droogs":2emswnq1 said:


> I have to believe that this referendum will act as a wake up call to the EU that it does not have the will of it's peoples and that it must deal with it's flaws now before it is torn apart by them. Therefore I feel this course must be given a chance to succeed. I feel this is the right course of action after all, if the EU does not reform each and every member country with the will of it's people can leave at any point in the future regardless of what the EU thinks if that country decides it wishes to do so and tell the EU to get stuffed it will not be able to stop them short of invasion and no state within the EU would aquiess to that course of action.
> 
> So therefore with a very heavy heart I am voting to remain




If you really believe that you can change the EU by voting Remain then you are in for a big disappointment.
Juncker is on record as saying"British voters have to know where there will be no kind of negotiation. We have concluded a deal with the PM - he got the maximum he could receive, and we gave the maximum we could give."

Source Laura Kuenssberg BBC.

Ironically, your best chance of any renegotiation is to vote leave. They know they are ****ed if we leave because who will they get to replace the money we pay in and who is going to fund the extra £20bn black hole they have to fill....well we all know the answer to this because ours in the only economy showing any kind of growth so we will end up paying for most of it.


----------



## clk230

Grahamshed":3ne5x32f said:


> Foreign businesses have to manufacture goods to a standard acceptable to the EU. It is worth their while doing so because there is a 500m customer pool. We will not be subject to that requirement and will not be big enough to enforce our own standards so they can sell us all their junk and death traps.



So we may choose to adopt certain EU standards , I don't think anyone is saying that everything the EU has done is rubbish .


----------



## Inoffthered

RobinBHM":35s9t78n said:


> Turkey....not any time soon I think:
> 
> 'A country has to adopt and enforce all the current EU rules before it can be admitted to the bloc. EU rules are divided into 35 policy areas and in 10 years Turkey only managed to adopt the rules on one: science and research. In most other areas it has not even made a start.'
> 
> 12th of never seems a good date



So if this is such a remote possibility, why is the EU spending millions of Turkish infrastructure projects and why are talks stating next week.

I seem to remember similar comments made about Greece joining the euro but the EU is perfectly capable of bending its own rules. Please dont say that Cameron would exercise a veto because he dodged that question so many times over the last few weeks.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Grahamshed":3bkq0oqk said:


> Foreign businesses have to manufacture goods to a standard acceptable to the EU. It is worth their while doing so because there is a 500m customer pool. We will not be subject to that requirement and will not be big enough to enforce our own standards so they can sell us all their junk and death traps.



If it suits us we'll use existing EU standards. There is no law to make us change anything.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Are they the government afraid to tell what Cameron actually negotiated? The EU parliament doesn't even discuss it until after our referendum - and apparently it requires treaty change anyway ... which they've already said won't happen. He couldn't get away with not putting VAT on sanitary towels, so I don't hold out any hope for very much.


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":39iesh9j said:


> Grahamshed":39iesh9j said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign businesses have to manufacture goods to a standard acceptable to the EU. It is worth their while doing so because there is a 500m customer pool. We will not be subject to that requirement and will not be big enough to enforce our own standards so they can sell us all their junk and death traps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it suits us we'll use existing EU standards. There is no law to make us change anything.
Click to expand...

Aren't half the people who aren't just racist who are voting to leave relying on all these annoying standards and EU guidelines to be dropped? That'd be a little bit upsetting for them when migration doesn't stop AND they still have to follow EU guidelines.

Where will the madness end?!


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Campaigning on both sides (but particularly Brexit) has been either grossly exaggerated or have no real foundation in fact at all. The £350m emblazoned on the Brexit battle bus has been so roundly condemned that even Leave campaigners are embarrassed by it.

The vast weight of evidence on economic matters is that Brexit will leave us poorer - certainly for many years. Waving this away simply as a "project fear" tactic, insisting that the world will beat a path to our door, quickly sign favourable trade agreements, and anyway they know better is either a triumph of optimism over reality or plain dishonest. The argument that all forecasts are inherently guesses and that one forecast is as good as another is manifest rubbish.

Controlling immigration to allow only those we want to come is a justifiable policy. Suggesting it will solve resource problems with NHS and schools is probably flawed as any small reduction in demand may be offset by the loss of trained staff. Excessive immigration may be a problem in some communities, and I am also sure there are a significant number of racists and xenophobes out there. But for many the lack of government control over immigration makes this an ideal way to express their distrust/dislike of Cameron or other frustration (job, pay, housing etc)

Sovereignty is an entirely legitimate issue. However Brexit have campaigned as if the EU want to regulate our every living moment - patently false. The Remain campaign has largely been incapable of communicating what their limits are. The end result is that people start to believe that Turkey, for instance, will imminently become a member (untrue - veto and their compliance with entry requirements). But as Europe shares a common border with 85m Turks it makes very good sense to help them become a stable and democratic barrier between the EU and the Middle East - money well spent not evidence of impending membership. 

It may be the case that democracy is flawed. Campaigning is orchestrated to maximise votes. The facts and evidence are largely ignored in favour of spin and selective truths. Rational debate is largely reduced to interminable carefully crafted soundbites. Politicians would use the same tactics if they were selling cat food or cars. 

A large segment of the population respond to simplistic messages, and either don't bother or are incapable of to thinking or researching the matter for themselves.

One is inevitably drawn to the thought that the way the EU is structured with most decisions taken by highly educated and capable elite may produce a far better outcome than politicians concerned to convince the electorate at regular intervals that they are still up to the job. Perhaps democracy, worthy though its intentions, only produces sub optimal answers.


----------



## paulm

Jake":1kngl731 said:


> I am also deeply suspicious that much of this is driven by at the core by extreme right wing desires to exit the EU in order to be able to leave the ECHR and dismantle this country's commitment to human rights.
> 
> I also do not like the element of the leave camp which is driven by racism and xenophobia (which is not all of the leave camp by any means, but enough of that I do not want to be associated with it).
> 
> And the thought of voting in a way that someone with Nazi tendencies would be pleased with is pretty untenable.
> 
> So I'm, err, in. I think.



The comment about Nazi tendencies seems very odd and emotive Jake, are you suggesting that because I am in favour of controlling the inflows of new arrivals into the UK that I have Nazi tendencies ?!!!

Have to say that I've not met a lawyer yet who wasn't rabidly in favour of the ECHR and the whole human rights based source of work and fees for their profession, so you haven't bucked the trend there :lol:


----------



## paulm

Terry - Somerset":2pgi4zux said:


> One is inevitably drawn to the thought that the way the EU is structured with most decisions taken by highly educated and capable elite may produce a far better outcome than politicians concerned to convince the electorate at regular intervals that they are still up to the job. Perhaps democracy, worthy though its intentions, only produces sub optimal answers.



Would be nice to think that could be the case Terry, do you know of any examples of that in reality over the last few years/decades that suggest it to be more than wishful thinking ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Wuffles":165cs1bp said:


> phil.p":165cs1bp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grahamshed":165cs1bp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign businesses have to manufacture goods to a standard acceptable to the EU. It is worth their while doing so because there is a 500m customer pool. We will not be subject to that requirement and will not be big enough to enforce our own standards so they can sell us all their junk and death traps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it suits us we'll use existing EU standards. There is no law to make us change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't half the people who aren't just racist who are voting to leave relying on all these annoying standards and EU guidelines to be dropped? That'd be a little bit upsetting for them when migration doesn't stop AND they still have to follow EU guidelines.
> 
> Where will the madness end?!
Click to expand...


Our choice. We can use any standards we wish. That's the difference. Who said "migration" was going to stop? I don't recall one single person suggesting it would.


----------



## Wuffles

I've got an idea for some more madness actually. All a bit late in the day and all that, but why not.

I keep hearing the Australian points-based system being bandied about, so I think we should adopt that. 

We start by all but destroying the indigenous population (that's us by the way) with fresh immigrants. Then create some island "prisons" and detention centres for atrocities to be carried out for the asylum seekers that dare to enter our waters.

Farage would love this, perhaps that's what he actually means and I've inadvertently stumbled across his long term plan?

Billy Bragg (I think) said is best when he said, "Not everyone voting LEAVE is a racist, but everyone racist will be voting LEAVE".


----------



## t8hants

All I see is the small minded tiny offshore Island mentality fostered by EU membership, we were the greatest nation in the history of the known universe. When there was fog in the Channel the Continent was cut off.
We as a nation have been relentlessly programmed to think and believe we are small, WE created the modern world and have given it the new universal language, and the French will never forgive us.
Put the Great back in Britain and look out towards the world, not this inward European navel gazing, their small fry.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Not everyone voting in is an silly person, but every silly person is voting in? Much the same, really, if we're going to start insulting people.


----------



## RogerS

Terry - Somerset":6v40b7pq said:


> .....
> A large segment of the population respond to simplistic messages, and either don't bother or are incapable of to thinking or researching the matter for themselves.
> ....



And that is the scary thing. The polls - based on demographics - are suggesting that A, B and C1's are more likely to vote Remain. The C2, D and E's to vote Leave.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Maybe the A,B and C1s have incomes that are more EU dependent? Or maybe like many politicians they sit in their ivory towers with their cheap gardeners, nannies and cooks and don't see what the rest of the population sees?


----------



## paulm

RogerS":3a999nif said:


> Terry - Somerset":3a999nif said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> A large segment of the population respond to simplistic messages, and either don't bother or are incapable of to thinking or researching the matter for themselves.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the scary thing. The polls - based on demographics - are suggesting that A, B and C1's are more likely to vote Remain.
Click to expand...


A lot of them will likely be lawyers, bankers and other vested interests Roger who tend do very well out of the EU


----------



## Inoffthered

RogerS":jcobt37z said:


> Terry - Somerset":jcobt37z said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> A large segment of the population respond to simplistic messages, and either don't bother or are incapable of to thinking or researching the matter for themselves.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the scary thing. The polls - based on demographics - are suggesting that A, B and C1's are more likely to vote Remain. The C2, D and E's to vote Leave.
Click to expand...


Source please.


----------



## RogerS

Inoffthered":2l2f2xvc said:


> RogerS":2l2f2xvc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry - Somerset":2l2f2xvc said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> A large segment of the population respond to simplistic messages, and either don't bother or are incapable of to thinking or researching the matter for themselves.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the scary thing. The polls - based on demographics - are suggesting that A, B and C1's are more likely to vote Remain. The C2, D and E's to vote Leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source please.
Click to expand...

A quick Google gives this one https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/24/eu ... ondon-and/

There are others.

For the benefit of clarity....this explains the ABC demographics used in the UK http://www.abc1demographic.co.uk and here.

Social grade (which is what this is about) is not the same as social class and so chips on shoulders can be firmly put away.


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":20toyyys said:


> Not everyone voting in is an silly person, but every silly person is voting in? Much the same, really, if we're going to start insulting people.


That wasn't an insult, and if you thought it was, well, I don't know what to say. Plus, it's a quote from someone else, yours however is an insult.

Given you claimed in another thread that you don't know what an iPhone is though, how can I trust you aren't just joking.


----------



## Shrubby

In 
Diem25


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":3o4c2hiv said:


> And the thought of voting in a way that someone with Nazi tendencies would be pleased with is pretty untenable.
> 
> So I'm, err, in. I think.




So you dont like Nigel Farage but you are happy to vote for a racist like Alan Sugar and institutional anti semites like Corbyn and the labour party. Nice.


----------



## RogerS

C'mon, chaps....time to cool it, I think.


----------



## Inoffthered

RogerS":qiqpw9u0 said:


> C'mon, chaps....time to cool it, I think.



Yes sorry Roger, but I was just making a point. Jake's comment was a deliberate and appalling attempt to ascribe a derogatory label to anyone voting leave, a tactic all too often employed by the Remainiacs.

One of THE most distasteful aspect of this referendum has been the policy of throwing labels around such as Nazi and racists as a means of seeking to discredit anyone with an opposing view and to close debate.


----------



## DiscoStu

I'll be glad when it's over! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Wuffles":3oxhtq4u said:


> phil.p":3oxhtq4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone voting in is an silly person, but every silly person is voting in? Much the same, really, if we're going to start insulting people.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't an insult, and if you thought it was, well, I don't know what to say. Plus, it's a quote from someone else, yours however is an insult
Click to expand...


It's no more or less an insult than your post ... sorry, quote ... and no, I haven't a clue what an iPhone is. Should I? Why?


----------



## RogerBoyle

Ill be glad when were out :mrgreen:


----------



## iNewbie

Oh no Roger its not that easy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-IkWpm7TS0


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":xpc8p5a7 said:


> Wuffles":xpc8p5a7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":xpc8p5a7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone voting in is an silly person, but every silly person is voting in? Much the same, really, if we're going to start insulting people.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't an insult, and if you thought it was, well, I don't know what to say. Plus, it's a quote from someone else, yours however is an insult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no more or less an insult than your post ... sorry, quote ... and no, I haven't a clue what an iPhone is. Should I? Why?
Click to expand...

Just the kind of "finger on the pulse" enlightened person I entrust to make a decision regarding the future of the younger generation.

You're still joking, I can tell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paulm

Wuffles":6l3hvep8 said:


> ]Just the kind of "finger on the pulse" enlightened person I entrust to make a decision regarding the future of the younger generation.
> 
> You're still joking, I can tell.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



:roll: Sounding very similar to the Remainiacs on telly last night, nothing good or positive to offer :roll:


----------



## RogerS

For Christ sake....will you two guys chill out :roll:


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":aesu9jni said:


> phil.p":aesu9jni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey, Albania and Serbia are not going to join the EU apparently - so why is Cameron supposedly paying £2billion towards their accession? This is the same Turkey that's at the end of the road from Brussels to Ankara that Cameron wants paved?
> It would be good if he were to make his mind up instead of saying what's expedient on the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talks for the accession of Turkey start next week.
> 
> http://order-order.com/2016/06/22/eu-op ... s-june-30/
> 
> John Major says they could be members within 10 years.
Click to expand...


Remind me, which side is Project Fear?


----------



## Jake

paulm":3568c66h said:


> The comment about Nazi tendencies seems very odd and emotive Jake, are you suggesting that because I am in favour of controlling the inflows of new arrivals into the UK that I have Nazi tendencies ?!!!



That's a peculiarly self-centred conclusion, I wasn't thinking about you at all, and as far as I know the cap doesn't fit.



> Have to say that I've not met a lawyer yet who wasn't rabidly in favour of the ECHR and the whole human rights based source of work and fees for their profession, so you haven't bucked the trend there :lol:



I've never earned any fees from human rights law. I just think, as a human, that rights of individuals, enforceable against the state, are good things. It stops states doing things like the Nazis did, which is why we (British) spearheaded the ECHR in the first place.

(By the way, I have never met a Nazi who likes human rights.)


----------



## Jake

phil.p":3agedewj said:


> Not everyone voting in is an silly person, but every silly person is voting in? Much the same, really, if we're going to start insulting people.



I think the term remainiac has been used consistently and repeatedly throughout this thread, so don't get all thin-skinned now.


----------



## RobinBHM

Inoffthered":1ib09c8t said:


> RobinBHM":1ib09c8t said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey....not any time soon I think:
> 
> 'A country has to adopt and enforce all the current EU rules before it can be admitted to the bloc. EU rules are divided into 35 policy areas and in 10 years Turkey only managed to adopt the rules on one: science and research. In most other areas it has not even made a start.'
> 
> 12th of never seems a good date
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if this is such a remote possibility, why is the EU spending millions of Turkish infrastructure projects and why are talks stating next week.
> 
> I seem to remember similar comments made about Greece joining the euro but the EU is perfectly capable of bending its own rules. Please dont say that Cameron would exercise a veto because he dodged that question so many times over the last few weeks.
Click to expand...


I do quite like turkish delight , if they join the EU I expect new rules would change how it is allowed to be made.......

I actually thought historically Turkey was considered part of Asia with only a foot in Europe?

My understanding is that the biggest problem is that if Turkey with it 80 million people joins the EU, the seats of the EU parliament have to be redistributed. This will affect big 5 (Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Spain), which at the moment represent approximately 50 percent of the seats.


----------



## doctor Bob

if the lower / working class use their vote, leave will romp home. I have not had one delivery driver, fitter, worker, etc etc say he is in favour of staying, all are out. I think the turnout will be huge.

This is a class vote:
Middle management and the toffs, remain
lower class and workers, out

I have even been told by some city guys that the workers shouldn't be allowed to vote because they do not understand the implications. They do understand what a condescending cockwomble fucklewit is though.


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":26zr4ldz said:


> Inoffthered":26zr4ldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":26zr4ldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey, Albania and Serbia are not going to join the EU apparently - so why is Cameron supposedly paying £2billion towards their accession? This is the same Turkey that's at the end of the road from Brussels to Ankara that Cameron wants paved?
> It would be good if he were to make his mind up instead of saying what's expedient on the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talks for the accession of Turkey start next week.
> 
> http://order-order.com/2016/06/22/eu-op ... s-june-30/
> 
> John Major says they could be members within 10 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remind me, which side is Project Fear?
Click to expand...



All negative and personal attacks from the Remain. Nothing positive to support remaining and Cameron avoiding questions about the accession of Turkey when he must have known this was going to happen.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/682 ... pean-Union

Why do you consider exposing Camerons duplicity to be project fear? I mean, its not like Gideon Osbourn suggesting that pensioners may lose their pensions in the event of a Brexit vote is it?


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":3o4iu23m said:


> RogerS":3o4iu23m said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, chaps....time to cool it, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sorry Roger, but I was just making a point. Jake's comment was a deliberate and appalling attempt to ascribe a derogatory label to anyone voting leave, a tactic all too often employed by the Remainiacs.
> 
> One of THE most distasteful aspect of this referendum has been the policy of throwing labels around such as Nazi and racists as a means of seeking to discredit anyone with an opposing view and to close debate.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree. Or I would do if I had said anything like that, which I did not. Usual respect for truthfulness from you.


----------



## Rhossydd

t8hants":1qir1jfv said:


> WE created the modern world and have given it the new universal language,


Actually I think Greece may have that honour if you _really_ want to start digging up history.
Empire rise, empires fall.

We're a big player now as part of the EU, flounce off and things will are very unlikely to get better.


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":3lxnumis said:


> Yes I agree. Or I would do if I had said anything like that, which I did not. Usual respect for truthfulness from you.




You posted
"And the thought of voting in a way that someone with Nazi tendencies would be pleased with is pretty untenable."

What sort of comment is that then, vote leave = happy Nazi. Despicable, wilful misrepresentation of the facts but typical of the Remain campaign. No substance, no positives just Project Fear and insults.


----------



## Rhossydd

Historically Boris Johnson supports the idea of Turkey joining the EU as it was the original centre of Europe;
https://www.facebook.com/EvolvePolitics ... nref=story
But then he rather liked the idea of staying in the EU
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 89991.html

Remember how long it took him to decide which side to support when the referendum was announced ? No wonder he couldn't look the remain campaigners in the eye during the 'great debate' last night. All he really cares about is getting power, you fancy supporting that sort of mindset ?


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":1fmap8r5 said:


> Jake":1fmap8r5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I agree. Or I would do if I had said anything like that, which I did not. Usual respect for truthfulness from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted
> "And the thought of voting in a way that someone with Nazi tendencies would be pleased with is pretty untenable."
> 
> What sort of comment is that then, vote leave = happy Nazi. Despicable, wilful misrepresentation of the facts but typical of the Remain campaign. No substance, no positives just Project Fear and insults.
Click to expand...


That is not what I said is it. It is like crows. A crow is black. That does not mean that everything black is a crow.

You can practice this for yourself with all sorts of other characteristics of things. A chair has four legs, this does mean that two people are a chair. Etc. 

I would not let the fact that I do not like Gove or BJ influence my thinking, and nor do I think they are Nazis or anything like it. Very few people are thankfully.


----------



## t8hants

Rhossydd":2lccg25e said:


> t8hants":2lccg25e said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE created the modern world and have given it the new universal language,
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I think Greece may have that honour if you _really_ want to start digging up history.
> Empire rise, empires fall.
> 
> We're a big player now as part of the EU, flounce off and things will are very unlikely to get better.
Click to expand...


You are correct, it is time for the EU empire to fall, and enforced confederations often end in violence, we need out before we are dragged down with it


----------



## NazNomad

You do all realise that tomorrow's exercise is merely an opinion-poll?

If voting drastically changed anything, do you seriously think they'd let us do it?

Yours Sincerely ... Boaty McBoatface.


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":2v7ebsl5 said:


> Inoffthered":2v7ebsl5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake":2v7ebsl5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I agree. Or I would do if I had said anything like that, which I did not. Usual respect for truthfulness from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted
> "And the thought of voting in a way that someone with Nazi tendencies would be pleased with is pretty untenable."
> 
> What sort of comment is that then, vote leave = happy Nazi. Despicable, wilful misrepresentation of the facts but typical of the Remain campaign. No substance, no positives just Project Fear and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I said is it. It is like crows. A crow is black. That does not mean that everything black is a crow.
> 
> You can practice this for yourself with all sorts of other characteristics of things. A chair has four legs, this does mean that two people are a chair. Etc.
> 
> I would not let the fact that I do not like Gove or BJ influence my thinking, and nor do I think they are Nazis or anything like it. Very few people are thankfully.
Click to expand...


Look, you are entitled to your opinion but that was your quote word for word. It is fairly obvious what you were trying to do and how did you expect it to be interpreted?


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":2k6rhklv said:


> Jake":2k6rhklv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me, which side is Project Fear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All negative and personal attacks from the Remain. .... Why do you consider exposing Camerons duplicity to be project fear? I mean, its not like Gideon Osbourn suggesting that pensioners may lose their pensions in the event of a Brexit vote is it?
Click to expand...



This is Express propaganda. Turkey is not joining the EU any time soon by which I mean many many decades if ever. There is some real-politik going on re the refugee crisis, and long term Turkey is being kept on the same old distant promise it has been faintly held out for decades, because it is convenient to have its ambitions shaped by wanting to join rather than allying with enemies. But there is not a hope in hell of them joining, France would veto, we would veto, and so would many others. The "pre-accession" talks the Express is talking about is basically lots of EU people lecturing them about human rights etc and what they need to do to even think about starting to be a Western-like nation.

Just such lies being told in rags like that- the definition of a project fear.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":2slabahf said:


> Look, you are entitled to your opinion but that was your quote word for word. It is fairly obvious what you were trying to do and how did you expect it to be interpreted?



You're wrong, sorry, my quote meant what it said - I was thinking of a particular person.


----------



## BearTricks

doctor Bob":2m11m16b said:


> if the lower / working class use their vote, leave will romp home. I have not had one delivery driver, fitter, worker, etc etc say he is in favour of staying, all are out. I think the turnout will be huge.
> 
> This is a class vote:
> Middle management and the toffs, remain
> lower class and workers, out
> 
> I have even been told by some city guys that the workers shouldn't be allowed to vote because they do not understand the implications. They do understand what a condescending cockwomble fucklewit is though.



I'm sure you would like to spin it as posh people and 'middle management' vs salt of the earth, good, honest, hard working folk but it isn't that simple. It's to do with class, age, location, background, prejudice, earnings etc etc etc. I know plenty people who are voting remain who are working class or 'lower' class and they're voting that way because they're young. I'm working class, have little to no money and one tenuous job interview on the horizon and I'm voting remain.

People have been praising this thread for managing to (just about) hold two opposing political opinions without spilling out in to the rest of the forum, but some people are trying their level best to start fights and generally fence people they don't agree with in to little condescending boxes.


----------



## BearTricks

doctor Bob":17lokzl4 said:


> if the lower / working class use their vote, leave will romp home. I have not had one delivery driver, fitter, worker, etc etc say he is in favour of staying, all are out. I think the turnout will be huge.
> 
> This is a class vote:
> Middle management and the toffs, remain
> lower class and workers, out
> 
> I have even been told by some city guys that the workers shouldn't be allowed to vote because they do not understand the implications. They do understand what a condescending cockwomble fucklewit is though.



I'm sure you would like to spin it as posh people and 'middle management' vs salt of the earth, good, honest, hard working folk but it isn't that simple. It's to do with class, age, location, background, prejudice, earnings etc etc etc. I know plenty people who are voting remain who are working class or 'lower' class and they're voting that way because they're young. I'm working class, have little to no money and one tenuous job interview on the horizon and I'm voting remain.

People have been praising this thread for managing to (just about) hold two opposing political opinions without spilling out in to the rest of the forum, but some people are trying their level best to start fights and generally fence people they don't agree with in to little condescending boxes.



phil.p":17lokzl4 said:


> It's no more or less an insult than your post ... sorry, quote ... and no, I haven't a clue what an iPhone is. Should I? Why?


I'm sure you know what an iPhone is. They've been around for about ten years. It's beside the point of the thread, but the whole "I'm no good with technology, I'll stick to a piece of chalk and an abacus" attitude doesn't give you any sort of special standing over anyone else. It's tired.


----------



## RogerS

This article in the Telegraph about how much the European Court of Justice interferes with our laws has got me thinking OUT again......aaargh!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... -our-laws/


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I'm sure you know what an iPhone is. They've been around for about ten years. It's beside the point of the thread, but the whole "I'm no good with technology, I'll stick to a piece of chalk and an abacus" attitude doesn't give you any sort of special standing over anyone else. It's tired.[/quote]

The only mobile phone I've ever used is a £15 Tesco pay as you go - I don't need anything more. Why would I know about anything else? By the bye. No, I don't claim any sort of special status, but why should you presume what other people do or don't know? I don't care one iota what you or anyone else thinks, really - but I do object to being called a liar.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

A final thought before we all head out to cast our vote.

Democracy matters, because the voice of the ordinary person carries the same weight as the voice of the well-connected plutocrat - we all have one vote.

If more of us cast our vote for leave, it's not a vote to detach ourselves from Europe, it's a vote to say the EU does not meet our needs. It's also a vote to say to the EU that it needs to think more about the PEOPLE over whom it governs, and not just the wishes of the elites. The EU rarely listens to the general population, their concerns or ambitions - and it's high time it did.

Vote leave - it might, possibly, be a step towards an EU that acts more in the interests of ordinary people across Europe - because Democracy Matters.


----------



## Wuffles

RogerS":2hj1zu1h said:


> This article in the Telegraph about how much the European Court of Justice interferes with our laws has got me thinking OUT again......aaargh!!!!
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... -our-laws/


Unrelated(ish), but all this "I don't want an unelected silly person deciding our laws" always makes me want to ask...ever voted for a Lord?


----------



## doctor Bob

BearTricks":rhe64qki said:


> doctor Bob":rhe64qki said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the lower / working class use their vote, leave will romp home. I have not had one delivery driver, fitter, worker, etc etc say he is in favour of staying, all are out. I think the turnout will be huge.
> 
> This is a class vote:
> Middle management and the toffs, remain
> lower class and workers, out
> 
> I have even been told by some city guys that the workers shouldn't be allowed to vote because they do not understand the implications. They do understand what a condescending cockwomble fucklewit is though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you would like to spin it as posh people and 'middle management' vs salt of the earth, good, honest, hard working folk but it isn't that simple. It's to do with class, age, location, background, prejudice, earnings etc etc etc. I know plenty people who are voting remain who are working class or 'lower' class and they're voting that way because they're young. I'm working class, have little to no money and one tenuous job interview on the horizon and I'm voting remain.
> 
> People have been praising this thread for managing to (just about) hold two opposing political opinions without spilling out in to the rest of the forum, but some people are trying their level best to start fights and generally fence people they don't agree with in to little condescending boxes.
Click to expand...


Just my view point, I'm not trying to do anything........... am I a worker or middle management, your reading way to much into an opinion. Honestly mate my little post is not going to influence anyone so stop ******** yourself.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Wuffles":1g8hkv2x said:


> RogerS":1g8hkv2x said:
> 
> 
> 
> This article in the Telegraph about how much the European Court of Justice interferes with our laws has got me thinking OUT again......aaargh!!!!
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... -our-laws/
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated(ish), but all this "I don't want an unelected silly person deciding our laws" always makes me want to ask...ever voted for a Lord?
Click to expand...


The Lords don't decide laws - law is proposed by Ministers (drawn from elected MPs), then debated and voted on in the Commons, then subject to committee scrutiny by MPs, then debated and voted on a second time in the Commons. If passed, it then goes to the Lords, who can scrutinise and revise, and can return it to the Commons for amendment, but cannot throw it out. 

Thus, the elected chamber has primacy. It is elected MPs who decide law, not unelected Lords.

The exception to the above is most EU law, which, since it has primacy over UK law, goes straight onto the Statute Book unscrutinised by Commons or Lords.


----------



## Wuffles

Well done Wiki, I know how it works.

The irony is lost on some people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Wuffles":ew5l7x0l said:


> Well done Wiki, I know how it works.
> 
> The irony is lost on some people.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Ever voted for an EU law proposer?

The answer is no, because there is no democratic mechanism that allows it.

Edit to add - I make no apology for banging on about it, because for me it's possibly the most important argument in the whole debate. UK lawmakers are elected, and accountable through the ballot box, EU ones are appointed, and unaccountable. In the UK, the elected body (the Commons) has primacy, in the EU the appointed body (the Commission) has primacy.

I really believe that if the EU is to serve the PEOPLE it governs, the body having primacy must be the European Parliament, not the Commission. The only way I can see to put that point democratically in any way the EU will take the slightest notice of, is to vote Leave.


----------



## Wuffles

Cheshirechappie":2ksy3ufq said:


> Wuffles":2ksy3ufq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Wiki, I know how it works.
> 
> The irony is lost on some people.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever voted for an EU law proposer?
> 
> The answer is no, because there is no democratic mechanism that allows it.
> 
> Edit to add - I make no apology for banging on about it, because for me it's possibly the most important argument in the whole debate. UK lawmakers are elected, and accountable through the ballot box, EU ones are appointed, and unaccountable. In the UK, the elected body (the Commons) has primacy, in the EU the appointed body (the Commission) has primacy.
> 
> I really believe that if the EU is to serve the PEOPLE it governs, the body having primacy must be the European Parliament, not the Commission. The only way I can see to put that point democratically in any way the EU will take the slightest notice of, is to vote Leave.
Click to expand...


Pop those blinkers off for a second, if Lords can reject a law being proposed, does that not by definition make them law makers. - does to my mind. Not to mention the unelected civil servants sitting in the wings.

I'm wasting my typing on you, I can tell. Best of luck in the vote tomorrow.


----------



## RogerS

Wuffles":2zs0nlll said:


> RogerS":2zs0nlll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This article in the Telegraph about how much the European Court of Justice interferes with our laws has got me thinking OUT again......aaargh!!!!
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... -our-laws/
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated(ish), but all this "I don't want an unelected silly person deciding our laws" always makes me want to ask...ever voted for a Lord?
Click to expand...


At least the Upper House has a closer affinity with the UK then some nebulous croissant-munching, wine-drinking, self-serving, unelected, over-paid commissioner in the EU.


----------



## Wuffles

Lighten up  (from b3ta.com)








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerS

Wuffles":2hvb70v7 said:


> Cheshirechappie":2hvb70v7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuffles":2hvb70v7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Wiki, I know how it works.
> 
> The irony is lost on some people.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever voted for an EU law proposer?
> 
> The answer is no, because there is no democratic mechanism that allows it.
> 
> Edit to add - I make no apology for banging on about it, because for me it's possibly the most important argument in the whole debate. UK lawmakers are elected, and accountable through the ballot box, EU ones are appointed, and unaccountable. In the UK, the elected body (the Commons) has primacy, in the EU the appointed body (the Commission) has primacy.
> 
> I really believe that if the EU is to serve the PEOPLE it governs, the body having primacy must be the European Parliament, not the Commission. The only way I can see to put that point democratically in any way the EU will take the slightest notice of, is to vote Leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pop those blinkers off for a second, .....
Click to expand...


Pot.

Kettle.


----------



## Wuffles

RogerS":34ggfqtq said:


> Pot.
> 
> Kettle.


Ha ha. That is brilliant.


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob":1smvzjiv said:


> BearTricks":1smvzjiv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doctor Bob":1smvzjiv said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the lower / working class use their vote, leave will romp home. I have not had one delivery driver, fitter, worker, etc etc say he is in favour of staying, all are out. I think the turnout will be huge.
> 
> This is a class vote:
> Middle management and the toffs, remain
> lower class and workers, out
> 
> I have even been told by some city guys that the workers shouldn't be allowed to vote because they do not understand the implications. They do understand what a condescending cockwomble fucklewit is though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you would like to spin it as posh people and 'middle management' vs salt of the earth, good, honest, hard working folk but it isn't that simple. It's to do with class, age, location, background, prejudice, earnings etc etc etc. I know plenty people who are voting remain who are working class or 'lower' class and they're voting that way because they're young. I'm working class, have little to no money and one tenuous job interview on the horizon and I'm voting remain.
> 
> People have been praising this thread for managing to (just about) hold two opposing political opinions without spilling out in to the rest of the forum, but some people are trying their level best to start fights and generally fence people they don't agree with in to little condescending boxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just my view point, I'm not trying to do anything........... am I a worker or middle management, your reading way to much into an opinion. Honestly mate my little post is not going to influence anyone so stop ******** yourself.
Click to expand...


I have to say, Ive found very similar feedback to Bob. I deal with delivery drivers, carpenters, builders and other trades, maintenance guys etc etc. They all say out. I cant say it is representative in any way.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Wuffles":1lltf8m9 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1lltf8m9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuffles":1lltf8m9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Wiki, I know how it works.
> 
> The irony is lost on some people.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever voted for an EU law proposer?
> 
> The answer is no, because there is no democratic mechanism that allows it.
> 
> Edit to add - I make no apology for banging on about it, because for me it's possibly the most important argument in the whole debate. UK lawmakers are elected, and accountable through the ballot box, EU ones are appointed, and unaccountable. In the UK, the elected body (the Commons) has primacy, in the EU the appointed body (the Commission) has primacy.
> 
> I really believe that if the EU is to serve the PEOPLE it governs, the body having primacy must be the European Parliament, not the Commission. The only way I can see to put that point democratically in any way the EU will take the slightest notice of, is to vote Leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pop those blinkers off for a second, if Lords can reject a law being proposed, does that not by definition make them law makers. - does to my mind. Not to mention the unelected civil servants sitting in the wings.
> 
> I'm wasting my typing on you, I can tell. Best of luck in the vote tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Not true that the Lords can reject all bills. They can't reject bills relating to money, or those enacting government manifesto pledges. They can also be over-ridden by the Commons using the Parliament Act. The elected chamber thus has primacy.

This from Wikipedia;

Legislative functions[edit]

Further information: Act of Parliament





The House of Lords meets in a chamber in the Palace of Westminster.
Legislation, with the exception of money bills, may be introduced in either House.

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.

Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer funds), nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned.


Edit to add - I was wrong to say that only the Commons could propose law. The Lords can too. However, any law proposed in either Lords or Commons must receive the assent of both Houses if it is to become Statute.


----------



## Wuffles

Cheshirechappie":24bpxy0c said:


> Wuffles":24bpxy0c said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":24bpxy0c said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever voted for an EU law proposer?
> 
> The answer is no, because there is no democratic mechanism that allows it.
> 
> Edit to add - I make no apology for banging on about it, because for me it's possibly the most important argument in the whole debate. UK lawmakers are elected, and accountable through the ballot box, EU ones are appointed, and unaccountable. In the UK, the elected body (the Commons) has primacy, in the EU the appointed body (the Commission) has primacy.
> 
> I really believe that if the EU is to serve the PEOPLE it governs, the body having primacy must be the European Parliament, not the Commission. The only way I can see to put that point democratically in any way the EU will take the slightest notice of, is to vote Leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop those blinkers off for a second, if Lords can reject a law being proposed, does that not by definition make them law makers. - does to my mind. Not to mention the unelected civil servants sitting in the wings.
> 
> I'm wasting my typing on you, I can tell. Best of luck in the vote tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true that the Lords can reject all bills. They can't reject bills relating to money, or those enacting government manifesto pledges. They can also be over-ridden by the Commons using the Parliament Act. The elected chamber thus has primacy.
> 
> This from Wikipedia;
> 
> Legislative functions[edit]
> 
> Further information: Act of Parliament
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The House of Lords meets in a chamber in the Palace of Westminster.
> Legislation, with the exception of money bills, may be introduced in either House.
> 
> The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.
> 
> Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.
> 
> By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer funds), nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned.
> 
> 
> Edit to add - I was wrong to say that only the Commons could propose law. The Lords can too. However, any law proposed in either Lords or Commons must receive the assent of both Houses if it is to become Statute.
Click to expand...

GUTTED. 

If only you'd c̶o̶p̶i̶e̶d̶ &̶ p̶a̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ posted this information earlier. I've just this minute come back from the polling station up the road and voted to remain. Oh well, never mind.


----------



## RogerS

Interesting thought....the EU commission is viewed as a predominantly socialist ion its outlook. 

Looking at the views expressed in this thread, that seems to be mirrored.

As good as any reason to vote OUT, I guess.


----------



## doctor Bob

Some people need to get out more............... the odd person must have put a few days work into some of their posting


----------



## Benchwayze

I don't know what I will be voting if I bother. But I do wonder why anyone would vote to stay in a Union from which so many others wish to emigrate. :?


----------



## NazNomad

doctor Bob":3pixy1a3 said:


> Some people need to get out more............... the odd person must have put a few days work into some of their posting



Roll on tomorrow, those same people can start putting their energy into making sawdust again. 8)


----------



## DennisCA

De Gaulle was right back in the day you know.


----------



## Wuffles

NazNomad":3uz75n9u said:


> doctor Bob":3uz75n9u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people need to get out more............... the odd person must have put a few days work into some of their posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roll on tomorrow, those same people can start putting their energy into making sawdust again. 8)
Click to expand...

Can make tomorrow's posts easier for them. Copy and paste this:

Na na na naa na #in
Na na na naa na #out

Take your pick.


----------



## RobinBHM

my gut feeling is there will be more votes for IN, but only just.

I wonder at what point will it be too close to call a majority.....

Will we then be half in and half out?


----------



## Droogs

and the hokey cokey gets Robins vote


----------



## Benchwayze

I just saw a friend of mine and asked him if he was on his way to vote. 
His reply; 'What's the point? We're all being conned. There's no way we will leave the EU. The Government wouldn't allow it.' 

I don't know so much about that mind, but I do know the Government don't HAVE to comply with the result of a referendum if they don't wish to. I am wondering if I will go to the polls at all now... :?


----------



## Stu_2

Worth going just to test them. I'd love to see how they try to handle a vote to leave.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

It would make the governments job easier. It could then go back to Brussels and say look, our people want out - what are you going to do about it before we say OK? I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were a favoured outcome by many. Brussels will then throw Cameron crumbs large enough for him feel justified ignoring wishes of the majority. Job done.


----------



## Sheffield Tony

doctor Bob":5qcuxstu said:


> i
> I have even been told by some city guys that the workers shouldn't be allowed to vote because they do not understand the implications. They do understand what a condescending cockwomble fucklewit is though.



Well actually ... I don't agree with the descrimination your city guys propose, but I do think we should not be deciding this on a referendum. I don't believe in referenda ! These MPs are elected as our representatives. It is their job to consider, and make the right decisions, on important issues like this. They have the time, hopefully the background knowledge and understanding, access to consultants, etc. Having been appointed as our representatives, I expect them to get on with their job, not come running back to us for help when the decisions get tough. 

If parliamentary sovereignty is so important, the Brexiters had their chance to vote UKIP at the last election.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

We did. Four million of us got an MP.


----------



## Benchwayze

I wondered if the the SNP noticed when Cameron warned that a 'Leave' vote might also endanger the United Kingdom's status. They could use an exit vote to engineer a second Independence referendum, on the grounds they want to apply to join the EU!


----------



## clk230

Just because I vote out doesn't mean I want UKIP in power just the same as not all remainers want the conservatories .


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The EU has already said it won't accept an independent Scotland - they couldn't afford to as they would then get probably have trouble with the Flemish, Catalans, Basques etc. so they'd have to get used to not getting money from either the EU or England.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Maybe the waters wouldn't have become so muddied had there been a major Party that was anti EU?


----------



## BearTricks

My gut feeling is the opposite. Just took the dog for a walk, passed three polling stations and witnessed a few heated discussions (Between people who agreed with each other anyway and presumably had just placed their vote) about how "We need to sort this immigrant problem out".

I still feel as if the average person has no idea about how the outcome will actually effect the issues.


----------



## dexter

Here's a thought to consider at this late stage of the game, Passports, I know Mr F likes to wave his around at every opertunity stating he wants to change them back to United Kingdom being the top line on the front cover instead of the present European Union, and if the Leave campaign is successful then it stands to reason that UK citizens will no longer be European Union citizens and the present passport should be changed to reflect that.
In 2011 there were 42.5 million UK passport holders. I don't know how many passports the passport people can process in a week but if you were to say perhaps 20,000. It would take 40 years, even a million a week would take 4.5 years.
That would certainly curb the free movement of people around Europe but in the opposite direction!


----------



## Benchwayze

Just another reason an exit from the EU will take a number of years. 

In this case one assumes provision will be made to retain validity of existing EU passports until they expire. Redesigned passports would only appear as new ones are issued. I think that would cover it; but then politicians are not known for simple solutions are they? :roll:


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Surely all you would need is a redesigned cover? The information in them doesn't change.


----------



## iNewbie

BearTricks":4szron2i said:


> My gut feeling is the opposite. Just took the dog for a walk, passed three polling stations and witnessed a few heated discussions (Between people who agreed with each other anyway and presumably had just placed their vote) about how "We need to sort this immigrant problem out".
> 
> I still feel as if the average person has no idea about how the outcome will actually effect the issues.



Theres an immigration problem. When did that happen?


















































:mrgreen:


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":3a8exfpm said:


> Surely all you would need is a redesigned cover? The information in them doesn't change.



Oh yeah, that you just stick over the top you mean? That'll show 'em, the forins.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I look forward to reading your better suggestion.


----------



## Pozidrive

Iin or out - both sides seem equally carried away with their own sense of speaking for the "silent majority". Pollsters suggest a close result with perhaps a 2-3% difference, thus leaving huge room for further demands for a fresh referendum by both sides whenever they feel they have the upper hand...
Personally I would be in favour of the EU stopping their onward march to ever closer union, taking a deep breath and listening to what their electorates actually want before re-designing a new improved version of themselves....EU-lite if you will... with fewer bureaucrats, rules, and un-elected presidents...and for the sake of sanity could they not put and end to the ridiculously expensive shuttling between Strasbourg and Brussels every month...

Ah well, I can dream....

Pozidrive

P.S. In the meantime, OUT gets my vote


----------



## RogerS

Pozidrive":jmah9ri2 said:


> .....and for the sake of sanity could they not put and end to the ridiculously expensive shuttling between Strasbourg and Brussels every month...
> 
> ....



Ah yes..I completely forgot all about that and, after over 60 pages, no Remainer has given any justification for this.


----------



## DTR

Sheffield Tony":2cc3pcwu said:


> Well actually ... I don't agree with the descrimination your city guys propose, but I do think we should not be deciding this on a referendum. I don't believe in referenda ! These MPs are elected as our representatives. It is their job to consider, and make the right decisions, on important issues like this. They have the time, hopefully the background knowledge and understanding, access to consultants, etc. Having been appointed as our representatives, I expect them to get on with their job, not come running back to us for help when the decisions get tough.



That's all well and good in principle, but I don't trust my MP to do anything that doesn't further her own interests. She's already shown her true colours by towing the party line instead of representing her constituents. 

In any case, how many of our MPs even understand the issues themselves? Many are career politicians with no experience in economics etc.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

You can't expect them to worry about that when they've been so busy limiting the power consumption of our hoovers.


----------



## Wuffles

RogerS":1i17re24 said:


> Pozidrive":1i17re24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....and for the sake of sanity could they not put and end to the ridiculously expensive shuttling between Strasbourg and Brussels every month...
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes..I completely forgot all about that and, after over 60 pages, no Remainer has given any justification for this.
Click to expand...

Even if we disagree with it happening and agree it's daft? Are we supposed to justify it? I don't think we are, I'm not speaking for everyone though.



phil.p":1i17re24 said:


> I look forward to reading your better suggestion.


This will be a problem of your own making if we leave, it's not down to me to find a solution. Expect that a lot in the coming years by the way.

If you'd voted IN, we wouldn't need to do it. Next question.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Good reason for staying ... I wish I'd thought of it.


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":u074vw2f said:


> Good reason for staying ... I wish I'd thought of it.


Keep practising that, like I said, it might come up a lot.


----------



## clk230

Maybe Germany & France will welcome all the remain camp with welcome arms if the vote goes leave.


----------



## dexter

The first inside page also states it's a European Union passport. Perhaps issues like this are still on the leave campaigns," to do" list. The devil as they say, is in the details.
If you were a member of a committee of let's say, a golf club and one of your members attends a committee meeting and tells you that he's sick and tired of the club rules and the membership fees, so sick and tired in fact, that he's leaving the club and going to play on other courses where he will get betters conditions. He then says that despite this he still wants to play at the club for free,use its membership card, not have to abide by its rules and he also wants to use the clubhouse for networking with the members, what would you tell him?
This whole campaign, in and out has been staged like a Saturday night prime time TV show, shallow and without any real substance. 
Who in their right mind would, in public, slag off, insult and ridicule their current business partners, decrying to the world that they would be better off without them. Not just once, but constantly for months and then expect favourable consideration from them in future business negotiations? You might get away with it on a Saturday night prime time TV show but not in the real world.
On the whole, I think that most of the EU's leaders have tried to keep a dignified distance from the UK's affairs. However, after 10pm tonight, "normal business will resume"
Boris Johnson said that he wanted today to be the UK's Independence Day.
Regardless of if the UK votes stay or leave, tomorrow could well be the UK's Judgement Day.


----------



## DiscoStu

I do wonder if MP's should have to pass an intelligence test before they can stand for parliament. It would include British history, economics, testing on laws and things like how the NHS works etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rhossydd

DiscoStu":2d6h4q8r said:


> I do wonder if MP's should have to pass an intelligence test before they can stand for parliament. It would include British history, economics, testing on laws and things like how the NHS works etc.


More importantly, how about the voters ?


----------



## BearTricks

RogerS":2gnnxvg0 said:


> Pozidrive":2gnnxvg0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....and for the sake of sanity could they not put and end to the ridiculously expensive shuttling between Strasbourg and Brussels every month...
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes..I completely forgot all about that and, after over 60 pages, no Remainer has given any justification for this.
Click to expand...


They could get bikes to save on transport costs but I don't think the forum could handle a third thread complaining about bicycles.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

dexter":j0sqda6j said:


> The first inside page also states it's a European Union passport. Perhaps issues like this are still on the leave campaigns," to do" list. The devil as they say, is in the details.
> If you were a member of a committee of let's say, a golf club and one of your members attends a committee meeting and tells you that he's sick and tired of the club rules and the membership fees, so sick and tired in fact, that he's leaving the club and going to play on other courses where he will get betters conditions. He then says that despite this he still wants to play at the club for free,use its membership card, not have to abide by its rules and he also wants to use the clubhouse for networking with the members, what would you tell him?
> This whole campaign, in and out has been staged like a Saturday night prime time TV show, shallow and without any real substance.
> Who in their right mind would, in public, slag off, insult and ridicule their current business partners, decrying to the world that they would be better off without them. Not just once, but constantly for months and then expect favourable consideration from them in future business negotiations? You might get away with it on a Saturday night prime time TV show but not in the real world.
> On the whole, I think that most of the EU's leaders have tried to keep a dignified distance from the UK's affairs. However, after 10pm tonight, "normal business will resume"
> Boris Johnson said that he wanted today to be the UK's Independence Day.
> Regardless of if the UK votes stay or leave, tomorrow could well be the UK's Judgement Day.


You appear to forget one thing - they sell us nearly twice what we sell them. They will not readily give up that market. According to Peter Lilley, who helped set up the single market (or as C. Moore in The Telegraph called it - the single regulatory area) we would pay an average tariff of 2.4% to trade without trading agreements. Trading with an agreement that is is supposed to be in our favour we pay what amounts to an average tariff of 7% ... so it is smart to pay 7% to avoid paying 2.4%? But then as a former trade and industry minister I don't suppose he has the foggiest idea what he's talking about ...


----------



## Terry - Somerset

There is absolutely no justification for it - it is a legacy of the initial foundation of the EU and the French don't want to change it.


> Pozidrive wrote:
> .....and for the sake of sanity could they not put and end to the ridiculously expensive shuttling between Strasbourg and Brussels every month...
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> Ah yes..I completely forgot all about that and, after over 60 pages, no Remainer has given any justification for this.


Just as in the UK we do lots of things for which many would argue there is no justification - the monarchy, changing of the guard, medals and honours, changing the clocks, sunday trading laws ............ But they are all part of our rich history and tradition. The cost is (in the grand scheme of things) quite trivial. It just isn't worth getting worked up about - any more than the colour of the paint in the bathroom of a new house.

Terry


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Aaahh ... so the cost of keeping 750 trucks on the road perpetually is insignificant? no wonder you're supporting in.
I look forward to someone saying sometime in the future - well, we've got to keep them going , it's history and tradition.
That has to be be the most ridiculous comment in 66 pages.


----------



## dexter

You appear to forget one thing - they sell us nearly twice what we sell them. They will not readily give up that market. According to Peter Lilley, who helped set up the single market (or as C. Moore in The Telegraph called it - the single regulatory area) we would pay an average tariff of 2.4% to trade without trading agreements. Trading with an agreement that is is supposed to be in our favour we pay what amounts to an average tariff of 7% ... so it is smart to pay 7% to avoid paying 2.4%? But then as a former trade and industry minister I don't suppose he has the foggiest idea what he's talking about ..

I keep on hearing that, "they sell us more than we sell them" but, and forgive me if I'm mistaken, they, the EU, don't sell all their worldwide exports to the UK. They also sell to the rest of the world. Certainly the likes of BMW, Audi,VW et al all export more goods to the rest of the world than than they do to the UK. I don't know what the UK imports that is the Lions share of any particular market.
My point was, if you know that you may well have to negotiate with someone in the future why would you want to criticise and insult them in public to the rest of the world, and it was to the rest of the world. It was as simple as that.
Matters of trade aren't the only issues that will have to be negotiated if the vote is to leave. Take my earlier post about the 42 million or so UK held passports that would need to be changed, the logistics of that would be immense and take years to achieve. No doubt some agreement could be negotiated to keep using existing passports until they expire and then replace them with a new UK version. But the EU states could, if they were bloody minded enough, force the issue and insist that a UK passport is produced at their border in order to enter and they would be quite within their rights.
It's all well and good taking back control of what you want, as long as you accept that you may be relinquishing control of some things you take for granted and some politician, seeking to further their own future by grandstanding in front of the world could in the long term be doing more harm than good.


----------



## Rhyolith

This must be some sort of record for number of posts in one thread


----------



## RobinBHM

Rhyolith":pyzk1jw7 said:


> This must be some sort of record for number of posts in one thread



I think there was a workshop building thread that have a few more


----------



## RobinBHM

Well I voted out, the missus voted in


----------



## Terry - Somerset

> Aaahh ... so the cost of keeping 750 trucks on the road perpetually is insignificant? no wonder you're supporting in.
> I look forward to someone saying sometime in the future - well, we've got to keep them going , it's history and tradition.
> That has to be be the most ridiculous comment in 66 pages.



The estimated annual cost of this stupidity is estimated at Euro150-200m - £100-150m.

Even at the higher figure it represents approx 33p per person in the EU. I utterly defend the fact it is trivial, but happily concede it is foolish.

Terry


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":29hbeot4 said:


> Aaahh ... so the cost of keeping 750 trucks on the road perpetually is insignificant? no wonder you're supporting in.
> I look forward to someone saying sometime in the future - well, we've got to keep them going , it's history and tradition.
> That has to be be the most ridiculous comment in 66 pages.


It's not perpetual and it's not _that_ significant - if you bother to do a bit of research you will see why.

One of the maddest and most frequently expressed Brexit argument is that the EU is potentially totalitarian, in the manner of the 3rd Reich, or Russian/Chinese communism etc. 
What these movements had in common was the massive forced movement of people - to gas chamber, concentration camp, Gulag Archipelago, back to the land for a "cultural revolution", out of one territory where they were seen as unwelcome, unentitled, and so on. 
Resulting in millions of deaths.

A key feature of the EU is free movement of people, which is as far away from these forms of totalitarianism as you can possibly get.

Personally I think the free movement of people is the most interesting and radical detail of the treaty and has huge potential for constructive change and future development which we can't yet imagine. Democracy on the hoof.
No wonder the right are so upset about this! I just hope they don't win the vote and set civilisation back in its tracks for another generation or longer.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

For once I agree 100% with you Jacob. A sophisticated and progressive argument...what the hell have you been smoking??


----------



## Inoffthered

Jacob":qc25a8qn said:


> phil.p":qc25a8qn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A key feature of the EU is free movement of people, which is as far away from these forms of totalitarianism as you can possibly get.
> 
> Personally I think the free movement of people is the most interesting and radical detail of the treaty and has huge potential for constructive change and future development which we can't yet imagine. Democracy on the hoof.
> No wonder the right are so upset about this! I just hope they don't win the vote and set civilisation back in its tracks for another generation or longer.
Click to expand...



Thats one way of looking at it. Another way would be that the unelected Eurocrats are applying the Coudenhoven-Karlegi plan. (Google it).


----------



## Jacob

Have just returned from cross Britain cycle trip (Whitehaven to Tynemouth, back via Keilder Water, Carlisle. Asking people if in or out. Outers a very angry lot. A BB owner was particularly enraged about having to put metal waste bins in his rooms, rather than plastic - due to the risk from smoker's fag ends. This seems to be the level of Brexit argument on the whole.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Really??? Hotels had to use metal bins before the EU existed.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":2e1i3sx4 said:


> We did. Four million of us got an MP.



You need to congregate in Kipper-ghettos.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":1gpbhe2w said:


> Really??? Hotels had to use metal bins before the EU existed.


Well exactly. That is my point. The sheer nonsense of the Brexit indignation.

In fact fire regs date back to the Anglo Saxon era, but took off in a big way after the fire of London (1666) with party wall specifications etc.

Another cafe owner was extremely angry and vocal for Brexit - being particularly worried about young Syrian immigrants - "they all have mobile phone you know!!". This was close to Hadrians wall - northern edge of the Roman empire at the same time as Syria was the southern edge. I bet they were wittering insanely about Syrians 2000 years ago!


----------



## custard

I voted remain. 

I'm not wild about my choice, most significantly because the Euro is a misguided mess and no-one in Brussels appears to have learnt from their mistakes, condemning a generation of Greeks, Italians, Portuguese, Spanish, and now Finns to crippling youth unemployment.

Big decisions are seldom straightforward, and generally require some element of holding your nose while you do what you think is right. If Britain was part of the Euro zone I'd have definitely voted to leave, but thankfully we're not so I voted remain.


----------



## Rhossydd

Random Orbital Bob":1a1htvjc said:


> For once I agree 100% with you Jacob. A sophisticated and progressive argument...what the hell have you been smoking??


Not 'for once' almost all of Jacob's contributions here have been well reasoned, intelligent and articulate. It's just a huge shame that more people in the UK don't share such a well meaning social conscience.


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":111dzcu2 said:


> You need to congregate in Kipper-ghettos.




And you paint the Leave campaign as the nasty campaign!


----------



## Flynnwood

Question to mods: Are conversations of a political nature allowed on this forum now Ad infinitum?

Or is this EU discussion an exception?

Just asking ...


----------



## Rhossydd

Flynnwood":xfnxbx7f said:


> Question to mods: Are conversations of a political nature allowed on this forum now Ad infinitum?
> Or is this EU discussion an exception?


Strictly speaking this isn't a_ political_ issue as such.
As it's such a hugely important subject for the UK. The mods have done exactly the correct thing to allow it to run whilst it's been informative and generally well tempered.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":1j01w7qo said:


> phil.p":1j01w7qo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really??? Hotels had to use metal bins before the EU existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Well exactly. That is my point. The sheer nonsense of the Brexit indignation.
> 
> In fact fire regs date back to the Anglo Saxon era, but took off in a big way after the fire of London (1666) with party wall specifications etc.
> 
> Another cafe owner was extremely angry and vocal for Brexit - being particularly worried about young Syrian immigrants - "they all have mobile phone you know!!". This was close to Hadrians wall - northern edge of the Roman empire at the same time as Syria was the southern edge. I bet they were wittering insanely about Syrians 2000 years ago!
Click to expand...


Ah, Jacob...welcome back. We've missed your pithy, expert opinion.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":3hojrvkh said:


> Random Orbital Bob":3hojrvkh said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once I agree 100% with you Jacob. A sophisticated and progressive argument...what the hell have you been smoking??
> 
> 
> 
> Not 'for once' almost all of Jacob's contributions here have been well reasoned, intelligent and articulate. It's just a huge shame that more people in the UK don't share such a well meaning social conscience.
Click to expand...


Please...pass me the sick bucket.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":35lcb73x said:


> Jake":35lcb73x said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to congregate in Kipper-ghettos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you paint the Leave campaign as the nasty campaign!
Click to expand...


You are sensitive soul aren't you. Just a joke about being too geographically dispersed to succeed in our FPTP electoral system.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

Flynnwood":phb5v4f1 said:


> Question to mods: Are conversations of a political nature allowed on this forum now Ad infinitum?
> 
> Or is this EU discussion an exception?
> 
> Just asking ...



The rationale behind the generic banning of religious/political discussion is that it nearly always leads to argument which quickly degenerates to personal insults and turns into an ugly mess as folks get terribly hot under the collar defending their impossible to prove belief systems.

So, to answer the question, no this isn't now "open season" on political discussion. This particular topic is however of such spectacular importance that as long as it didn't descend into a divisive trumping match it was felt it should be a special case. I notice Roger is doing his level best to bait Jacob with the comment about sick buckets, even then, it remains civil. But by and large, it has remained civil and has been interesting. I confess I'm surprised that we pulled it off but there y' go.

It's all down to counting now.....


----------



## Jake

This looks like an out vote to me.


----------



## stuartpaul

And the arrse falls out of the pound and the SNP are bumping their gums about another 'independence' vote.

I believe the fan is going to be really busy with the levels of sh1te that are about to hit it!


----------



## doctor Bob

stuartpaul":3q2x92vt said:


> And the arrse falls out of the pound



see thats what happens when the greedy bankers work through the night to manipulate it to an all time high for 2016 spreading the word that their secret polls have a remain win, then they suddenly realise they are wrong and sell like twittery, cheaper and cheaper, chances are they have made a killing ................ every thing can have a "spin".

What is done is done, Britain is a great country, the people are great, lets get on with it. The people have decided, full stop.


----------



## stuartpaul

doctor Bob":6w497gaj said:


> ................ every thing can have a "spin".
> 
> What is done is done, Britain is a great country, the people are great, lets get on with it. The people have decided, full stop.



Ummm.... I think you'll find that the 'people' were in fact 52% of 72%.

Spin is a dreadful thing isn't it?!


----------



## Rhossydd




----------



## RobinBHM

If its a leave, I hope David Cameron stays, it would be wrong for a change right now, stability is most important.


----------



## Rhossydd

RobinBHM":a79b0dm7 said:


> stability is most important.


That doesn't seem to reflect the views of the voting public though. They wanted change.


----------



## Austinisgreat

That was a Yougov poll. NOT a true reflection methinks. They had remain to win by 4%.

Lets get on with it.

Andrew


----------



## Rhossydd

52% of 72% = 37%
Let the arguments begin.
Grim, grim, grim.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

stuartpaul":1319mgen said:


> doctor Bob":1319mgen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ................ every thing can have a "spin".
> 
> What is done is done, Britain is a great country, the people are great, lets get on with it. The people have decided, full stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm.... I think you'll find that the 'people' were in fact 52% of 72%.
> 
> Spin is a dreadful thing isn't it?!
Click to expand...


The "people" were 100% of 100% - everyone had the chance to vote and some didn't. They don't count. It doesn't mean they agree with the status quo ante, it means they are happy to go with the tide ... otherwise they'd vote, wouldn't they?


----------



## Benchwayze

doctor Bob":3td5ny2d said:


> stuartpaul":3td5ny2d said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the arrse falls out of the pound
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is done is done, Britain is a great country, the people are great, lets get on with it. The people have decided, full stop.
Click to expand...


I have to agree. Whichever way we voted, suck up the result if you have to, and let's get together and and get on with mending whatever might have been broken. Whichever way individuals think, Britain is still Great. It's up to us to make it Greater.


----------



## BearTricks

Well I voted and now all I can do is hope that Cameron doesn't enforce it. 

It seems a shame that, going by turnout demographics, the majority of leave voters won't have to live with the results of the decision for as long as their children or grandchildren. 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## Benchwayze

Sorry Rhoss, whilst you might be correct, I can't really see it. It's usually the case that instability needs change, to steady the figurative ship. And I have literally steadied enough ships in my time, by changing course; usually in midstream.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":g7o849cl said:


> 52% of 72% = 37%
> Let the arguments begin.
> Grim, grim, grim.



For once, I agree with you. A sad day.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

28% were happy to go with the flow - live with it.


----------



## heimlaga

Du you have some extra space up in Scotland for a few million Swedish and Finnish immigrants who want to leave the EU but aren't allowed to bring our countries with us?......;-)
I think EU was a very good idea from the beginning but over time it all turned into a bureaucratic empire ruled by a small elite without democratic control and without any considerations for ordinary people's lives. 
There are two ways to fix this problem. Reform EU completely or dismantle it. The ultimately best choice from a Finnish point of wiew would have been to reform the EU completely from the bottom up into a democratic people's union. After you Brits deciced to leave us it is too late for that choice because nobody else is allowed to spearhead such a project.
There is a great risk is that now when the only country where open critisim is allowed by the establisment is leaving us the rest of EU will come even closer to one state governed by an elite completely disconnected from the people. A neoliberal undemocratic Fourth Reich.
I don't want to be a part of that. I want Finland to leave EU. That would be a second best choice.


----------



## Stu_2

The other 28% were clearly not that bothered, otherwise they would have done something about it.


----------



## NazNomad

... =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>


----------



## BearTricks

I'll have to live with it Phil, a lot longer than you.

Perhaps 28% weren't happy to go with the flow, but rather felt that they were too daunted and uninformed to be responsible for such a decision. I'd bet that a similar proportion cast their vote based on an uneasiness about people from countries they don't know much about, and vague ideas about jobs that they overheard at the pub.

The campaigns were a shambles on both sides (I didn't even receive my 'impartial guide to voting, might reflect why my area's turnout was one of the worst in the country) and I think that even if it somehow does work out for the best, the last couple of months have been fairly shameful.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Personally, although I expected exactly this*, I don't think this is a good result for many reasons.

It's mainly because a referendum was not the right way to do this. Constitutionally, the UK parliament at Westminster is the expression of the sovereignty of the British people. We should have elected a pro-Brexit parliament, not had a referendum. This divides rather than unifies the country. Farage bears a heavy responsiblity, as he decided years ago that making UKIP electable at Westminster was not a priority. The electorate have had nowhere to turn to.

We know from many recent elections, national and local, that people are fed up with an elite making decisions for them. Many laws recently have been passed despite the population, not in expression of their will. Now we have what I believe will become a full-on constitutional crisis - democratically elected parliament versus a plebiscite.

I'm not fussing about Scotland - they'll grudgingly follow whoever funds their lifestyle (I'm part Scottish!). If the funding issue becomes centre stage, and the SNP have been at best disingenuous about this, we may look back on this as the SNP's high-water mark. Time will tell. 

I am, however, worried about the return of extremism in Northern Ireland, and about a rush for the entrance at British borders. I'm not even sure we'll have a tough negotiation with the EU - they can't afford to be too nasty (although they'll certainly try!).

But shortly, France, Greece and other countries' elites will be facing the EU's real existential crisis. It has to be said that Britain hasn't caused it. The creation of a new oligarchy, bypassing of democracy and massive economic mismanagement have been the problems. 

The euro has been the biggest dogmatic stupidity of all - (there are many contestants for that title!). It typifies the attitude of EU-crats - hang the common people, the Project *will* move forward. Remember: it's entirely your fault if you live in Greece or Spain and are aged under 25. 

Greece in particular won't appreciate it if the EU puts extra tax on Intaglio printing presses.

The European peoples are now rejecting this worldview. We shouldn't be smug: we are just the first group to point at the emperor's nakedness. We have to leave, simply because the downside risks of staying are too enormous. 

But make no mistake: the UK _is_ in crisis. There isn't a party that really reflects the views of the people. That is clear now, more than it's ever been. I see no leaders now on the scene capable of uniting the country through this process. If history judges Boris and Nigel (and Cameron and Corbyn, and Milliband and ) harshly, it may seem unfair, but it will be justified.

Personally, I'm not proud of any of them.

E.

*rural areas and "urban poor" areas voting leave.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I bet that a similar proportion cast their vote based on what they heard from pro EU politicians, who told them all the good bits. Older people voted mostly out because they have seen what the EU has done and does - the young still regard it through rose coloured spectacles and think that it can be changed. It can't be - if it could be, this wouldn't have arisen. You are doing exactly what others who voted in are doing - saying that everyone who disagreed with you is an uninformed silly person.

"Perhaps 28% weren't happy to go with the flow, but rather felt that they were too daunted and uninformed to be responsible for such a decision."?
So therefore they were responsible for such a decision.
Edit - Incidentally, I agree with the Australian system - you have to turn up to vote but there is a box that doesn't commit you (or you could spoil a paper if it irritates you that much).


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Incidentally - I disagree with everyone who votes Labour in a general election - does it make them uninformed idiots - does that work in the same way? Does that make them wrong?


----------



## Benchwayze

Eric, Phil,
=D> =D> =D> 

Well said. But of course I am just an old fuddy-duddy who should be warming his slippers, and dribbling down his front. 

It is definitely time to start pulling together, instead of sniping at one another. I hope this doesn't divide the UKW Forum too much mind! 

John


----------



## timber

I voted for out Now let Great Britain show what it is made of, instead of hanging on the coat tails of the .E.U. 
Show some guts and start producing more goods to sell to the World.
Long live the British Empire.


----------



## DennisCA

The british empire died a long time ago.




heimlaga":3npaq1a6 said:


> Du you have some extra space up in Scotland for a few million Swedish and Finnish immigrants who want to leave the EU but aren't allowed to bring our countries with us?......;-)
> I think EU was a very good idea from the beginning but over time it all turned into a bureaucratic empire ruled by a small elite without democratic control and without any considerations for ordinary people's lives.
> There are two ways to fix this problem. Reform EU completely or dismantle it. The ultimately best choice from a Finnish point of wiew would have been to reform the EU completely from the bottom up into a democratic people's union. After you Brits deciced to leave us it is too late for that choice because nobody else is allowed to spearhead such a project.
> There is a great risk is that now when the only country where open critisim is allowed by the establisment is leaving us the rest of EU will come even closer to one state governed by an elite completely disconnected from the people. A neoliberal undemocratic Fourth Reich.
> I don't want to be a part of that. I want Finland to leave EU. That would be a second best choice.



I rather think the neoliberal part of the EU has been greatly weakened with Brexit. So things are looking up for the EU now rather than down. The EU must now reform or break apart, good tidings either way for us.


----------



## Wuffles

But first, undemocratically pick a new Prime Minister.


----------



## Grahamshed

Lets remember that a large chunk of the non voters did not make 'a choice to not vote'. They are the old and infirm, the elderly confused, those in mental hospitals and prisons etc etc.


----------



## t8hants

If the EU had disbanded its parliament, stopped setting European standards for everything, stopped sponsoring basket case economies, repealed the Euro, and put in strict border controls I might have voted to stay.


----------



## BearTricks

First thing this morning I saw a barrage of video posts with Farage backtracking on his suggestion (Promise? Does he have the authority to do anything about it?) that the NHS will get an extra so much a week after leaving the EU. I'm not sure if this was a clip that was broadcast this morning or if people are digging up an old video. If it was broadcast this morning, does he think people are that stupid?

Incidentally, I have seen a lot of people I wouldn't usually agree with - and many I would - suggesting that the UK government actually do its job and decide rather than relying on an uninformed public. I'm sure Cameron's spin doctors pushed the idea of a referendum, however, to confuse accountability if anything does go wrong.

Britain is no longer, and never will be great again. We're in a communication age, rather than one of crusading across the sea to steal other people's tea. Part of the reason why leaving the EU saddens me is that it's a statement that we're happier to burn bridges rather than build them.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Grahamshed":129i8rlf said:


> Lets remember that a large chunk of the non voters did not make 'a choice to not vote'. They are the old and infirm, the elderly confused, those in mental hospitals and prisons etc etc.



The old and infirm can vote by proxy or by post (and maybe did?). There is no reason why the others should. (another good reason for getting out of the EU?).


----------



## Wuffles

BearTricks":3an8d16l said:


> First thing this morning I saw a barrage of video posts with Farage backtracking on his suggestion (Promise? Does he have the authority to do anything about it?) that the NHS will get an extra so much a week after leaving the EU. I'm not sure if this was a clip that was broadcast this morning or if people are digging up an old video. If it was broadcast this morning, does he think people are that stupid?
> 
> Incidentally, I have seen a lot of people I wouldn't usually agree with - and many I would - suggesting that the UK government actually do its job and decide rather than relying on an uninformed public. I'm sure Cameron's spin doctors pushed the idea of a referendum, however, to confuse accountability if anything does go wrong.
> 
> Britain is no longer, and never will be great again. We're in a communication age, rather than one of crusading across the sea to steal other people's tea. Part of the reason why leaving the EU saddens me is that it's a statement that we're happier to burn bridges rather than build them.


The Farage clip was from today, and Cameron has just resigned. I'm assuming you've not seen the latest news?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

t8hants":1bz1o1aq said:


> If the EU had disbanded its parliament, stopped setting European standards for everything, stopped sponsoring basket case economies, repealed the Euro, and put in strict border controls I might have voted to stay.



99% of the population would - but most of that is its raison d'etre. (dunno where the circumflex is on my keyboard  before someone accuses me of covert xenophobia and ignorance of other languages).


----------



## RobinBHM

My local coffee shop has a manageress that is Eastern European, she was visibly upset this morning, tellng me 'I am 28, the UK is my home and now I dont what is going to happen to my future'. This morning my thoughts are with those that have a very personal concern about their future and I hope they are all quickly reassured by the government that there wont be any rash decisions made on border restrictions. 

I agree fully with Jacob about a free market in Europe, I hope it can continue.


----------



## MIGNAL

It probably will after Boris has been selected. Some time later he'll have us making a Norwegian type deal. Back in again !
Lot of fuss about nothing.


----------



## MIGNAL

RobinBHM":owfkc4q9 said:


> My local coffee shop has a manageress that is Eastern European, she was visibly upset this morning, tellng me 'I am 28, the UK is my home and now I dont what is going to happen to my future'. This morning my thoughts are with those that have a very personal concern about their future and I hope they are all quickly reassured by the government that there wont be any rash decisions made on border restrictions.
> 
> I agree fully with Jacob about a free market in Europe, I hope it can continue.




Tell her she'll be OK. This isn't Germany circa 1933. . . . . :shock:


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I hope all the Europeans working and living here don't take fright - I can't see any reason for them to. It'll be an age before anything is done, and restrictions will undoubtedly apply to future immigrants. I just hope we can get to a point that the next immigrant (of whatever nationality or colour) is a brilliant engineer or surgeon, not a pickpocket with his family of twelve. Bye bye Cameron, btw - a two faced hypocrite ... still, he'll have a much better life than most of us.
^^^ Of course, you are right. This isn't Germany in 1933.


----------



## dickm

It's a sad, bad day. Whatever happened to the spirit of tolerance and compassion that did once characterise Britain? However it was dressed up in spurious economics and claims about democracy, the Leave campaign was at heart a vicious, racist denial of the rights of anyone apart from Little Englanders. How could so many of our compatriots (at least south of the Border) fall for these arguments, especially when presented by unsavoury characters like Farage, Gove and Johnson?


----------



## Eric The Viking

Benchwayze":2k24vag2 said:


> But of course I am just an old fuddy-duddy who should be warming his slippers, and dribbling down his front. )



You're ways away from anything of that sort.

My mum (89) and my dad (86) were both absolutely determined to vote. Mum did so by post (which she organised all by herself, recent cateract op not withstanding); dad got a lift to the polling station from my brother-in-law. 

They both saw it as an unexpected chance to correct the mistake they made in 1975.

E.


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":257u8vpm said:


> ...not a pickpocket with his family of twelve.


The understanding of the #LEAVE manifesto for many, in a nutshell.


----------



## Jacob

Parliament is sovereign. 
The leave vote is not legally binding and if it proves impossible to get the mythical brexit "good deals" we could be back to square one very quickly. 

Brexiters are already trimming away and saying it's too soon or may not be necessary to implement article 50. I think they know it's a stupid decision and, in time, yesterday will be seen as a passing protest vote.

The big Brexit mistake is in not having anything in place before the referendum. Hoping to negotiate (with EU and the rest of the world) _after_ having committed to leaving, is basically dead stupid.

So it'll be years of fudge with everybody a loser.


----------



## Eric The Viking

dickm":2j13rsmm said:


> It's a sad, bad day. Whatever happened to the spirit of tolerance and compassion that did once characterise Britain? However it was dressed up in spurious economics and claims about democracy, the Leave campaign was at heart a vicious, racist denial of the rights of anyone apart from Little Englanders. How could so many of our compatriots (at least south of the Border) fall for these arguments, especially when presented by unsavoury characters like Farage, Gove and Johnson?



Seriously?

If it was all "little Englanders", why did Wales vote for Brexit so strongly?

We just happen to be in the first lifeboat leaving the EU (after Greenland managed to swim to shore on their own). 

Other nations will follow. And nobody wants to leave Europe, only the EU.

E.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jacob":1lbb5qpu said:


> Parliament is sovereign.
> The leave vote is not legally binding and if it proves impossible to get the mythical brexit "good deals" we could be back to square one very quickly.
> 
> Brexiters are already trimming away and saying it's too soon or may not be necessary to implement article 50. I think they know it's a stupid decision and, in time, yesterday will be seen as a passing protest vote.
> 
> The big Brexit mistake is in not having anything in place before the referendum. Hoping to negotiate (with EU and the rest of the world) _after_ having left the room is basically dead stupid.
> 
> So it'll be years of fudge with everybody a loser.



Not everybody. The other European nations now see that they can do it too. See my previous post. 

It's what you wanted all along, Jacob: Britain actually leading Europe!


----------



## Andy Kev.

BearTricks":6m2vb0rj said:


> I'll have to live with it Phil, a lot longer than you.
> 
> Perhaps 28% weren't happy to go with the flow, but rather felt that they were too daunted and uninformed to be responsible for such a decision. I'd bet that a similar proportion cast their vote based on an uneasiness about people from countries they don't know much about, and vague ideas about jobs that they overheard at the pub.
> 
> The campaigns were a shambles on both sides (I didn't even receive my 'impartial guide to voting, might reflect why my area's turnout was one of the worst in the country) and I think that even if it somehow does work out for the best, the last couple of months have been fairly shameful.


One of the fundamentals is that it was a secret ballot i.e. it is none of our business if somebody doesn't/does tell us why they did/didn't vote. Therefore any speculation as to why somebody acted the way they did is utterly futile.

Neither you, I nor anybody else can say why 28% didn't turn up. About the only reasonable guess we can make is that they weren't sufficiently motivated to vote for whatever reason. One of the features of the campaign has been a suspicion on the part of Remain that all Brexiters are either thick, bigoted, ill-informed or a combination of all three. I've heard talk from supposedly educated, upper middle class people which proved to me that you hear things at home counties dinner parties which are as daft as things you might hear in a Geordie Pub. And of course you can hear sensible things in both places too. The point of democracy is that it is a great leveller, the vote of a chip butty eating bin man counting just as much as that of a ciabatta chomping Guardian sub-editor.

We now know what the orders of the electorate are, so it's time to start pulling together as a Nation.

I agree that the campaigns were a bit of a disgrace.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Andy Kev.":2w58p10p said:


> I agree that the campaigns were a bit of a disgrace.



Absolutely right, on both sides.


----------



## paulm

dickm":35bo0pav said:


> It's a sad, bad day. Whatever happened to the spirit of tolerance and compassion that did once characterise Britain? However it was dressed up in spurious economics and claims about democracy, the Leave campaign was at heart a vicious, racist denial of the rights of anyone apart from Little Englanders. How could so many of our compatriots (at least south of the Border) fall for these arguments, especially when presented by unsavoury characters like Farage, Gove and Johnson?



No it's not, and no it wasn't, what an absurd and hysterical thing to say.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

^Certainly.^ I see Cameron is already playing for time. It won't be decided til October whether to serve article 50.


----------



## Wuffles

It's great that Donald Trump has just said "it's a good thing, they're taking their Country back". He's no terrifying lunatic.

Some quality graffiti in Bristol.


----------



## MIGNAL

phil.p":1xxj7c9t said:


> ^Certainly.^ I see Cameron is already playing for time. It won't be decided til October whether to serve article 50.



He can't, he's dead in the water. It's for the new leader to decide the timescale.


----------



## No skills

So many Mystic Megs in such a small place :lol: 

Let's hope the price of the domino isn't driven too high.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":8uts4xmw said:


> Parliament is sovereign.
> The leave vote is not legally binding and if it proves impossible to get the mythical brexit "good deals" we could be back to square one very quickly.
> 
> Brexiters are already trimming away and saying it's too soon or may not be necessary to implement article 50. I think they know it's a stupid decision and, in time, yesterday will be seen as a passing protest vote.
> 
> The big Brexit mistake is in not having anything in place before the referendum. Hoping to negotiate (with EU and the rest of the world) _after_ having committed to leaving, is basically dead stupid.
> 
> So it'll be years of fudge with everybody a loser.



I'd like to think that you're right, Jacob, and that it is seen as a passing protest vote but sadly the damage will already have been done. Already this morning, how many hundreds of billions off the footsie? J P Morgan announcing that they will be relocating to Europe. Bank shares down - what - 25% ? Like them or not, the financial service sector is vitally important to the economy of this country. It's all our pension funds that is being hit. I really don't think that the Brexiteers fully realise their folly.

As an aside, I thought that Cameron made a very dignified and statesmanlike speech this morning. And the thought of Boris as PM fills me with horror.


----------



## Benchwayze

The media again... Some female presenter just pronounced the Nation as divided. No it isn't, no more than it is after any vote, election or referendum. Come on folks; time to pull together again and get the Nation on a new but steady course. :idea: 

Or am I now cured of Festoolitis Lustus Impulsivii? :wink:


----------



## Eric The Viking

RogerS":2i0mdwe8 said:


> Jacob":2i0mdwe8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parliament is sovereign.
> The leave vote is not legally binding and if it proves impossible to get the mythical brexit "good deals" we could be back to square one very quickly.
> 
> Brexiters are already trimming away and saying it's too soon or may not be necessary to implement article 50. I think they know it's a stupid decision and, in time, yesterday will be seen as a passing protest vote.
> 
> The big Brexit mistake is in not having anything in place before the referendum. Hoping to negotiate (with EU and the rest of the world) _after_ having committed to leaving, is basically dead stupid.
> 
> So it'll be years of fudge with everybody a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to think that you're right, Jacob, and that it is seen as a passing protest vote but sadly the damage will already have been done. Already this morning, how many hundreds of billions off the footsie? J P Morgan announcing that they will be relocating to Europe. Bank shares down - what - 25% ? Like them or not, the financial service sector is vitally important to the economy of this country. It's all our pension funds that is being hit. I really don't think that the Brexiteers fully realise their folly.
> 
> As an aside, I thought that Cameron made a very dignified and statesmanlike speech this morning. And the thought of Boris as PM fills me with horror.
Click to expand...

Can't see it happening really (Boris, I mean). the pound will bounce back, and anyway exporters (whom my pension is heavily invested in) will be pleased at the improvement in their competitiveness. The Footsie will also recover quickly. 

Bank shares _should_ be penny shares right now, as in many cases their loan books still look dead dodgy. We never saw the major adjustment that was due after the sub-prime crisis and the problems with the eurozone - it's been due for a long time, and this may have precipitated it, but it didn't _cause_ it. 

Explain to me what negative interest rates are all about please, because I think at that point the financial world has collectively lost any right to be taken seriously. Yet that's the case in parts of the eurozone right now. 

I've said elsewhere I think the referendum was a huge mistake, and not good for the country at all. I KNOW we should leave the EU but this was not the right way to go about it. Instead it's the start of a constitutional crisis, which might even end the monarchy (which side should the queen take in a pinch? I wouldn't want to call that one!). 

The folly isn't Brexit. It was Cameron trying to finally silence the eurorealists in his own party, and on the Brexit side, Farage thinking this was a short cut to EU escape.

Yes it will be messy. But remaining in the EU is very much the wrong answer, as political parties all over the rest of Europe will tell you.


----------



## RogerS

I'm not so sure, John. A general election result lasts for four/five years. And general elections come and go, and so whatever the result, we shrug our shoulders knowing full well that we'll get another chance to vote in four/five years time. But this referendum isn't like that, at all. No way. It is absolutely earth-shattering.


----------



## Jake

Well we certainly will be living in interesting times.

The vote is the vote and I will be surprised if Scotland stays now, and without them this was an overwhelming vote for leave.

On the upside for me personally the chaos in the markets and economy should stack up a decade's work or more, never mind the legislative tangle there is going to be etc. That doesn't fill me with any relief or pleasure though. I have a leaden feeling about it all, but that's because I do not believe in the upside which has been painted and see lots of downside. I hope I am wrong.

Let's hope the majority got the decision right - I obviously in the end thought not but it's all a matter of judgment and there is only one way to find out. 

Hypothetically, it would be good to have a mirror image country which went the other way as a control group to test out the balance of the arguments (I think I would move there myself but that may be an excess of caution). 

Hearing Farage talk about bullets this morning was a rare moment of true colours.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

MIGNAL":vyzuvcng said:


> phil.p":vyzuvcng said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Certainly.^ I see Cameron is already playing for time. It won't be decided til October whether to serve article 50.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't, he's dead in the water. It's for the new leader to decide the timescale.
Click to expand...


He's already played for time - he could have served it tomorrow.


----------



## thetyreman

well done for destroying our country, if you voted out.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":fixhxk0m said:


> MIGNAL":fixhxk0m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":fixhxk0m said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Certainly.^ I see Cameron is already playing for time. It won't be decided til October whether to serve article 50.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't, he's dead in the water. It's for the new leader to decide the timescale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's already played for time - he could have served it tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Mignal is right- he has to hand control over the exit process to a person who wanted exit and is the leader of the government. He couldn't do otherwise. That new PM will have to choose how and when to position the negotiations for transitional and replacement arrangements, and how and when to trigger A50 will be a critical part of that.

Ship-steadying does not mean it won't happen. Reality is here, and I don't think you will find many on the losing side fantasising about it would have been different if there had been more pens and less pencils in the voting stations. You can lose the fear that we live in an EU-led dictatorship now!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"The big Brexit mistake is in not having anything in place before the referendum. Hoping to negotiate (with EU and the rest of the world) after having committed to leaving, is basically dead stupid." - Jacob

It's stupid to negotiate on an outcome that may never arise - it doesn't matter a jot what anyone says or doesn't until it's a fait accompli.


----------



## Jacob

The vote was to stay or go. We have decided to go. 
The vote wasn't to attempt to renegotiate and only then to consider going. Not least because its not clear what would be re-negotiated; there is no agenda, just a lot of irritable and angry moaning + a big element of old fashioned anti-immigrant nonsense.


----------



## paulm

thetyreman":2qysjm0g said:


> well done for destroying our country, if you voted out.



:roll:


----------



## n0legs

Excellent news, bye bye EU.


----------



## BearTricks

Eric The Viking":wc8amp8l said:


> Explain to me what negative interest rates are all about please, because I think at that point the financial world has collectively lost any right to be taken seriously. Yet that's the case in parts of the eurozone right now.



Negative interest rates are generally mischaracterised. They don't refer to every day interest rates, but rather a specific interest rate that banks charge each other to borrow money outside of business hours. If done properly it doesn't tend to effect the general public.

In other news, France has overtaken us to become the new 5th biggest economy in the world.


----------



## Jacob

Er - I didn't write as quoted above.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... a-mistake/


----------



## Max Power

What relevance are Nigel Farages views on economic matters which he has no bearing over ?
On a side note , all we need is Bliar to be impeached for war crimes and life would be perfect , can't expect all your wishes to come true though .


----------



## BearTricks

Jacob":2gtxikrh said:


> Er - I didn't write as quoted above.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... a-mistake/



Sorry, formatting mistake. Fixed it.


----------



## Ali

Don't want to talk about the politics but my thoughts and sympathies are with those working who will now be affected by the economic uncertainties in the coming months.

The last recession was really rough for those caught up in it, I saw a lot of good firms and individuals wiped out by it. I also remember how desperate people were for a job - hardly conducive to rising wages.

Anyway at least we have those juicy £350m NHS construction projects to look forward to.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Listening to the coverage on Radio 4 this morning, I was initially quite startled about the apparent tone of bewilderment from many. It was as if they hadn't really taken the possibility of a Brexit vote seriously at all. Given that the referendum had, by definition, two possible outcomes, they surely should have done?

Maybe that's a reflection of something that's been rumbling about for some time; a feeling of a growing gulf between the governed and the governing (including some big business, especially the major banks). That gulf seemed widest between ordinary people and the institutions of the EU, and is felt most keenly by those furthest from the levers of power. It may take some time for the dust to settle, but settle it will in time; then perhaps we might see governance becoming more responsive to ordinary people's thoughts, fears and aspirations. I hope that happens not just in the UK, but across Europe. It's very clear that a majority (not a great majority, but a clear one) of the UK electorate is not content with more EU integration, and we have seen growing discontent with the EU's direction across Europe. Let us hope this gives the EU elites pause for thought - change through the ballot box is infinitely preferable to change in some other ways.


----------



## Chippyjoe

thetyreman":gg8o4t05 said:


> well done for destroying our country, if you voted out.







Oh dear, oh dear. :roll:


----------



## Jacob

Ali":1e6xbznq said:


> ....
> Anyway at least we have those juicy £350m NHS construction projects to look forward to.


 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... a-mistake/


----------



## n0legs

All together now--

"Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves"





Slow day you see, boredom kicked in about 10.


----------



## AJB Temple

Interesting reactions on here for those who work in the wood industry? 

Most of our timber is sourced from overseas. Weaker pound pushes the prices up. Anyone sourcing things like oak via French lumber yards (even if your Merchant is in the UK) will see this in short order. My main oak supplier (I am not a big customer but I buy several cubic metres each year) I reckon has less than 4 weeks stock and is beholden to France for supply. He is looking at 20% price increases for materials and haulage compared with 4 months ago. His customer base will shrink. 
If we get recessionary deflation, as seems quite possible, the building and associated industries will see a very rapid downturn and falling demand reduces prices and increases competition for work. 

There will be some tough times ahead and people may get to find out quite quickly the price they are paying for sentiment. It remains to be seen whether out was a good idea or whether in fact the turkeys voted for Christmas.


----------



## AJB Temple

Just had a conversation with my brother who voted out. As did most of his colleagues he thinks. He works for a company that makes ranges and cookers for both the domestic and commercial sectors. Virtually all of their products are sold in the UK (the design is not popular in Europe) and virtually all of their materials (specialist steel and electronics) are sourced from Europe. So they get the double whammy of hardly any exports and high level of imports. They have failed to obtain these materials in the UK previously. I commented that the logic behind his voting decision is interesting. He voted to deal with the "immigrant problem". Despite their being no immigrant problem where he lives or where he works. 

The company is owned by an american investor. He has already warned the workforce today that redundancies are likely. Interesting times. 

If current massive fall in FTSE is sustained, pension pot values will be down as well. We will all be working longer for less perhaps?


----------



## paulm

AJB Temple":3dvd0wka said:


> If current massive fall in FTSE is sustained, pension pot values will be down as well. We will all be working longer for less perhaps?



I recall some months back a number of well regarded investment gurus (for want of a better description) warning that shares were significantly over valued and that a large market correction was inevitable before long, and advising their clients to reduce their exposure to equities where possible. That was not tied to or related to the in/out vote, just views on an over inflated market.

The in/out vote has triggered a reaction today, if it wasn't that then it is very likely that something else would have done so before long.

Having said that, there has already been a partial bounce back as investors buy up shares that they believe have fallen below their inherent value, so there is always going to be swings around an event as big as this, whether it was the overly optimistic upsurge in value when remain looked like being successful, or the arguably unduly pessimistic fall now that the vote has gone the other way.


----------



## NazNomad

thetyreman":20fwd7tv said:


> well done for destroying our country, if you voted out.




You're welcome ... :roll:


----------



## Inoffthered

AJB Temple":9a7y6qu3 said:


> Interesting reactions on here for those who work in the wood industry?
> 
> Most of our timber is sourced from overseas. Weaker pound pushes the prices up. Anyone sourcing things like oak via French lumber yards (even if your Merchant is in the UK) will see this in short order. My main oak supplier (I am not a big customer but I buy several cubic metres each year) I reckon has less than 4 weeks stock and is beholden to France for supply. He is looking at 20% price increases for materials and haulage compared with 4 months ago. His customer base will shrink.
> If we get recessionary deflation, as seems quite possible, the building and associated industries will see a very rapid downturn and falling demand reduces prices and increases competition for work.
> 
> There will be some tough times ahead and people may get to find out quite quickly the price they are paying for sentiment. It remains to be seen whether out was a good idea or whether in fact the turkeys voted for Christmas.




I think you may be worrying unnecessarily unless you pay in US$.
Although Sterling has fallen against the $, the Euro rate is broadly the same with €1 = 80p

The exchange rates will soon recover when the markets get used to the new order.

If your supplier is already looking for a price 20% increase I dont think that is because of Brexit.


----------



## rafezetter

thetyreman":2usngj5a said:


> well done for destroying our country, if you voted out.



This is exactly the sort of thing I was expecting, I had worked out a post along the lines of "it was a fair fight all round" which the numbers attest, and some might say it's easy to be magnanimous in Victory, but the truth is it's this sort of mentality that the #voteout people were fighting against.

Like an addict screaming for a fix of their drug of with words like "you are KILLING ME!!!!" wholly unable to grasp it is the drug doing that and the intervention taking place is the ONLY WAY to recovery.

It will get bad, there will be trying times for at least a year and more, but as any independant nation will tell you, we now have the power to stand, or fall, by own efforts without the intrusions of others.

And we WILL STAND; with a stronger sense of our position in the world, and a stronger sense of pride. Time and again throught history the people of Great Britain have proven, when pushed to fight, we have had the power to change the face of the earth. We will not need to this time, but that ember, however much diminished still lives.

Not only stand, but we will LEAD again, just as we have for so many generations, because we are GREAT BRITAIN and that's how we roll 

Not since the falklands war have I felt a palpable national pride in Britain.


Edit: as an aside it's also interesting that the EU leaders have told us to pack our bags and get out as fast as we can, some might say that they are worried the #voteleave could be infectious


----------



## Droogs

Chaos rules. It would be funny if not so serious. Britania rules sod all, she hasn't even got enough warships (19) to rule the channel. And I think it is more than probable that Scotland will have a 2nd referendum and leave the UK and stay within the EU. My concern is that N. Ireland could implode as the demands for a referendum there grow, funny how the Irish unionists have in all likelyhood helped rip it apart. ah well roll on the zombie appocalypse :roll:


----------



## BearTricks

AJB Temple":g4e4ueva said:


> Just had a conversation with my brother who voted out. As did most of his colleagues he thinks. He works for a company that makes ranges and cookers for both the domestic and commercial sectors. Virtually all of their products are sold in the UK (the design is not popular in Europe) and virtually all of their materials (specialist steel and electronics) are sourced from Europe. So they get the double whammy of hardly any exports and high level of imports. They have failed to obtain these materials in the UK previously. I commented that the logic behind his voting decision is interesting. He voted to deal with the "immigrant problem". Despite their being no immigrant problem where he lives or where he works.
> 
> The company is owned by an american investor. He has already warned the workforce today that redundancies are likely. Interesting times.
> 
> If current massive fall in FTSE is sustained, pension pot values will be down as well. We will all be working longer for less perhaps?



That's the problem with all the misinformation. People could potentially be voting for something which hurts them, based on overhyped ghost stories.

I'm interviewing for a public sector job on Thursday and I've been digging around to find out how it's funded. It's a bit of a mess but there's a vague section in the documents which hints at EU funding. I'm half expecting to get a call letting me know that it's on hold for the forseeable future.


----------



## Noel

thetyreman":3vn5zeou said:


> well done for destroying our country, if you voted out.



Yep, totally bloody stupid decision. 
Scotland and NI both democratically voted to stay, but as usual over ruled by a nation that cares little for those outside their insular domain. Personally my business will be finished if A50 is invoked. My kids will not be able move or live or work freely in Europe. Every local overseas company that set up here as a gateway to Europe will likely up sticks and move. Border controls up again, waiting in queues to enter or exit. Economy starting to slide, GBP already falling. 
I am so fooking annoyed at this, thanks a bunch, this is going to hurt a lot of people and a lot of families.

Best of luck with this ejit:


----------



## Wuffles

Noel":1xyrgmwx said:


> thetyreman":1xyrgmwx said:
> 
> 
> 
> well done for destroying our country, if you voted out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, totally bloody stupid decision.
> Scotland and NI both democratically voted to stay, but as usual over ruled by a nation that cares little for those outside their insular domain. Personally my business will be finished if A50 is invoked. My kids will not be able move or live or work freely in Europe. Every local overseas company that set up here as a gateway to Europe will likely up sticks and move. Border controls up again, waiting in queues to enter or exit. Economy starting to slide, GBP already falling.
> I am so fooking annoyed at this, thanks a bunch, this is going to hurt a lot of people and a lot of families.
> 
> Best of luck with this ejit:
Click to expand...


Yes, if he becomes PM my Boris Johnson piñata business will be out the window.


----------



## NazNomad

Wuffles":2gcnoook said:


> Yes, if he becomes PM my Boris Johnson piñata business will be out the window.



I'm sure it will fare as well as your David Cameron piñata business. :lol:


----------



## Inoffthered

The really sad thing about the referendum is the total inability of some politicians and the media to accept a result that they have campaigned against.
I stayed up watching the coverage on TV and some of the comments by certain politicians were truly astonishing.

Alastair Campbell (yes the dodgy dossier merchant) was outraged by the result and referred to the electorate as "these people just dont understand"

Anna Eagles said "the electorate weren't listening to us", actually pet, the electorate did listen to you, they just didn't like what you said.

The concept that they were out of touch with the electorate was totally alien to them.

They were outraged that Cameron had given the electorate the chance to vote on EU membership.

The Remainiacs have clearly forgotten the "Love not Hate" soundbite as a bunch of louts chased Boris' car down the road, banging on the roof screaming scum and other such choice words. (and Remain were trying to suggest it was the Leavers that were ill educated!)

EU spokespeople were upset about Brexit because "we have lost the second biggest contributor to the EU budget" with no acknowledgement that the EU had done anything wrong to block attempts at reform.

Yes, there may be short term spikes and troughs in the markets (although currency and stock markets are recovering) but in the long run this is a great opportunity to control our own destiny.

As for referendum votes in Scotland let them. It is Scotlands right to have another referendum if they wish. I doubt they would really vote to leave the UK and go to Europe because with the UK contribution, I doubt the EU would give them anything like the cash they get through the Barnet Formula but I would accept their democratic decision.

Similarly with Northern Ireland, if the majority wish to leave the UK and join a unified Ireland then that is their prerogative and I would accept their decision if that is what they want to do.


----------



## Wuffles

NazNomad":7sekgds1 said:


> Wuffles":7sekgds1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if he becomes PM my Boris Johnson piñata business will be out the window.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it will fare as well as your David Cameron piñata business. :lol:
Click to expand...

Anyone working on that project has signed an NDA, how do you know about it? Market research said his model didn't hold enough sweets though, so it was always on the back burner.

Genuine question, Welsh First Minister on TV said that he'd been promised they won't lose a penny, who made that promise does anyone know? And how much money is at stake?


----------



## Benchwayze

Noel, 

Sour grapes by the barrow load; totally self-centred sour grapes. And you call us insular! 


To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, 'Then let them work in Britain, without taking a 'gap' year'. 

Just as my grand daughter is doing, and is doing very nicely thank you.'
How it affects her remains to be seen, but whatever, I know she'll do what she always does, stick her chin out and get on with it.

owsnap. 

Out come the insults, and profane insults to boot!


----------



## NazNomad

I went out at 6 a.m., everything looked the same. The chickens were cleaned, same as yesterday. the sheep were fed, same as yesterday. I raked up some grass, same as yesterday.
I don't understand why everybody is panicking about 'change' when it's exactly the same today as it was yesterday??????

Remember the Millennium Bug? What changed?


----------



## Adam9453

Noel that is overly dramatic.
There is little doubt that we are going to trade with Europe and even less doubt that trading in europe will require a level of acceptance to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement works both ways so i'd be very surprised if your children can't visit the eiffel tower.
As for your business, I can't comment because I don't know your business.
My business will be affected greatly because like AJB's brothers company, we import materials from Europe but produce mainly for the UK so will get the double whammy of higher import costs as described above. However I don't agree that it was the wrong decision to vote to leave. 
I would not be surprised if other countries in the EU decide to hold referendums and if others follow our lead, then the playing field will change substantially.
The vote leave is not the beginning of the end, its the start of our future as an independent country.


----------



## owsnap

Just read that the timber industry will be impacted the most from this for you due to importing everything from europe..
Well Not like you didn't knew about it...

I don't pity a fool however...


----------



## chipmunk

Inoffthered":2j53iovl said:


> The Remainiacs have clearly forgotten the "Love not Hate" soundbite as a bunch of louts chased Boris' car down the road, banging on the roof screaming scum and other such choice words. (and Remain were trying to suggest it was the Leavers that were ill educated!).



Hmmm - Some of us who didn't vote for it will have to put up and shut up (and watch our pension plan value delay our retirement) but if you don't mind I'm sparing my thoughts for the family of Jo Cox rather than Boris.


----------



## Adam9453

owsnap":19bin2pl said:


> Just read that the timber industry will be impacted the most from this for you due to importing everything from europe..
> Well Not like you didn't knew about it...
> 
> I don't pity a fool however...



I'm 31 and voted leave, hardly a pensioner ruining it for anyone else.
If you look at the numbers that voted, you would plainly see it is not just 'older' people that have voted leave, there are a great many of younger people that have.
Frankly I don't see what it has to do with you, throw your vile insults at someone who cares what you think, I doubt you will have anyone to aim at.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The result is a binary decision based upon a marginal majority - this would be the case whoever won. The winner has the right to get their way, but in practice need to avoid alienating a large number of non-supporters - the next election in 4 years (at most) means that unless they do their chances of re-election are remote.

The next few months (probably years) will chaotic as the winners seek to implement the outcome - trade deals, legal processes, immigration criteria, Scotland referendum, Ireland tensions, business relocations, budgetary and funding changes, etc. It may all go completely swimmingly - but this is probably a very optimistic expectation.

The benefits of leaving are at best 2+ years away after we have detached ourselves from EU, the aggro is all short term. The longer the delay in issuing notice to EU of our withdrawal, the more likely it is that public support for the change will wane.

What odds on a repeat referendum in (say) six months as the reality of the exit is compared with the spin of the campaign??

Terry


----------



## swagman

Owsnap; you might find this of interest; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... ebate.html


----------



## Stu_2

owsnap":bkfum5i3 said:


> Just read that the timber industry will be impacted the most from this for you due to importing everything from europe..
> Well Not like you didn't knew about it...
> 
> I don't pity a fool however...


Dry your eyes princess. It'll work itself out.


----------



## owsnap

Adam9453":2c3j329c said:


> owsnap":2c3j329c said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read that the timber industry will be impacted the most from this for you due to importing everything from europe..
> Well Not like you didn't knew about it...
> 
> I don't pity a fool however...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 31 and voted leave, hardly a pensioner ruining it for anyone else.
> If you look at the numbers that voted, you would plainly see it is not just 'older' people that have voted leave, there are a great many of younger people that have.
> Frankly I don't see what it has to do with you, throw your vile insults at someone who cares what you think, I doubt you will have anyone to aim at.
Click to expand...


Good luck


----------



## thetyreman

Adam9453":3vqekfev said:


> owsnap":3vqekfev said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read that the timber industry will be impacted the most from this for you due to importing everything from europe..
> Well Not like you didn't knew about it...
> 
> I don't pity a fool however...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 31 and voted leave, hardly a pensioner ruining it for anyone else.
> If you look at the numbers that voted, you would plainly see it is not just 'older' people that have voted leave, there are a great many of younger people that have.
> Frankly I don't see what it has to do with you, throw your vile insults at someone who cares what you think, I doubt you will have anyone to aim at.
Click to expand...


no that's rubbish, the majority of younger people actually voted to stay in, including me, seems like you haven't studied the results at all.


----------



## RogerS

Inoffthered":25kjph6s said:


> .... but in the long run this is a great opportunity to control our own destiny.
> 
> ....



As in Hell and Handbasket ?


----------



## Adam9453

its simple maths tyreman, if circa half the population voted leave then a large proportion of younger people voted leave.
Just because you voted remain (as did a lot of my friends) doesn't mean all young people did.


----------



## owsnap

Adam9453":39igx41o said:


> its simple maths tyreman, if circa half the population voted leave then a large proportion of younger people voted leave.
> Just because you voted remain (as did a lot of my friends) doesn't mean all young people did.



Get your facts straight


----------



## Adam9453

Learn to read the pair of you.

Look at what I actually wrote.

I did not say majority, I said a great many.

My facts are straightforward maths, i'm sorry you can't understand.


----------



## thetyreman

Adam9453":3qb57hm6 said:


> its simple maths tyreman, if circa half the population voted leave then a large proportion of younger people voted leave.
> Just because you voted remain (as did a lot of my friends) doesn't mean all young people did.



you clearly haven't studied the actual statistics, look it up, it's public information, I'm not going to wipe your buttocks for you.


----------



## Adam9453

thetyreman":3heboy8s said:


> Adam9453":3heboy8s said:
> 
> 
> 
> its simple maths tyreman, if circa half the population voted leave then a large proportion of younger people voted leave.
> Just because you voted remain (as did a lot of my friends) doesn't mean all young people did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly haven't studied the actual statistics, look it up, it's public information, I'm not going to wipe your buttocks for you.
Click to expand...


Read my post above yours, i'm not interested in you wiping anything of mine.
I'm also not interested in teaching you the difference between "a great many" and "majority"!


----------



## Inoffthered

owsnap":1y744dbh said:


> Just read that the timber industry will be impacted the most from this for you due to importing everything from europe..
> Well Not like you didn't knew about it...
> 
> I don't pity a fool however...




No need to pity the UK. The Euro has fallen against the $ as well. The £/€ rate is broadly the same so any imports from Europe and bought in € won't be any more expensive.

One by product of the referendum however is to identify those with a "can do" attitude who can rise to a challenge and see the fantastic opportunities and those with a "can't do" mentality. Politicians need to be inclusive and not forget that they represent the whole country. Cameron had to go because he would have been a barrier to that process.


----------



## thetyreman

Adam9453":1omkush4 said:


> thetyreman":1omkush4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam9453":1omkush4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its simple maths tyreman, if circa half the population voted leave then a large proportion of younger people voted leave.
> Just because you voted remain (as did a lot of my friends) doesn't mean all young people did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly haven't studied the actual statistics, look it up, it's public information, I'm not going to wipe your buttocks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read my post above yours, i'm not interested in you wiping anything of mine.
> I'm also not interested in teaching you the difference between "a great many" and "majority"!
Click to expand...


not until you check the official statistics


----------



## chipmunk

Inoffthered":1z3927ez said:


> .... but in the long run this is a great opportunity to control our own destiny.
> ....



...and forget about those infuriating global and regional trifles like climate change, Islamic terrorism, nuclear proliferation, international refugees and international trade.


----------



## thetyreman

just for clarity sake:


----------



## BearTricks

chipmunk":2bcr6np5 said:


> Inoffthered":2bcr6np5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... but in the long run this is a great opportunity to control our own destiny.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and forget about those infuriating global and regional trifles like climate change, Islamic terrorism, nuclear proliferation, international refugees and international trade.
Click to expand...


Potentially less foreign people you don't know stood in front of you in the queue at Aldi though!

(Less documented foreign people anyway)


----------



## Adam9453

thetyreman":37vbkaq0 said:


> just for clarity sake:



I have not misunderstood anything.
I have seen the percentages.
You fail to understand the nuances of language. 
For clarity, Different words mean different things!


----------



## chipmunk

BearTricks":20bwq26r said:


> chipmunk":20bwq26r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inoffthered":20bwq26r said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... but in the long run this is a great opportunity to control our own destiny.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and forget about those infuriating global and regional trifles like climate change, Islamic terrorism, nuclear proliferation, international refugees and international trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Potentially less foreign people you don't know stood in front of you in the queue at Aldi though!
> 
> (Less documented foreign people anyway)
Click to expand...


Sorry, if the debate is descending to xenophobic comments like that then I'm off.


----------



## thetyreman

Adam9453":3nkrsdg3 said:


> its simple maths tyreman, if circa half the population voted leave then a large proportion of younger people voted leave.
> Just because you voted remain (as did a lot of my friends) doesn't mean all young people did.


----------



## woodpig

Inoffthered":1wreq2bq said:


> No need to pity the UK. The Euro has fallen against the $ as well. The £/€ rate is broadly the same so any imports from Europe and bought in € won't be any more expensive.
> 
> One by product of the referendum however is to identify those with a "can do" attitude who can rise to a challenge and see the fantastic opportunities and those with a "can't do" mentality. Politicians need to be inclusive and not forget that they represent the whole country. Cameron had to go because he would have been a barrier to that process.



Yes, quite right. We need positive leaders now that believe in our ability. Time to get rid of all those that said we aren't strong enough to make deals with Europe and the rest of the world. That includes you Osborne. :wink:


----------



## BearTricks

chipmunk":3nihulzz said:


> BearTricks":3nihulzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Potentially less foreign people you don't know stood in front of you in the queue at Aldi though!
> 
> (Less documented foreign people anyway)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, if the debate is descending to xenophobic comments like that then I'm off.
Click to expand...


I was being ironic. I voted remain.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Adam9453":p8f2nnr2 said:


> ... My business will be affected greatly because like AJB's brothers company, we import materials from Europe but produce mainly for the UK so will get the double whammy of higher import costs as described above...



You might be worrying unnecessarily. We will have a new chancellor shortly (  ) and it is now quite unacceptable for any more British funds to be diverted (or borrowed and diverted) to prop up the euro. Without more borrowing the eurozone is in "difficult" terrain ([Gibbs]you think?[/]).

It's a reasonable guess that the euro will tank, say within the next three months, probably about the time the Greek thing hits the fan again at the end of the summer. At which point...

E.


----------



## Roughcut

owsnap"
Get your facts straight
[img:2h35hmtt said:


> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CltIkyuWYAA_Lwq.jpg[/img]




That's an opinion poll taken well before the Election! :roll:
Probably one of many and not inherently accurate.


----------



## chipmunk

BearTricks":37df88jj said:


> chipmunk":37df88jj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BearTricks":37df88jj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Potentially less foreign people you don't know stood in front of you in the queue at Aldi though!
> 
> (Less documented foreign people anyway)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, if the debate is descending to xenophobic comments like that then I'm off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was being ironic. I voted remain.
Click to expand...


Sorry - clearly misunderstood the irony.


----------



## Adam9453

I wouldn't bother trying to explain things to Tyreman Roughcut, he doesn't read what you actually write.
He makes silly assumptions based on his misunderstandings and then behaves churlishly.


----------



## woodpig

Roughcut":1alpducu said:


> owsnap"
> Get your facts straight
> [img:1alpducu said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CltIkyuWYAA_Lwq.jpg[/img]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion poll taken well before the Election! :roll:
> Probably one of many and not inherently accurate.
Click to expand...


Yes, let's not the truth get in the way of a good story. :lol:


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

Guys, if we're going to descend to personal insults I'll lock the thread. Recall it bucks the no politics discussion rule but we've let it run due to the importance. If it degenerates into yaboo sucks then I'll switch it off. The bottom line here is we've gone and done it now, we're on our own. Personally I think it's pretty close to financial insanity but what's done is done and there's one thing for sure, we're going to need to pull together over the coming decades or we'll be in very very big trouble indeed. We might as well start now!


----------



## Adam9453

Well said Bob and I think locking the thread would be best.
It's certainly not achieving anything keeping it going


----------



## Ali

lock it please, the vote is over and we all now need to look to the future.


----------



## Roughcut

Ali":1yyp6rev said:


> lock it please, the vote is over and we all now need to look to the future.



I agree.


----------



## clk230

Roughcut":3c7a29t9 said:


> Ali":3c7a29t9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lock it please, the vote is over and we all now need to look to the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
Click to expand...


totally agree , can see this thread spiraling downhill


----------



## RogerS

Yup..I also agree.


----------



## clk230

we could have a referendum on lock it or not LOL


----------



## lurker

Me too.

Bob, the electorate has spoken, you have a clear mandate


----------



## BearTricks

Agreed.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

clk230":9yqol3bd said:


> we could have a referendum on lock it or not LOL



Nah ... the wrong side'll win.


----------



## woodpig

Looks like he's gone on a tea break ... :lol:


----------



## AJB Temple

Interestingly most of my staff (we are not in the wood business) are between 19 and 32. All but one voted remain so they say and the sentiment today is that they feel betrayed by the older generation (I presume they mean grandparents). I have just got back home and had two young guys deliver about 3 tons of oak. They voted remain as well (they brought the subject up) and expressed similar sentiments along with a "we've just got to get on with it now" spirit and an expectation that a tough few years are ahead.


----------



## Benchwayze

Lock on Bob !  

John


----------



## RogerS

AJB Temple":pccgvajl said:


> Interestingly most of my staff (we are not in the wood business) are between 19 and 32. All but one voted remain so they say and the sentiment today is that they feel betrayed by the older generation (I presume they mean grandparents). .....



Just you wait. "Torch the Dusties' will be just around the corner anytime soon !


----------



## Cheshirechappie

RogerS":3pbxm21y said:


> AJB Temple":3pbxm21y said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly most of my staff (we are not in the wood business) are between 19 and 32. All but one voted remain so they say and the sentiment today is that they feel betrayed by the older generation (I presume they mean grandparents). .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just you wait. "Torch the Dusties' will be just around the corner anytime soon !
Click to expand...


They used to say that age conferred wisdom. Or perhaps, feeling that they'd been lied to 40 years ago, they were not going to be conned twice. I know my 85 year old mum said as much. ("Common Market, we were told. Didn't turn out like that, did it? If those arrogant so-and-so's think they're going to pull the wool twice, they've got another think coming...")


----------



## Noel

Benchwayze":32xqcx4f said:


> Noel,
> 
> Sour grapes by the barrow load; totally self-centred sour grapes. And you call us insular!
> 
> 
> To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, 'Then let them work in Britain, without taking a 'gap' year'.
> 
> Just as my grand daughter is doing, and is doing very nicely thank you.'
> How it affects her remains to be seen, but whatever, I know she'll do what she always does, stick her chin out and get on with it.



Sour grapes? It's not a game, many lives will be adversely affected if this goes ahead, many firms will go to the wall and many people will lose their livelihood. You don't seem to appreciate or care about that. And why should anybody be forced to "work in Britain" when they want to work and live in the EU? And as for your grand daughter, great.....



> Adam9453"]Noel that is overly dramatic.
> There is little doubt that we are going to trade with Europe and even less doubt that trading in europe will require a level of acceptance to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement works both ways so i'd be very surprised if your children can't visit the eiffel tower.
> As for your business, I can't comment because I don't know your business.
> My business will be affected greatly because like AJB's brothers company, we import materials from Europe but produce mainly for the UK so will get the double whammy of higher import costs as described above. However I don't agree that it was the wrong decision to vote to leave.
> I would not be surprised if other countries in the EU decide to hold referendums and if others follow our lead, then the playing field will change substantially.
> The vote leave is not the beginning of the end, its the start of our future as an independent country.



What's dramatic about it? I trade in and within the EU. You really think nothing will change? You really think there'll be no restrictions? I can presently buy a car/machinery or whatever in Spain and sell it in Italy without restrictions. Do you realise how hard it would be to do that if I was an non EU resident? I suspect not. Treaty of Rome will hardly apply.
I sincerely hope your business has few or no employees if you think future trading is going to be difficult for you.

There are a lot of multi-nationals over here and I can't see them sticking around too long if they find themselve located outside the EU.

As mentioned in in other posts, many younger people here also feel betrayed by the older generation.

As Droogs mentioned if NI joined RoI, that in itself may not be the worst thing to happen but bear in mind that extreme violence akin to the 80s in more than likely a probability.


----------



## chipmunk

+1 for Noel's sentiments

My fear is that, contrary to what Gove et al said prior to the vote, the EU will seek to dissuade further potential "exiters" by penalizing the UK through trade tarrifs - After all, there are others contemplating similar decisions and it seems only natural IMHO for them to try to stop a complete break up. 

Do you also think that HMRC will not move to introduce VAT on imported goods from Europe in line with those from the rest of the world?


----------



## RogerS

chipmunk":17xcr495 said:


> ......
> Do you also think that HMRC will not move to introduce VAT on imported goods from Europe in line with those from the rest of the world?



Oooohh...that's a good one ! =D> 

Bet the Brexiteers didn't think of that one. Perhaps HMRC could be persuaded to have a two-tier system. If you voted Leave you pay VAT, if you voted Remain then you don't.

Noel has hit many of the impending issues squarely on the head and is spot on.


----------



## graduate_owner

So now that we have voted ourselves out of the EU, which is what UKIP was all about, what is the purpose of the UKIP party? Are they now completely irrelevant? That would be a smack in tne eye for NF - he gets what he's always campaigned for and the knock on effect is that he no longer has a purpose.

K


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

Just got back in (from building a desk for my son). So should we lock?


----------



## woodpig

chipmunk":n1mfibv3 said:


> +1 for Noel's sentiments
> 
> My fear is that, contrary to what Gove et al said prior to the vote, the EU will seek to dissuade further potential "exiters" by penalizing the UK through trade tarrifs - After all, there are others contemplating similar decisions and it seems only natural IMHO for them to try to stop a complete break up.
> 
> Do you also think that HMRC will not move to introduce VAT on imported goods from Europe in line with those from the rest of the world?



I copied this from another source:

UK Government Official Trade figures for 2015 show:
UK exports to EU £223.3 billion (43.7%) Imports £291.1billion (53.1%) = Deficit £67.8 billion
UK exports to non EU £288.2 billion (56.3%) Imports £ 257.1 billion (46.9%) = Surplus £31.1 billion
The EU has a huge trade surplus with the UK and more EU jobs depend on the UK market than vice versa.
The EU needs to trade with the UK and isn't in a position to demand free movement of people.

If the French and Germans etc want to damage their own industries by being spiteful or stupid we can't stop them but it looks like they have more to lose.


----------



## Adam9453

You make very interesting points Noel but I think it's far too early to be so pessimistic about trade going forwards.
I think there will be challenging times ahead but we'll overcome them.
The employees also voted leave so we're all in it together if we got it wrong (only time will tell).
Despite the scare mongering during their campaigns, the world didn't implode today so I'm sure it will all settle down and we can get on with working through the challenges


----------



## RogerS

Random Orbital Bob":36toc1qv said:


> Just got back in (from building a desk for my son). So should we lock?



I think so. It's run it's course, and as I already posted, big thumbs up to the Mods for letting it run on.


----------



## RogerBoyle

Random Orbital Bob":ww01eag8 said:


> Just got back in (from building a desk for my son). So should we lock?


Yes Please


----------



## Noel

Vat was always there, as long as it was accounted for somewhere in the EU, that may no longer be the case. As Roger mentions it would seem perfectly reasonable to charge an import tariff for goods entering the EU, as is the case now. 
Buying tools from yer man in Germany will not be quite so attractive with import tax.

But the bigger picture needs to be looked at too. In GB there's many large corporations such as Nissan, Ford, Tata and Toyota to mention but a few who export a large proportion of their production to the EU. With the non-EU position and no trade agreements in place any time soon these manufacturers may eventually find themselves in relocation mood.

Locally to me we have Seagate, Dunbia (meat), Moy Park (chicken processing, biggest in Europe), quite a few call centres servicing Europe, Norbrooke (pharma) and many, many others that serve the EU. Many US based companies are also here simply because it offers access to the EU.

Agriculture is another issue, who will replace CAP? Anybody? 

No doubt some arrangements will stay in place after any exit but long term, not looking so good.

And lastly, there was a lot of support here for Scotland remaining in the UK, ref #2 will be along soon and that will have a direct consequence for NI. Both countries voted to remain. Hard not to feel cheated.

No need yet to get the padlock out, all very civilised. Always the option not to look...


----------



## Benchwayze

Noel.

Don't forget that, with the right moves, and the right paperwork your children will be able to work anywhere they wish in the civilised world. It's just not going to be as easy as it was to just step across a border and seek work.

I know it's not a game. I voted in every election since I was old enough. Sometimes my party won sometimes it didn't. What I did have though was the opportunity to try and change a set of politicians that didn't do what I felt they ought to, or what they had promised to do. 

With Europe, we were losing that right, and a bunch of arrogant, insulting strangers, non-elected and just appointed were setting the rules. . I happened to consider that wasn't a game either, so this time I decided to try and win back that right. Does that make me stupid, childish, senile, or 'numbnutted' as one person classified us old 'uns? I don't think it does. I call it principled TBH. We WERE lied to in the 70s, and Heath admitted such, because he knew that to give us all the full 'monte', he would never get it through. That was close to something I suspected then and voted NO. With the huge turnout, I also suspected interference with the vote, but I couldn't really see how it would have been done. 

I apologise if I seemed blunt and to the point, but at the end of the day, that's how I see things after an election or referendum. 
Whilst I empathise with you and your family, I am afraid like everyone else, they have to accept things as they stand and get on with it. Like it or lump it.


----------



## Noel

Benchwayze":231go0r8 said:


> Noel.
> 
> Don't forget that, with the right moves, and the right paperwork your children will be able to work anywhere they wish in the civilised world. It's just not going to be as easy as it was to just step across a border and seek work.
> 
> I know it's not a game. I voted in every election since I was old enough. Sometimes my party won sometimes it didn't. What I did have though was the opportunity to try and change a set of politicians that didn't do what I felt they ought to, or what they had promised to do.
> 
> With Europe, we were losing that right, and a bunch of arrogant, insulting strangers, non-elected and just appointed were setting the rules. . I happened to consider that wasn't a game either, so this time I decided to try and win back that right. Does that make me stupid, childish, senile, or 'numbnutted' as one person classified us old 'uns? I don't think it does. I call it principled TBH. We WERE lied to in the 70s, and Heath admitted such, because he knew that to give us all the full 'monte', he would never get it through. That was close to something I suspected then and voted NO. With the huge turnout, I also suspected interference with the vote, but I couldn't really see how it would have been done.
> 
> I apologise if I seemed blunt and to the point, but at the end of the day, that's how I see things after an election or referendum.
> Whilst I empathise with you and your family, I am afraid like everyone else, they have to accept things as they stand and get on with it. Like it or lump it.



Off course you had the right to vote as you please, that I would defend for ever and a day. But the younger generation is the future and they feel betrayed. They couldn't care less about Heath, Rippon et al. In a different century, a different life as far as they are concerned and perhaps rightly so.
Another thought, I wonder just how much the English leavers wanted to get some sort of revenge on Cameron/Osborne for UK government's austerity measures as well?


----------



## RogerS

Noel":1cjuty1f said:


> ....
> Another thought, I wonder just how much the English leavers wanted to get some sort of revenge on Cameron/Osborne for UK government's austerity measures as well?



That's an interesting thought but no-one I spoke to in the lead up to the referendum mentioned this. Most of them were seeing immigration as the issue.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

I'm not going to lock it until Noel has finished his thoughts (or he might ban me!). On the plus side, I'm about to go over the cricket ground with the some friends from America and watch my son play.....I will very likely drink a large quantity of beer and for the moment at least forget all about domestic politics


----------



## RobinBHM

I hope we see politicians coming into power that are brave and have the vision and negotiating skills to keep free trade agreements in place for goods and protect London so it retains its status in finance and service world.

Out may be a shock, the key will be how quick we can respond.

This is not just about the UK, the EU now also needs to make changes and reform. I understand that some other EU countries do not want a UK exit to fuel a growing federal Europe, rather the opposite. Of course Netherlands and Denmark are looking at possible referendums soon. Greece is making its next payment soon and could default. 

Its not impossible to see deals where the UK continue to pay into the EU and get to keep substantial trade deals in exchange. We should keep free movement of people, if we can find a way to invest in infrastructure to support net immigration. I know the EU leaders are saying they will close ranks and wont allow any agreements but they also have a lot to lose as well.

We need now to look to the future with opportunity not failure.

So this thread is now 77 pages and 1142 posts, its still way behind Steve's workshop build.......Woodwork: more important than the EU


----------



## doctor Bob

Pheeeww, been a really busy day at work, much happened today?


----------



## Noel

Random Orbital Bob":129oasyn said:


> I'm not going to lock it until Noel has finished his thoughts (or he might ban me!). On the plus side, I'm about to go over the cricket ground with the some friends from America and watch my son play.....I will very likely drink a large quantity of beer and for the moment at least forget all about domestic politics



You're going to explain cricket to Americans? 

Enjoy the beer.


----------



## Bm101

I've steered clear so far. I voted to stay but I understand the frustrations that led to the exit result. I think maybe it was those frustrations and feelings of powerlessness that led to the result. Not just with the EU as such but with politicians, financiers and so on. Anger and fear. Already we're seeing far right parties across Europe calling for exit votes. 
Personally I hope we come together and uphold the tolerance and other virtues we commonly see touted as British for right or wrong. And for those that sneer at that try living in many other countries in the world if your tired of life here. We have many faults as a nation but when you were born here you won the lottery compared to many people in the world.
Here's a little scenario. Cameron's gone. Corbyn's labour are voting no confidence possibly. General election comes. Only plausible Tory candidates , May or Boris. Only one winner there. Labour in turmoil. In the meantime over in the US. Trump smashes the polls on diet of fear and xenophobia. Sweden and others begin to peel away from the EU. Financial turmoil. Greece and Spain defaulting. The Euro fails despite the best efforts of the Germans. Meanwhile in Russia, a former Kgb agent rubs his hands in glee and masses his toops on the borders for 'defence'. Meanwhile China annexes vast parts of the South China Sea while the US does its best to intervene and protect its interests... sorry, Thailand's interests.

Enjoy the beers like its 1939 Bob .


----------



## Wuffles

Bm101":3fiquoom said:


> I've steered clear so far. I voted to stay but I understand the frustrations that led to the exit result. I think maybe it was those frustrations and feelings of powerlessness that led to the result. Not just with the EU as such but with politicians, financiers and so on. Anger and fear. Already we're seeing far right parties across Europe calling for exit votes.
> Personally I hope we come together and uphold the tolerance and other virtues we commonly see touted as British for right or wrong. And for those that sneer at that try living in many other countries in the world if your tired of life here. We have many faults as a nation but when you were born here you won the lottery compared to many people in the world.
> Here's a little scenario. Cameron's gone. Corbyn's labour are voting no confidence possibly. General election comes. Only plausible Tory candidates , May or Boris. Only one winner there. Labour in turmoil. In the meantime over in the US. Trump smashes the polls on diet of fear and xenophobia. Sweden and others begin to peel away from the EU. Financial turmoil. Greece and Spain defaulting. The Euro fails despite the best efforts of the Germans. Meanwhile in Russia, a former Kgb agent rubs his hands in glee and masses his toops on the borders for 'defence'. Meanwhile China annexes vast parts of the South China Sea while the US does its best to intervene and protect its interests... sorry, Thailand's interests.
> 
> Enjoy the beers like its 1939 Bob .


You remind me of this guy right here BM, so much 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0P3-oXXgQE

Have a good weekend all. Yes I said all.


----------



## Bm101

Lol.  No idea what you mean. :wink:


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The law of unintended consequences - don't expect the outcome you think you voted for.

Pointless to speculate on the consequences or outcomes right now - Cameron resignation, Scottish independence, Corbyn unseated - are just the first of many and we are only 12 hours in. Waiting in the wings - other EU defectors, trade deals, growth/recession, Calais camps, exchange rates, pension funds etc etc.

I do not believe the winners will get all they wished for - prosperity, pay rises, quality NHS and schools, jobs etc - possibly some, probably none bar the knowledge that at least they have won sovereignty/control (NATO, WTO etc excepted). Personally I will miss more Polish delis, Latvian restaurants, Romanian painter/decorators, Italian hairdressers etc etc.

The ride will be fun/interesting - so long as it has not personal unpleasant consequences

Terry


----------



## Glynne

Really good post Terry.
I can't think we could repatriate those Europeans already legally here even if we wanted to - so your Polish / Latvians etc should still be around.
Its quite amazing the things that might be impacted by the decision and perhaps this thread might continue in that vein now that the referendum results are in.
For example, I live in North Birmingham and drove the huge distance (7miles) to Tamworth today. In doing so, I crossed the route of the proposed HS2 and suddenly thought whether there was any EU money in the equation? Hopefully yes and that will be withdrawn as I'm not a fan of the idea but that is separate debate.
After 40 years in the EU there must be a huge number of impacts that will only start to come out of the woodwork (pun intended) and it would be interesting to start to identify and understand some of the ones that didn't feature in the campaigns.


----------



## Benchwayze

They should care about what happened in History, although that is one of the failings of the young these days; probably because they were never taught enough of it. And that includes some of our politicians. .A bit more awareness and they might understand that some of us 'grumpy old gits' also felt betrayed in the 1970s. They might also one day realise the price they would have paid for continuing freedom of movement; the inability to get rid of people who made decisions they didn't like; and there would have been plenty of those.

The youngsters needn't worry. I have already heard Ed Balls say openly on Nick Robinson's program, just this evening, that there might well be the chance of some kind of special concession on open borders, to lure us back. 

The ballot boxes have hardly been put away, and already we get the first murmurings that a Socialist government would be prepared sell us down the river again, once they get back into power; as one day I am sure they will.


----------



## dexter

Here's a thought, the Tory party's hundred thousand or so members elect the new PM. Not wanting to make the same mistake as Gordon Brown the new PM calls a general election. The Labour Party is dead in the water, the Tory party is still universally hated, in steps Mr Farage still riding high in the opinions of millions on the back of Bretex, UKIP sweeps the board and takes power! 
I'll bet that scenario has crossed the mind of Mr F.


----------



## dynax

on a positive side we won't be embarressed anymore at the eurovision, and a bit less football clogging up the tv channels :lol:


----------



## undergroundhunter

I'm 27 and voted to leave as did 90% of the people I have spoken to most under the age of 50, just to give some balance. I voted to leave because I want change.




dexter":oq2442xn said:


> Here's a thought, the Tory party's hundred thousand or so members elect the new PM. Not wanting to make the same mistake as Gordon Brown the new PM calls a general election. The Labour Party is dead in the water, the Tory party is still universally hated, in steps Mr Farage still riding high in the opinions of millions on the back of Bretex, UKIP sweeps the board and takes power!
> I'll bet that scenario has crossed the mind of Mr F.



Even though I voted to leave I will never vote for Mr F. I do think some people voted leave just to get rid of Cameron, if that was their reason then in my opinion it was the wrong choice. I think by standing down all he has done is affirm his weakness and unwillingness to do what he has urged us to do and stick together. 

Britain will come through this and hopefully better than before.


----------



## RobinBHM

dexter":3u9jrv51 said:


> Here's a thought, the Tory party's hundred thousand or so members elect the new PM. Not wanting to make the same mistake as Gordon Brown the new PM calls a general election. The Labour Party is dead in the water, the Tory party is still universally hated, in steps Mr Farage still riding high in the opinions of millions on the back of Bretex, UKIP sweeps the board and takes power!
> I'll bet that scenario has crossed the mind of Mr F.



Mr Farage is unlikely to be interested in a further political career, although if he was, we might see the price of beer falling ccasion5:

Time for a lib dem government........


----------



## t8hants

The pundits say that it was the old Labour vote that swung it, to punish Cameron, so if Cameron had campaigned to leave, would the disaffected traditional labour voters have gone for remain to give C the kicking they think he deserved?

Going off in a huff, only demonstrated he was the spoilt rich brat we thought he was.


----------



## Jacob

I lifted this from FB:
"Biggest joke of the referendum was Farage appealing to the common man, referring to others as an elite and "the political class". Always a beneficiary of the ruling class elite himself, perhaps i can suggest he now does the following;
1). Resigns as MEP Immediately, thus ending the hypocrisy of taking money for his and his wife's (sorry his EU secretary's) personal gain from an organisation he disagrees with and takes no interest in ( note his appaling attendance record). 
Or perhaps continues to claim then donates this money to the treasury to reduce beer tax so we can all swig our beer with a big silly grin not just him.
2. In the spirit of "returning to our country what belongs to us". He can repay the tax he has avoided with his offshore tax havens over the years to the treasury ring-fenced for Britains NHS he claims to value and support. 
3). That he can now humbly apologise for the racist poster that was quickly followed by the racist murder Of Jo Cox MP and the role this is likely to have played, however large or small, in exploiting peoples fears to the degree that one long term supporter of fascist groups felt the need to murder.
Don't hold your breath.
Since I wrote the above i've heard about Farage's comments about the referendum being won "without a shot being fired" . Appalling man."


----------



## dynax

if things do go belly up, and the pound becomes worthless, we have the barter system to fall back on, better get me some chickens and a couple of sheep just in case


----------



## finneyb

Glynne":2jpx3oei said:


> For example, I live in North Birmingham and drove the huge distance (7miles) to Tamworth today. In doing so, I crossed the route of the proposed HS2 and suddenly thought whether there was any EU money in the equation? Hopefully yes and that will be withdrawn as I'm not a fan of the idea but that is separate debate.
> .



HS1 was EU policy to have a high speed rail link to the extremities of the EU. I assume HS2 to be same policy - it could be cancelled on that basis.

Brian


----------



## Jacob

dynax":6r3fry9b said:


> if things do go belly up, and the pound becomes worthless, we have the barter system to fall back on, better get me some chickens and a couple of sheep just in case


What you really need is a little crop of potatoes hidden away somewhere - plus a dryish cave to store them in. That's what kept many European peasants alive when various forms of sh|t hit the fans.


----------



## dynax

Jacob":1nufc41z said:


> dynax":1nufc41z said:
> 
> 
> 
> if things do go belly up, and the pound becomes worthless, we have the barter system to fall back on, better get me some chickens and a couple of sheep just in case
> 
> 
> 
> What you really need is a little crop of potatoes hidden away somewhere - plus a dryish cave to store them in. That's what kept many European peasants alive when various forms of sh|t hit the fans.
Click to expand...


nothing wrong with a bit of homebrew =P~


----------



## Jacob

A brexiter trying to think!

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06- ... te-remain/


----------



## BearTricks

Farage previously suggested that a 52 - 48 vote in favour of remain would be grounds for a second referendum. He soon shut his trap about that.


----------



## finneyb

dexter":11zip8lc said:


> Here's a thought, the Tory party's hundred thousand or so members elect the new PM. Not wanting to make the same mistake as Gordon Brown the new PM calls a general election. The Labour Party is dead in the water, the Tory party is still universally hated, in steps Mr Farage still riding high in the opinions of millions on the back of Bretex, UKIP sweeps the board and takes power!
> I'll bet that scenario has crossed the mind of Mr F.



A general election won by a party or coalition with 'stay in Europe' in its/their manifesto trumps the referendum.
We decide when to implement Clause 50. The next election is 2020, unless 75% of MPs sign to say they want it earlier (I think). Doris has said 'There is no haste' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36620139.

Is the plan to delay Clause 50 implementation to see what else we can negotiate and then trump the referendum?

Brian


----------



## Cheshirechappie

undergroundhunter":10pr080p said:


> I'm 27 and voted to leave as did 90% of the people I have spoken to most under the age of 50, just to give some balance. I voted to leave because I want change.
> 
> .......
> Britain will come through this and hopefully better than before.



I agree with you. I think we now have a slightly confused political situation, with both main parties in some turmoil, and the SNP making mischief.

The Tories have had the problem of internal division over the question of the EU for a couple of decades. Cameron calling the referendum was in part to settle that question. Well, it has; though not in the way he intended. The Tories will regroup, elect a new leader, and probably minus a few resigning Europhiles, go on stronger and more united.

Labour has a bigger problem, in that the PLP and the membership are going in different political directions. If the membership win out, they will move further left, and probably become unelectable. If the PLP win out, they too could well regroup as a credible centre-left alternative to the Tories, but they will have to find a way to reconnect with their traditional supporters if they are to be electable; being the party of Metropolitan bien-penseurs is not enough.

UKIP has a bigger problem still - it's main reason for existence is now gone. It may still hang about mopping up disaffected former labour voters, but that won't be enough to give it more than a few Parliamentary seats.

Thus, it does look as if we are going to have a Tory government for the next few years. However, it is likely to be fairly stable, which is something the country does need. In time, other parties will rearrange themselves enough to become a credible government-in-waiting.

Above all else, there is one thing that will improve things for us, the ordinary people. Those in Parliament will gradually become those actually making the decisions as the shackles of EU directives are slowly sloughed off. The closing of the gap between the governed and those actually making the real decisions, and the accountability of those decision-makers at election time, will mean fewer mealy-mouthed ministers trying to hide the fact that they can't do anything except follow the EU directives. That will improve political discourse because they'll be debating things they actually CAN do rather than things they'd like to do but can't because the EU won't let them.

By the way - for any younger people worried that the older generation has voted their future away, have a look at the economic direction of the Eurozone (and wider Europe) and compare it with the economic direction of the rest of the world. It's entirely possible that you look back in ten years, and thank the older generation for saving you from the economic fallout of Eurozone collapse and the subsequent recession in Europe. I may be wrong, but that does seem to be the way the runes point at the moment.


----------



## Jacob

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36620139
Amazing waffle and desperate trimming from Boris. I don't think he thought Brexit would win - now he bears responsibility for this fiasco he is ducking and diving like a dodgy public school boy.

He's not alone https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/ ... ng-brexit/


----------



## finneyb

Jacob":115zvcad said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36620139
> Amazing waffle and desperate trimming from Boris. I don't think he thought Brexit would win and now he bears responsibility for this fiasco.



Jacob,

See my post 3 above, with same video clip.
Also, Doris was late to join Leavers - IIRC - he allegedly couldn't decide which side to support. I agree I think he got a shock when BREXIT won and its a step too far - he is now looking for a way out. There is one as I see it. 

Brian


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":14clqy1n said:


> .... followed by the racist murder Of Jo Cox MP..."



Sorry, Jacob, been on the wine again? Where/how was Jo Cox's murder racist ?


----------



## dexter

Jacob,
Just watched the clip of the bretexer, I assume that the young man with her was her career!


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":1petk55f said:


> Jacob":1petk55f said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... followed by the racist murder Of Jo Cox MP..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Jacob, been on the wine again? Where/how was Jo Cox's murder racist ?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. It's not my quote.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":k5kxsagh said:


> RogerS":k5kxsagh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":k5kxsagh said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... followed by the racist murder Of Jo Cox MP..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Jacob, been on the wine again? Where/how was Jo Cox's murder racist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say that. It's not my quote.
Click to expand...


But you quoted it, without making any comment regarding it, and so therefore you endorsed it.

You could have simply removed it from your original cut and paste.


----------



## Jacob

Yawn :roll:


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":hs81txhu said:


> Yawn :roll:



Ah, too much wine then. Fully understand, Jacob.


----------



## Jacob

https://twitter.com/FT/status/746291798700597248

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/e ... 2c56391aca

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12024634/b ... egret-vote


----------



## Max Power

Yawn :roll:


----------



## Jacob

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/f ... 5711496124


----------



## YorkshireMartin

It is so interesting to read all your opinions on the referendum result, such a wide variety.

I haven't really told anyone how I voted yet, let alone explained myself. I'm writing this post as much for myself as anyone else. I'd be interested to see if any of my points resonate anywhere, because I assure you, I was as confused as a lot of people, for a long time, when it came to this referendum.

I've noted that there seems to be a lot of information going around about how young people overwhelmingly backed remain. It's interesting because out of 8 of our staff under 25, only 1 voted remain. It makes you wonder where they get this polling information from, although mine is admittedly a small sample size from "up narf", where we really only like people who can make yorkshire puddings without a recipe 

I'm in my mid thirties and voted leave and at great potential financial loss. I voted with my heart. I voted leave because in my view, the EU made it quite clear that we were not respected, by making a mockery of our requests for reform. They only became demands once the feeling of the electorate was made clear at the European elections and Cameron literally had no choice but to act. I do believe he did the best he could in negotiations, but then tried to spin them as a success, when even to a thicko like me, they were clearly a disaster. I voted for him at the last general election and at this point regretted it deeply. He must genuinely have believed the working class were so stupid as to not realise what had happened.

Ultimately, the unelected EU political elite refused to listen. The sentiment of our electorate was echoed across Europe and saw the rise of populism almost across the board, the effect of which is yet to be seen. Still they refused to listen, turning former pro-EU voters like myself, who love the varied cultures of the nations in the EU, into sceptics questioning exactly how far removed the EU is from what I consider democracy.

The straw that broke the camels back was Juncker, the hard left President of the EU commission. He was, very unwisely, insisting there will be absolutely no further negotiation regardless. Well, ok then, you try to bully us to stay, we will show you that the English will and can not be bullied. I'd be tempted to say he was hoping for a Brexit all along, as we really don't fit in with his hard left political demographic. He's out of touch and likely very soon, out of a job.

I don't want our laws, any portion of them, to be made abroad by people who were appointed to the role rather than elected. I don't want our nation to be an enormous net contributor and yet have Angela Merkel acting unilaterally in openly welcoming migrants, regardless of the reason they are coming. Yes, we are partly to blame for their displacement and frankly I wish we had never got involved, but rather than respecting the fact that such a decision would have far reaching implications on the culture, demographics and economies of member states, she made it perfectly clear that she is running the show and cared not a jot for the concerns of others. The migrants are not the problem, the actions of the EU political elite, are.

I have often wondered if Angela Merkel ever actually sat down and considered the harm that her decision would cause to the migrants themselves. Long, life threatening journeys based on false hope of asylum, living in squalor, a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. France have acted appallingly in humanitarian terms. Granted, Merkels decision was not the precursor, but it was certainly the catalyst for the numbers seen today, and the corresponding levels of human suffering.

Entire generations of men died in two separate wars to forge Europe into what it is today, to defeat the common European enemy of the time, Germany. The days of doing so by force are long passed, but when Europe was formed, I certainly do not think the intention was for Germany to be solely at the helm, yet that is the de facto situation, regardless of the apparently limp European parliament. I believe that all countries were supposed to have equal voice, as it should be. This has proven to be untrue in my view, influence instead, being based on the size of a countries' wallet. Please understand, I am not anti-German, I am anti-anyone who thinks that they have the right to act alone to the detriment of others.

Going back to the youth vote for a second, the younger generation should remember that they would not have been in the privileged position of having a vote had it not been for the sacrifices made generations before, by their close ancestors. What has happened in this referendum, is a return to independence for the UK, in the hope that other European nations will follow suit, and finally each nation can come together and have an equal voice, including Germany. This will undoubtedly be to the benefit of the youth and be shown through lower house prices, hopefully cuts to university tuition and better employment prospects for all European countries. All tied to managed, rather than non-existent migration.

What exactly was the EU for? What did it provide that could not be accomplished by dialog between countries, by alliances, by diplomacy? Already we have indications that Canada and South Korea would welcome a trade agreement with us with open arms, many more are likely to follow suit, from within Europe also. Thus I propose, that it is in fact not the UK which has isolated itself, but rather the EU isolated us from the rest of the world.

I am very much pro Europe, but now, as a result of the actions of a few, I am no longer pro-EU. There a distinct difference. The EU is NOT the Europe I love and respect. 
I would welcome a person of any nationality into my home and to my country, but I will not have them tell me how to arrange my furniture or what the laws of our land should be.

On another note, I welcome the opportunity for Scotland to have a referendum on it's own independence, they clearly want to be part of the EU and that is true democracy at it's finest. 

Let's unite and heal the divisions. Have some faith in the citizens of this country. We have gotten through far worse. Ignore the extremists on either side of the argument, the naysayers and the bringers of doom. Most of them probably think that European culture begins and ends in Nando's (yes I'm aware it's not exclusively European food..).


----------



## Sheptonphil

Guess we'd better get get the candles out in this part of the country now. 

French company EDF have been holding off making a decision about investing in the 14 billion pound Hinkley C nuclear power station. 

As it was also to be funded in part by the Fench government, who were dragging their heels before, it is very possible they pull the (13amp) plug completely now. A perfect excuse without admitting they find the project unviable (of impossible) to build. 


Phil


----------



## Noel

Newsnight was interesting.....


----------



## rafezetter

BearTricks":2ld15tej said:


> Eric The Viking":2ld15tej said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me what negative interest rates are all about please, because I think at that point the financial world has collectively lost any right to be taken seriously. Yet that's the case in parts of the eurozone right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative interest rates are generally mischaracterised. They don't refer to every day interest rates, but rather a specific interest rate that banks charge each other to borrow money outside of business hours. If done properly it doesn't tend to effect the general public.
> 
> In other news, France has overtaken us to become the new 5th biggest economy in the world.
Click to expand...


Oh good - if our EU charges were based on the size of our economy, then france can now pay the second largest share and we can get some relief. Ofc the french being a bolshy lot probably won't like that too much and vote to leave, putting the onus on the "next" 5th largest economy within the EU.

But that's probably not how it works as france is in league with germany..... now where have I heard that before?


----------



## rafezetter

Noel":2alejvf1 said:


> Sour grapes? It's not a game, many lives will be adversely affected if this goes ahead, many firms will go to the wall and many people will lose their livelihood. .



You mean like all those people in the UK's Tata, Thamesteel, SSI and Caparo plants because of EU legislation and other factors linked to our current govt and EU membership? 

Forget about them did you? Convenient.

We know it's not a game Noel and to say otherwise is extremely disrespectful to all posters on both sides who have commited a lot of time and effort to their posts.

We voted, and we had a result, but because things didn't go your way you are having a pi$$y fit and seemingly holding the out voters on the forum responsible when the entire United Kingdoms took part.

This is how democracy works, if you are not happy living under it's protection, you can always move to N Korea or China.

Or maybe you could stuff yourself back in your box and pipe down because you have no idea how this will pan out longterm either.

Or, seeing as we could well continue be members for at least 2 years, you can relocate to one of the other european countries and work from there - but somehow I think you like the fact that the Pound is strong against the Euro, which it has thus remained, regardless of the decision.


----------



## rafezetter

chipmunk":2yho18zq said:


> +1 for Noel's sentiments
> 
> My fear is that, contrary to what Gove et al said prior to the vote, the EU will seek to dissuade further potential "exiters" by penalizing the UK through trade tarrifs - After all, there are others contemplating similar decisions and it seems only natural IMHO for them to try to stop a complete break up.
> 
> Do you also think that HMRC will not move to introduce VAT on imported goods from Europe in line with those from the rest of the world?



Why would you wish to prevent the breakup of something that does not wish to be together? If a football team was underperforming and the team members got to a stage whereby off the pitch they were barely talking to each other, forcing them to stay together even under threats just won't make it better.

Why are so many people failing to understand this simple human behavior?

And what makes you think imposing fear of other EU members will work? People are not stupid, they will see any form of penalization against the UK for what it is - punishment for leaving. 

You do not punish a former equal, unless you are petty and vindictive; you wish them well and go about your business.

I don't know much about it, but I imagine the actual grass roots trading costs are not going to suddenly change overnight so any increase will be purely political from increased trade tariffs, probably in a desire to replace our lost EU contributions. 

oh and here's a quote - directly from Merkel herself yesterday: "Our goal should be to shape the future relationship between Britain and the European Union in a close and fair manner. The German government will pay special attention to the interests of German citizens and the German economy in that process." 

They need our trade - we know they need our trade - they know that we know that they need our trade, and yet they still treated us with barely hidden contempt, forced us into their agenda's and all but ignored our requirements in the renegotiations.

Anyone who doesn't think that Germany is one of, if not THE main driving force behind the EU, is simply not paying attention.

good riddance.


----------



## doctor Bob

Some people on here, on both sides must have spent days posting up hysterical arguments.

Just imagine if that time had been spent constructively, actually doing something to make this country better. Just a little thing for your community, the list is endless

Everyone talks the talk, very few walk the walk,

Stop moaning and pigging well do some good you bunch of computer warriers .............. jesus it's like that scene in Life of Brian, really boils my pi55.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA


----------



## Cheshirechappie

doctor Bob":11hg6dsl said:


> Some people on here, on both sides must have spent days posting up hysterical arguments.
> 
> Just imagine if that time had been spent constructively, actually doing something to make this country better. Just a little thing for your community, the list is endless
> 
> Everyone talks the talk, very few walk the walk,
> 
> Stop moaning and pigging well do some good you bunch of computer warriers .............. jesus it's like that scene in Life of Brian, really boils my pi55.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA



Well, don't read it then. Go and do something more useful.


----------



## doctor Bob

Cheshirechappie":1o0a0k9i said:


> doctor Bob":1o0a0k9i said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people on here, on both sides must have spent days posting up hysterical arguments.
> 
> Just imagine if that time had been spent constructively, actually doing something to make this country better. Just a little thing for your community, the list is endless
> 
> Everyone talks the talk, very few walk the walk,
> 
> Stop moaning and pigging well do some good you bunch of computer warriers .............. jesus it's like that scene in Life of Brian, really boils my pi55.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, don't read it then. Go and do something more useful.
Click to expand...


Perfect example really.............. Ok I've said my bit, I'm off to do some village work.


----------



## NazNomad




----------



## Jacob

Chickens coming home to roost: 
It seems that the Brexit leaders are as surprised as the rest of us and have no agenda of any sort about the next steps. They are trimming away like mad. Amongst other things Farage has denied the "£350m" to be spent on the NHS. They have no proposals about how the various grants to regions, farmers etc will be maintained, nor any timetable about implementing Article 50
It seems many brexit voters are now saying oo-er we thought it was just a protest vote we didn't expect this.
It seems that the regions which are most needy and have been benefitting most from the EU, have have been the biggest Brexit voters in spite of having most to lose (turkeys voting for christmas as they say).

The only good news is that this referendum is not legally binding and Parliament could vote to ignore it, if they have the guts. I think they should - and very quickly before the EU simply boots us out and/or too many business and jobs exit the UK for Europe


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":5tla66b2 said:


> Chickens coming home to roost:
> ....They have no proposals about how the various grants to regions, farmers etc will be maintained, nor any timetable about implementing Article 50


In case you hadn't noticed, these are in the remit of the Government not any Brexiteers per se. This was a referendum and not a general election. So until the new PM is appointed, we just have to wait.


Jacob":5tla66b2 said:


> It seems many brexit voters are now saying oo-er we thought it was just a protest vote we didn't expect this.


Agreed. Many voted without engaging their brains.


Jacob":5tla66b2 said:


> The only good news is that this referendum is not legally binding and Parliament could vote to ignore it, if they have the guts.


Not a chance, unfortunately.


Jacob":5tla66b2 said:


> ....and very quickly before the EU simply boots us out


They can't...


Jacob":5tla66b2 said:


> and/or too many business and jobs exit the UK for Europe


They've started. J P Morgan, for example.

Much as I wanted to Remain (having re-examined my earlier reasons for wanting to be Out), as others have said, it's pointless crying over spilt milk and copying endless bits from the web - we just have to suck it up and make the best of it.


----------



## MIGNAL

The £350 m was never going to the NHS but of course it was an effective way of implying it. Almost certainly a few million folk were taken in by it. 
Not only that but the some of the leave campaign are now stating that they never promised to reduce immigration, just 'control' it. Of course a few million would have taken the word 'control' to mean a significant reduction. 
It didn't take long for it to all start unraveling.


----------



## Rhossydd

Jacob":2edtdnh0 said:


> The only good news is that this referendum is not legally binding and Parliament could vote to ignore it, if they have the guts.


I can't see that happening despite only 37% of the electorate being in favour.


----------



## t8hants

The reaction of that sniveling little piece of of incandescent dogs vomit, the unelected Jean Claude Juncker is exactly why I wanted out of the institution of the EU in the first place.


----------



## Jacob

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 01311.html


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Well. Sun still rose. Lights are still on. Still food in the shops. No port blockades, no immigrants murdered, no Krystallnacht or anything.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":wwak8f57 said:


> Well. Sun still rose. Lights are still on. Still food in the shops. No port blockades, no immigrants murdered, no Krystallnacht or anything.


There are various reports of immigrants being subject to abuse from the more rabid Brexiters.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

t8hants":569nmafg said:


> The reaction of that sniveling little piece of of incandescent dogs vomit, the unelected Jean Claude Juncker is exactly why I wanted out of the institution of the EU in the first place.



This isn't personal, this is politics. The EU now has to "punish" the UK in public as much as possible to set a precedent for the reactionary right wings salivating in all the other Euro sceptic member states. This is about contagion management and is entirely predictable. No one needs get angry, it's just the way the game gets played

If you want to get angry, think about your kids futures!


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":3mx5138c said:


> Well. Sun still rose. Lights are still on. Still food in the shops. No port blockades, no immigrants murdered, no Krystallnacht or anything.


The pound crashed, the stock markets lost value.... as widely predicted.
So anyone going on holiday abroad will have to pay more immediately. Anyone hoping to retire soon with a private pension will lose.
Petrol and diesel are expected to increase in price within the next few days.


----------



## Wuffles

Jacob":ppb5ix16 said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html


Read that this morning, and watched the Newsnight interview with Evan Davis losing it with Dan Hannan - will this stuff make it to The Sun & The Mail? I suppose it's done now, so they can use it to sell papers again.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

It seems many brexit voters are now saying oo-er we thought it was just a protest vote we didn't expect this.?

I haven't met one yet.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":34ew73up said:


> I haven't met one yet.


Do you get out much ?
I've met two already;
"Oh, I just voted as my Dad told me to"
"I didn't think it would be this bad"


----------



## finneyb

The real problem here is the use of a referendum. Caused by the Tory anti-EU group. 
Some people - if the can't make a reasoned decision - are just too dangerous to be allowed a vote in a referendum.

They are used to protest votes in Genertal elections, where to be frank it doesn't matter - my constituency would put a monkey in Parliament if it has a Labour badge on it. 

This is what happens when you let the lunatics run the asylum.


----------



## custard

phil.p":272m56hm said:


> Well. Sun still rose. Lights are still on. Still food in the shops. No port blockades, no immigrants murdered, no Krystallnacht or anything.



There was an account of a lady on a bus talking in an Eastern European language on a mobile phone, another lady gleefully called out to her "you and your type are in big trouble now". The first lady was a nurse on her way to the local hospital, history hasn't recorded the occupation of the second lady.


----------



## Wuffles

custard":2n8io9yq said:


> phil.p":2n8io9yq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well. Sun still rose. Lights are still on. Still food in the shops. No port blockades, no immigrants murdered, no Krystallnacht or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was an account of a lady on a bus talking in an Eastern European language on a mobile phone, another lady gleefully called out to her "you and your type are in big trouble now". The first lady was a nurse on her way to the local hospital, history hasn't recorded the occupation of the second lady.
Click to expand...

That does remind me of the recent story about the lady in a niqab on a bus in Wales speaking "forin" that a chap took offence to, until it was pointed out to him she was speaking Welsh.


----------



## Noel

rafezetter":tq6qi98x said:


> Noel":tq6qi98x said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sour grapes? It's not a game, many lives will be adversely affected if this goes ahead, many firms will go to the wall and many people will lose their livelihood. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like all those people in the UK's Tata, Thamesteel, SSI and Caparo plants because of EU legislation and other factors linked to our current govt and EU membership?
> 
> Forget about them did you? Convenient.
> 
> We know it's not a game Noel and to say otherwise is extremely disrespectful to all posters on both sides who have commited a lot of time and effort to their posts.
> 
> We voted, and we had a result, but because things didn't go your way you are having a pi$$y fit and seemingly holding the out voters on the forum responsible when the entire United Kingdoms took part.
> 
> This is how democracy works, if you are not happy living under it's protection, you can always move to N Korea or China.
> 
> Or maybe you could stuff yourself back in your box and pipe down because you have no idea how this will pan out longterm either.
> 
> Or, seeing as we could well continue be members for at least 2 years, you can relocate to one of the other european countries and work from there - but somehow I think you like the fact that the Pound is strong against the Euro, which it has thus remained, regardless of the decision.
Click to expand...


You must be fun at parties. Later.


----------



## t8hants

Random Orbital Bob":1l2mvnz0 said:


> t8hants":1l2mvnz0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reaction of that sniveling little piece of of incandescent dogs vomit, the unelected Jean Claude Juncker is exactly why I wanted out of the institution of the EU in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't personal, this is politics. The EU now has to "punish" the UK in public as much as possible to set a precedent for the reactionary right wings salivating in all the other Euro sceptic member states. This is about contagion management and is entirely predictable. No one needs get angry, it's just the way the game gets played
> 
> If you want to get angry, think about your kids futures!
Click to expand...


This is a great opportunity for our kids to embrace the world, free from the whispers that have been saying _"You are a small nation, you cannot survive alone, you cannot do anything without us the EU"_ that has deliberately brainwashed two generations into thinking small.
If we can re engage the enterprise and invention shown by our forefathers we will survive and prosper, but we need to become the nation we once were in outlook, and throw off the mantle of fear which the EU and its supporters have deliberately fostered.
It was no accident that 'Project fear' was adopted by the remain campaign, anybody else would have campaigned on 'look at all the wonderful things the EU have done for you and us', and I think that is what the undecided wanted to hear, but didn't get.
If house prices collapse perhaps my kids can then afford one, I presume all the EU migrants are living in the available stock that may have been available if they were not there, likewise work might be available because there were fewer migrants. Perhaps they would stop gobbling up field after field for housing, as a nation we should have been planning to reduce the population as the baby boomers die off, not continually increase it.
We built an Empire with a population of half of what it is now, we don't need to keep increasing with either migrants or native born, because increased population usually lowers living standards.


----------



## RogerS

Much of the Leave vote was against the perceived 'elite' and the 'establishment' as much as anything else according to some commentators. Many people outside London felt disenfranchised.


----------



## MIGNAL

'"Other developed countries also face similar challenges as Britain. We all live in a globalised, interdependent world. The desire to disengage, to be less constrained by one's partners, to be free to do things entirely as one chooses, is entirely understandable. And yet in reality for many countries, disengaging and turning inwards will likely lead to less security, less prosperity, and a dimmer future.
Singapore will continue to cultivate our ties with Britain, which is a long standing friend and partner."

- PM of Singapore.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":2659j004 said:


> It seems many brexit voters are now saying oo-er we thought it was just a protest vote we didn't expect this.?
> 
> I haven't met one yet.


You mean you aren't one yourself? Cornwall will be a big loser - you'll get the idea sooner or later. Brexit will bring no benefits to you or your neighbours.


----------



## Jake

Don't fret folks, Bob's mowed the village green so all is good.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":2pzqrquh said:


> Many people outside London felt disenfranchised.


Particularly ironic given how much of the EU spending in Britain went to the provinces. Do they think that Westminster is going to replace all those EU subsidies with cash from UK tax payers when we leave ?


----------



## dynax

Well i have no regrets in the vote to leave, we will be so much better off in so many ways, when was the last time you saw a British kite mark on anything you have bought, within the eu we have had to drop our standards to comply with the rest, our British standards were more stringent than the rest of europe, closing our borders will help with reducing smuggling, drug and human trafficking, we can have an increased security system in place which we can never have within the eu, and we can distance ourselves from the corruption that dominates the heart of the eu.


----------



## Rhossydd

For anyone regretting 37% of the electorate trying to get us out of Europe might like to sign this 
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215


----------



## porker

Well my company (large multi national FTSE 100) told us yesterday it is considering relocating to another site in Europe. This is internal knowledge right now as we are working on impact assessment of the business. If they go the main town they are in will be decimated. I respect peoples views but I don't think we live in a world where pulling up the draw bridge is the way to go. Not only the EU but now the breakup of the UK. Scotland will undoubtedly leave and I can see problems in Ireland again. For me a very sad day yesterday.


----------



## MIGNAL

porker":39icrxns said:


> Well my company (large multi national FTSE 100) told us yesterday it is considering relocating to another site in Europe. This is internal knowledge right now as we are working on impact assessment of the business. If they go the main town they are in will be decimated. I respect peoples views but I don't think we live in a world where pulling up the draw bridge is the way to go. Not only the EU but now the breakup of the UK. Scotland will undoubtedly leave and I can see problems in Ireland again. For me a very sad day yesterday.



This is going to be the real crux of the matter. Not if but how many, to what effect it has on jobs and the economy. I can only hope that the effect is marginal, I fear that it will be much worse.


----------



## Roughcut

Rhossydd":5t7oe3g4 said:


> For anyone regretting 37% of the electorate trying to get us out of Europe might like to sign this
> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215




No thanks.
The vote has been cast, we are leaving the EU.
Time to move on.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":2w4udgos said:


> RogerS":2w4udgos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people outside London felt disenfranchised.
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly ironic given how much of the EU spending in Britain went to the provinces. Do they think that Westminster is going to replace all those EU subsidies with cash from UK tax payers when we leave ?
Click to expand...


I think you are getting confused. Feeling disenfranchised has diddly-squat to do with any subsidies.


----------



## Roughcut

porker":3c2noxp9 said:


> Well my company (large multi national FTSE 100) told us yesterday it is considering relocating to another site in Europe. This is internal knowledge right now as we are working on impact assessment of the business. If they go the main town they are in will be decimated. I respect peoples views but I don't think we live in a world where pulling up the draw bridge is the way to go. Not only the EU but now the breakup of the UK. Scotland will undoubtedly leave and I can see problems in Ireland again. For me a very sad day yesterday.



An Independent Scotland.....within the EU.
Now there's a funny thing.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":1x0v8t9g said:


> For anyone regretting 37% of the electorate trying to get us out of Europe might like to sign this
> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215



Do you really think that another referendum will make any difference ? I don't think so. We might see a result that is a mirror-image and so then what do we do ? Best of three?

As I and others before me have said ....the votes been cast, so suck it up and deal with it.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Know who this bunch is? You should!






It's a pro-EU comic strip (these are the characters), aimed at indoctrinating children about the wonderful EU. On the left are the forces of Euroscepticism, on the right the wonderful Captain Euro and his team. 

Any resemblances to Bond villains and neo-Nazi youth organisations I presume are intentional - it's not as if the comparison wasn't made years ago (and even minuted in the European Parliament). At one point some printed editions, intended for primary schools, were recalled here at short notice and pulped, when they were too blatant. 

The "archive" mysteriously only goes back as far as 2014 - the more egregious stuff was in the early 2000s and has mysteriously vanished from EU servers.

*The young have been a target for EU propaganda for decades*, as young as primary school age, with "classroom materials" (including Captian Euro materials), teaching plans, etc., right up to university and beyond with direct bungs like the Erasmus program, etc. 

This particular one started off unashamedly aimed at smaller children, but after an outcry was cancelled, only to reappear recently, changed into more wry humour aimed at young teenagers.

Even so, can you imagine any British government being allowed to further its own cause in this way, using public money? It's like something out of North Korea or Stalin's Russia.

Here's a classic from the recent genre:
http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/white-house-calling/

http://www.captaineuro.eu/

I was actually quite surprised to find it still available on an EU server.

Go figure.


----------



## thetyreman

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":2om9nt8b said:


> .....
> Go figure.


Go figure what? That people have been propagandising pro EU? 
Surely this is no surprise. 
People have also been rabidly propagandising the opposite, as you well know Eric.
No doubt material of varying quality from both sides, will turn up in schools, libraries, many places. 
This is how it should be in the free world.
Why are you surprised to find it "still available" - there's a lot of much weirder stuff than that on the net!



> The "archive" mysteriously only goes back as far as 2014 - the more egregious stuff was in the early 2000s and has mysteriously vanished from EU servers.


Probably because it was trivial, boring and well out of date - not necessarily a cunning plan conducted by the forces of darkness!

Do you suffer from this chronic paranoia in general Eric, or is it just the EU that brings it on?


----------



## paulm

Rhossydd":2e4rol8v said:


> For anyone regretting 37% of the electorate trying to get us out of Europe might like to sign this
> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215



Are you suggesting it would be more just for quite a bit less than 37% of the electorate, the Remainiacs, to keep the country in Europe when the rest didn't vote for that ?


----------



## Jake

Eric The Viking":1xe1sbao said:


> This particular one started off unashamedly aimed at smaller children, but after an outcry was cancelled, only to reappear recently, changed into more wry humour aimed at young teenagers.
> 
> Even so, can you imagine any British government being allowed to further its own cause in this way, using public money? It's like something out of North Korea or Stalin's Russia.
> 
> Here's a classic from the recent genre:
> http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/white-house-calling/
> 
> http://www.captaineuro.eu/
> 
> I was actually quite surprised to find it still available on an EU server.
> 
> Go figure.



You do know that .eu is like .co.uk don't you? 

This is not a UK government site, for instance: http://maxi-muppets.co.uk/

And this is not an EU website: https://leave.eu/


----------



## paulm

RogerS":jeg42q56 said:


> Rhossydd":jeg42q56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":jeg42q56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people outside London felt disenfranchised.
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly ironic given how much of the EU spending in Britain went to the provinces. Do they think that Westminster is going to replace all those EU subsidies with cash from UK tax payers when we leave ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are getting confused. Feeling disenfranchised has diddly-squat to do with any subsidies.
Click to expand...


Yes, very confused, and not for the first time :lol: 

The EU subsidies are only the EU giving back a small part of the cash taken from UK tax payers in the first place! :roll:


----------



## MIGNAL

RogerS":3qu5d66s said:


> Rhossydd":3qu5d66s said:
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone regretting 37% of the electorate trying to get us out of Europe might like to sign this
> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that another referendum will make any difference ? I don't think so. We might see a result that is a mirror-image and so then what do we do ? Best of three?
> 
> As I and others before me have said ....the votes been cast, so suck it up and deal with it.
Click to expand...


Actually I have a feeling that it will, maybe by a swing as much as 10% the other way. However I don't think another referendum is the way to go and quite frankly I doubt I could stomach another. 
I think the best course of action would be for the new leader to go back to the EU and negotiate a Norway style deal. Let's call it a get out of jail card, out but back in. Probably not what the electorate voted for but in the best interests of UK Plc. 
It can always be upgraded or even downgraded later on.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jake":3irx27gk said:


> Eric The Viking":3irx27gk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This particular one started off unashamedly aimed at smaller children, but after an outcry was cancelled, only to reappear recently, changed into more wry humour aimed at young teenagers.
> 
> Even so, can you imagine any British government being allowed to further its own cause in this way, using public money? It's like something out of North Korea or Stalin's Russia.
> 
> Here's a classic from the recent genre:
> http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/white-house-calling/
> 
> http://www.captaineuro.eu/
> 
> I was actually quite surprised to find it still available on an EU server.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that .eu is like .co.uk don't you?
> 
> This is not a UK government site, for instance: http://maxi-muppets.co.uk/
> 
> And this is not an EU website: https://leave.eu/
Click to expand...


OK, fair point. I had forgotten that .EU had changed.

But... it may be on just a commercial server now, However it was originally 
commissioned by the EU and paid for by taxpayers, including all the print runs.


----------



## Jake

Eric The Viking":2abtulae said:


> Jake":2abtulae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric The Viking":2abtulae said:
> 
> 
> 
> This particular one started off unashamedly aimed at smaller children, but after an outcry was cancelled, only to reappear recently, changed into more wry humour aimed at young teenagers.
> 
> Even so, can you imagine any British government being allowed to further its own cause in this way, using public money? It's like something out of North Korea or Stalin's Russia.
> 
> Here's a classic from the recent genre:
> http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/white-house-calling/
> 
> http://www.captaineuro.eu/
> 
> I was actually quite surprised to find it still available on an EU server.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that .eu is like .co.uk don't you?
> 
> This is not a UK government site, for instance: http://maxi-muppets.co.uk/
> 
> And this is not an EU website: https://leave.eu/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, fair point. I had forgotten that .EU had changed.
> 
> But... it may be on just a commercial server now, However it was originally
> commissioned by the EU and paid for by taxpayers, including all the print runs.
Click to expand...


.eu hasn't changed, it has always been commercial. The intergovermental one was .eu.int 

It says on that site that they have never accepted EU funding. I can't be bothered to research more of your crocks of sunshine further than that.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Jake":1ss1zrmv said:


> It says on that site that they have never accepted EU funding. I can't be bothered to research more of your crocks of sunshine further than that.



It's a lie. Go search the EP minutes.

Or even just spend five seconds on Wikipedia:

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


----------



## Rhossydd

paulm":1cwoc14t said:


> Are you suggesting it would be more just for quite a bit less than 37% of the electorate, the Remainiacs, to keep the country in Europe when the rest didn't vote for that ?


No. I'm pointing out that 17m people out of a population 65m isn't much of a real majority for such radical damaging change.


----------



## paulm

Rhossydd":148nffj0 said:


> paulm":148nffj0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting it would be more just for quite a bit less than 37% of the electorate, the Remainiacs, to keep the country in Europe when the rest didn't vote for that ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm pointing out that 17m people out of a population 65m isn't much of a real majority for such radical damaging change.
Click to expand...


It's more than didn't want the change, what don't you get about it :lol:


----------



## Jake

Eric The Viking":1d93pe08 said:


> Jake":1d93pe08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says on that site that they have never accepted EU funding. I can't be bothered to research more of your crocks of sunshine further than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a lie. Go search the EP minutes.
> 
> Or even just spend five seconds on Wikipedia:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Euro
Click to expand...


That doesn't say it was funded by the eu.

Got a link to the EP minutes? (If not I am going to assume you made that bit up)


----------



## MIGNAL

The Brand EU Centre is based in London, in Gold Mercury House, Mayfair, and is funded privately. As an independent centre it is not funded or affiliated with any EU institutions or governmental bodies, nor is it connected to any political parties


----------



## custard

MIGNAL":1pt4b50j said:


> I think the best course of action would be for the new leader to go back to the EU and negotiate a Norway style deal. Let's call it a get out of jail card, out but back in. Probably not what the electorate voted for but in the best interests of UK Plc.



That'd be my best guess too regarding the likely outcome. Of course it will be dressed up as being _totally_ different from the Swiss or Norwegian deals, but in truth it will be pretty similar and critically would still allow the City to retain the European passport for financial services. 

So after all that spleen and venom we'll have another Old Etonian as PM, the population will continue to grow (Boris has already admitted there'll be an amnesty for exiting EU immigrants and in any event the majority of immigrants were always non-EU), the disadvantaged and angry of Hull and Stoke and Caerphilly will remain disadvantaged and angry, sectarian violence in Ireland will still bubble beneath the surface, businesses will still have to contend with an awful lot of red tape, ships will continue _not_ to be built on the Tyne or Clyde, and London/South Manchester/Winchester/Bristol/Cambridge/Brighton house prices will remain utterly unaffordable for most young people.


----------



## Inoffthered

Rhossydd":3htel7qh said:


> paulm":3htel7qh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting it would be more just for quite a bit less than 37% of the electorate, the Remainiacs, to keep the country in Europe when the rest didn't vote for that ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm pointing out that 17m people out of a population 65m isn't much of a real majority for such radical damaging change.
Click to expand...



This is the old old story often trotted out by losers that cannot abide the result of the democratic process.
The result was that 52% of those voting voted for Brexit.
The fact that some people didn't vote is irrelevant, they had the chance , they chose not to. 
The 37% argument is totally spurious.

I blame the Brussels Broadcasting Company who spent all yesterday interviewing a succession of miserable politicians and spin merchants whinging about the result.
I am amazed that Alastair Campbell has any street cred left after his involvement in the Iraq war dodgy dossier. He oozes hypocrisy.

Of course the BBC receives funding from the EU so they can see that their snout will soon be removed from the trough and they dont like it. They are also outraged that Joe Public may come to a decision that they do not agree with.
The Beeb worked themselves into a frenzy and seemed almost pleased that Sterling had crashed, they were wetting themselves because the stock market had fallen.
It is a pity that they didn't report that the stock markets recovered and ended higher than the day the referendum was called and that sterling finished the day 2 or 3% down.
They clearly have an agenda and their actions and bias are unfitting for a national broadcaster.

The sight of Campbell dismissively referring to the electorate as "those people" and that they didn't understand.
Anna Soubry explained the result as being influenced by white working class who had probably never met a migrant. If Farage had said like that the sanctimonious press would be down on him like a ton of bricks.
Then there are the virtue signalling white rose bearing posers who bang on about Love not Hate....but not extending that credo to anyone that doesn't happen to share their political views, pathetic.
The arrogance of these liberal elites is truly breathtaking.
The referendum is finished , the decision made, live with it, in the same way you would expect the other side to have lived with it if the the result had been Remain.


----------



## DennisCA

I wonder if you underestimate how cross the EU is going to be if you think you are going to get something as amicable as Norway or Swiss style deals. I predict the EU might want make an example of the UK.


----------



## Jake

I agree Dennis, but surely they will have to make allowances for our arrogant complacency.

Can you imagine the price they will want for retaining banking passporting (maybe giving back the rebate and keeping free movement would do it?)


----------



## MIGNAL

DennisCA":uak9umug said:


> I wonder if you underestimate how cross the EU is going to be if you think you are going to get something as amicable as Norway or Swiss style deals. I predict the EU might want make an example of the UK.



I agree but it also gives the EU the chance to tell all the other EU member countries that even the mighty UK couldn't _really_ exit even when it wanted to. 
Everyone wins if the UK goes to the Norwegian model. Doris can claim that we are out, the remain can claim that we are in, the EU can claim that we are effectively in. 
The only people who don't win are the 52% who voted to be completely out!  but they were lied to regarding NHS funding and significant reductions in immigration, even 2.01% of them have since changed their minds. 
Scotland won't have another referendum on independence. JP Morgan will return to London. 
There ya go. I've solved most of the worlds problems in just a few sentences. I expect a peace prize.


----------



## Inoffthered

DennisCA":1r52hxn2 said:


> I wonder if you underestimate how cross the EU is going to be if you think you are going to get something as amicable as Norway or Swiss style deals. I predict the EU might want make an example of the UK.





How exactly? Tariffs? It will cost them more than it does us?
Obama came out with how we should stay in the EU , that we would go to the back of the queue etc, but now he has rowed back from that stance and they are looking to preserve the special relationship.


The head of the German CBI has already said that it is in Germanys interests to have a free trade deal with the UK.

There will be a lot of sabre rattling and threats from the EU but they are not totally stupid and whatever they think we are in a strong position. Also , the more unreasonable the EU is, the more the electorate in other countries will see that EU is not worth being a member.

I think we are in a stronger position that you realise. 

As for Scotland wanting to join the EU, if that is what the Scots want to do then let them go. The reality is that that Scotland will not get anywhere like the financial support from the EU that they get from the UK under the Barnet formula. The EU had a funding problem before Brexit, now they have lost the second largest net contributor they are going to be short of cash. I do not understand why the Scots are so keen to escape from the yoke of Westminster only to run into the straitjacket of the EU, crazy.


----------



## custard

DennisCA":ev3014u2 said:


> I wonder if you underestimate how cross the EU is going to be if you think you are going to get something as amicable as Norway or Swiss style deals. I predict the EU might want make an example of the UK.



We can get that deal, that's not the problem.

The problem will be managing the howls of rage when many people who voted "Out" realise that we're not really out at all. That's going to change the face of British politics. The Conservative party will rally under Boris and convince themselves that they've achieved their primary goal of sovereignty (rather than curbing immigration) so it's job done. But Labour will be torn apart, losing votes to Scottish Nationalists and a resurgent UKIP who will continue to campaign when the statistics show that immigration is continuing to fuel UK population growth year after year.


----------



## iNewbie

DennisCA":25558vvm said:


> I wonder if you underestimate how cross the EU is going to be if you think you are going to get something as amicable as Norway or Swiss style deals. *I predict the EU might want make an example of the UK*.



So it'll be business as usual when dealing with us. 

Now, about the next Euro-lotto numbers. Check your crystal ball for next weeks numbers. ta


----------



## n0legs

iNewbie":11wsfzrt said:


> Now, about the next Euro-lotto numbers




Are we still allowed to participate?

I wonder if this post disappear :roll:


----------



## swagman

Those unhappy with the result of the referendum can always try and immigrate to Australia;  obviously we're not overly keen on the common variety -whinging pom. :roll: ; the Scots and the Irish receive automatic entry.


----------



## custard

custard":1k2kqj4r said:


> DennisCA":1k2kqj4r said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you underestimate how cross the EU is going to be if you think you are going to get something as amicable as Norway or Swiss style deals. I predict the EU might want make an example of the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can get that deal, that's not the problem.
> 
> The problem will be managing the howls of rage when many people who voted "Out" realise that we're not really out at all. That's going to change the face of British politics. The Conservative party will rally under Boris and convince themselves that they've achieved their primary goal of sovereignty (rather than curbing immigration) so it's job done. But Labour will be torn apart, losing votes to Scottish Nationalists and a resurgent UKIP who will continue to campaign when the statistics show that immigration is continuing to fuel UK population growth year after year.
Click to expand...



Here you go...


“We don’t think there is a need to swiftly invoke Article 50,” Matthew Elliott, *the chief executive of Vote Leave*, told Reuters in an interview.

“Its best for the dust to settle over the summer and during that time for there to be informal negotiations with other states,” he said.

Elliott said the full settlement on Britain’s exit would include all aspects of the relationship, including the British contribution to the EU, access to the single market, extradition agreements and so-called passporting for financial services.

“There is no reason why a sensible arrangement couldn’t be put in place for passporting to continue,” he said.


----------



## BearTricks

Inoffthered":165jewhl said:


> The referendum is finished , the decision made, live with it, in the same way you would expect the other side to have lived with it if the the result had been Remain.



Farage said that a 52 - 48 split in favour of remain would have been too close to trust and we should have had a revote. I'm sure he would have been grandstanding if that was the case but instead he's keeping his mouth shut about that.

On another note, half my family is Jewish. They left mainland Europe at some point in the last 150 years, and converted to Christianity in the early 20th century out of (from what I can tell) fear that they'd face the consequences if attitudes failed to change. Not forgetting that anti-Jewish sentiment existed all over Europe, not just in Germany.

That said I've heard the remain camp and the EU as a whole referred to as a spiritual successor to Nazism and, in one extreme case, as Hitler's plan all along. Of course this argument exists on both sides but it's insulting and distasteful, particularly because there's a lot of "We fought for the freedoms that the EU is denying". In actual fact, we fought a political ideology that sought racial purification in a number of countries.

It's funny that, on the man-on-the-street interviews I watched this morning, the whole "we fought a war" sentiment is expressed without irony alongside statements about getting rid of all the muslims.

In any case I'm personally insulted by people invoking the Nazis as if the mention of them suddenly gives their arguments more heft.


----------



## Inoffthered

BearTricks":236n2bxv said:


> Inoffthered":236n2bxv said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case I'm personally insulted by people invoking the Nazis as if the mention of them suddenly gives their arguments more heft.
Click to expand...


And you are probably upset in the same way that Leavers are insulted by being painted as racists by the Remainiacs. 

It was truly ironic that Remainer Alan Sugar referred to Gisla Stewart by her German maiden name with the added comment of why are being being told what to do by a German! Of course if Farage had come out with a comment like that the liberal left would have gone into meltdown mode. 

The referendum is over, the decision has been made, life goes on.


----------



## custard

Well said Bear Tricks.

Interesting that you mention Farage. Wonder what his plans are? It's not like he's an actual MP so he can't be considered for any parliamentary role, besides which the Conservatives mistrust and indeed loath him, so there's no future for him there. UKIP has flown the "Mission Accomplished" banner so if it's to continue it needs a fresh challenge, and Nigel certainly doesn't want to leave our TV screens now that he's a bona fide celebrity. So what's he going to do?

The answer's simple. He'll re-invent UKIP to campaign against what he will claim is the great injustice of what's about to happen, namely that...nothing much _will_ actually happen! 

We'll cobble together a deal with Europe that will give us access to their markets, and in return we'll hand over some cash and continue to take EU immigrants. But there will be an elaborate charade that it's absolutely nothing like the Norwegian or Swiss deals. The Conservative party will hold its collective nose, close ranks behind Boris, and put all that unpleasantness behind them, and "New UKIP" will bite great big chunks out of the Labour vote as it becomes increasingly and nakedly racist. About all that might be different is that any politician worth their salt will take away one abiding lesson, no more of this direct democracy referendum stuff, it's just too hazardous to a political career, so it's parliamentary democracy only from now on.


----------



## Rhossydd

Inoffthered":3lhtnpdd said:


> Of course the BBC receives funding from the EU


This myth has been dissected and proved false here before.

If you want to criticise the BBC, and they've a lot to answer for, at least hit at their faults.


----------



## DennisCA

Inoffthered":2d35r4ly said:


> I think we are in a stronger position that you realise.



I think that's a common conviction in britain at any rate. Time will tell.


----------



## custard

And now the most senior Foreign Ministers in the EU have just issued a collective statement,

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infos ... RSION.html

Looks much like an olive branch to me. They say they're very sorry that they've upset the electorate, have learnt their lesson, and invite the UK government to sit down and see if something can't be worked out...which of course it can, especially as paymaster Merkel is standing in the wings telling them all to find a way, anyway, but just fix it! 

Sure, there'll be all sorts of bluff and bluster served up for the Greeks and the Catalonians, but in the smoke filled rooms where the real business takes place it's looking increasingly likely that our future is to remain in the Europe village, just in a slightly more detached property set back a discrete distance from the High Street.


----------



## Inoffthered

Rhossydd":3a2yyhgs said:


> Inoffthered":3a2yyhgs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the BBC receives funding from the EU
> 
> 
> 
> This myth has been dissected and proved false here before.
> 
> If you want to criticise the BBC, and they've a lot to answer for, at least hit at their faults.
Click to expand...



No EU money, are you serious? They just don't like people to know!

What about this then?
£2m just before the referendum
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bias.html

And how about this?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/th ... d-to-hide/



BBC pro EU bias and propaganda, bought and paid for.


----------



## Rhossydd

Inoffthered":2hy6qrxx said:


> No EU money, are you serious?


Did you read the dissection of these payments I made previously ?
The £2m figure is almost entirely for work done for the EU. In particular, research and development of 3D & HD television broadcasting done years ago. Paying for that to be done hardly gets any bias in the totally different business of news and current affairs broadcasting.
The second figure went towards the BBC World Service Trust making education and informational broadcasts.
Buying services from the BBC's training department to assist with developing the professionalism of broadcasters in Georgia, or making programmes to help deal with malnutrition advice in Sahelian West Africa is hardly going to make the slightest difference to editorial policy on the Today programme, Newsnight or even the general tone of coverage. If any of the NCA crowd even were aware of it happening at all.
RogerS posted more detailed breakdowns at post1062218.html#p1062218

As I said, if you want to have a pop at the BBC at least hit a valid fault. Don't fall for more silly headlines that aren't correct.


----------



## lurker

Rhossydd":2wgwq2dr said:


> paulm":2wgwq2dr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting it would be more just for quite a bit less than 37% of the electorate, the Remainiacs, to keep the country in Europe when the rest didn't vote for that ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm pointing out that 17m people out of a population 65m isn't much of a real majority for such radical damaging change.
Click to expand...



You twist the numbers
no where near 65 million are eligible to vote
If 17ish and 16ish say 35 =72% 
You are suggesting 30* =28%

*35 - 65 = 30


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

In my opinion it's a sad moment for Britain and a terrible mistake to leave the EU, however a referendum was called and the leave camp won, not by much but they won, you can't start counting the non voters. Maybe this same principal should be remembered when the Tories bring in anti strike union laws where 40% of members of the union must vote for strike action as well as over 50% of votes cast. It's wrong to count non voters in union laws and it is wrong for Brexit. 
Interestingly in most general elections and nearly all local elections the non voters outnumber those who voted for the winning party


----------



## Rhossydd

Nigel Farrage didn't think a 52-48 would be decisive enough.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ni ... um-7985017


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Rhossydd":uypigkx8 said:


> Nigel Farrage didn't think a 52-48 would be decisive enough.
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ni ... um-7985017



Yeah, but I'm not going to take ideas of what is right or wrong from that piece of .......
When you play a game you have to decide on the rules at the outset, this "game" will have severe consequences and perhaps the referendum should have never been called, but it was and common sense, tolerance and decency lost. The only course of action now is to try and mitigate the harm this will cause to the economy and to the hard working tax paying immigrants who have made their home in this country, cleaning our hospital floors while lazy Brits collect their dole and complain about immigrants with their sickening sense of entitlement (that's what it's like on my estate anyway, there are quite a few Eastern Europeans and all of them get up and go to work like me, the Brits, not so much).


----------



## Grahamshed

I have always thought that referendums were a good thing. it being only right the the people should have their say on the more important and unusual matters.

Boy was I ever wrong.

I don't want to see that load of claptrap again.


----------



## Eric The Viking

Rhossydd":38q0ohxd said:


> Nigel Farrage didn't think a 52-48 would be decisive enough.
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ni ... um-7985017



Had it been reversed, I presume you would have thought it decisive. 

There were 17.5M people, who were NOT Farage, who voted to leave, and for all sorts of reasons. The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of them are not nasty racists, but see a problem that urgently needs sorting out, namely our EU membership. We knew from Cameron's "renegotiation" it wasn't going to happen, which left no practical alternative.

. . .

But truly, I am fed up with Farage. History will show that he and Cameron have a lot to answer for: 


Cameron thought he'd shut up the eurosceptics in his party forever with a pro-EU result.
Farage refused to make UKIP electable by doing the hard work of building the party structure properly and debating policy to find something it could unite behind ("It's Wednesday already, so what's our energy policy this week, Nigel?"). He saw a referendum as a quick way to get a result.

The right way, that wouldn't have provoked a constitutional crisis, was for UKIP to make itself electable and win a general election - or at least achieve a majority in parliament to leave the EU. That was too hard for Farage!

So now we have a situation with a clear result by plebiscite and an opposite majority in parliament, but our constitution doesn't account for referendums! 

So who should prevail - the people, by referendum, or the delegates we just sent to parliament a year ago? You'd be forgiven for not knowing - I can't call it!

I want to leave the EU, obviously, and as fast as possible, for my children's sake. I also believe the British constitution is (or was, until Blair got to it!) a brilliant, practical fudge that worked very well. I don't want to see it broken like this.

Worse still, rather than just repudiating Rome and/or Lisbon (clean and simple)*, we have at least two years of semi-chaos while unwilling British bureaucrats 'negotiate' with unyielding EU ones.

That's the Cameron and Farage legacy and I resent them both for it, enormously.

E.

*You start off broadly speaking by retaining all EU legislation, and repeal anything you no longer want as/when: straightforward, but I'll admit not simple - yet nothing is in this context - it's a right mess.


----------



## dynax

The sooner a50 is implemented the sooner we can get out, then we can start rebuilding, there's no reason to drag it out any longer than necessarry,


----------



## Jacob

Eric The Viking":3dl03b3a said:


> .........
> So now we have a situation with a clear result by plebiscite and an opposite majority in parliament, but our constitution doesn't account for referendums!
> 
> So who should prevail - the people, by referendum, or the delegates we just sent to parliament a year ago? .........


They aren't "delegates" (elected to act according to our instructions) - they are autonomous "representatives" (elected to act on our behalf) and the referendum is not legally binding as Parliament is still sovereign. 
They will have to vote on Article 50 and could reject the whole fiasco. I hope they do!
Ultimately the people prevail via the ballot box at the next election.

There is no constitutional crisis but there is a tricky political crisis!


----------



## MIGNAL

Won't happen anytime soon. The practicalities of leaving just aren't that simple. Apparently we don't have the skilled trade negotiators to move at anything like the speed that the Brexit camp suggest. It's going to take some 4 months and that's just to elect a new Tory party leader.
Meanwhile. . . . business waits to see what happens. Good luck with that. It's fast sounding to me like the politics of the lunatic asylum but then again it never did seem like a good idea to me.

https://next.ft.com/content/3c76e90a-27 ... d781d02d89


----------



## RobinBHM

custard":2qouhsqg said:


> And now the most senior Foreign Ministers in the EU have just issued a collective statement,
> 
> http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infos ... RSION.html
> 
> Looks much like an olive branch to me. They say they're very sorry that they've upset the electorate, have learnt their lesson, and invite the UK government to sit down and see if something can't be worked out...which of course it can, especially as paymaster Merkel is standing in the wings telling them all to find a way, anyway, but just fix it!
> 
> Sure, there'll be all sorts of bluff and bluster served up for the Greeks and the Catalonians, but in the smoke filled rooms where the real business takes place it's looking increasingly likely that our future is to remain in the Europe village, just in a slightly more detached property set back a discrete distance from the High Street.



Hi Custard, thanks for posting that link, I thought it very interesting. A bit different to the attitude of Juncker, who is not going to be at all helpful, judging by his arrogant attitude.


----------



## Rhossydd

Eric The Viking":1d4qhwuz said:


> Had it been reversed, I presume you would have thought it decisive.


Actually I wouldn't. It would show that a lot of people needed to know more about the issues.


> The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of them are not nasty racists, but see a problem that urgently needs sorting out, namely our EU membership.


I think an awfully large number have been carefully and subtly manipulated into believing there are much bigger 'problems' than exist in reality. In the next few months and years very many will be bitterly disappointed to discover how little changes in their lives for the better.


----------



## stuartpaul

custard":27f0nxvz said:


> And now the most senior Foreign Ministers in the EU have just issued a collective statement,
> 
> http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infos ... RSION.html
> 
> Looks much like an olive branch to me. They say they're very sorry that they've upset the electorate, have learnt their lesson, and invite the UK government to sit down and see if something can't be worked out...which of course it can, especially as paymaster Merkel is standing in the wings telling them all to find a way, anyway, but just fix it!
> 
> Sure, there'll be all sorts of bluff and bluster served up for the Greeks and the Catalonians, but in the smoke filled rooms where the real business takes place it's looking increasingly likely that our future is to remain in the Europe village, just in a slightly more detached property set back a discrete distance from the High Street.


Interestingly Custard I didn't read it as an olive branch. I think they're quite keen for us to get on with it so they can get over us as soon as possible! I wonder if they can 'force' us to trigger Article 50 before we want to?

It's been alluded to already but when people realise that in order to continue to trade we'll still have to comply with every aspect of EU law only this time there won't be any get out clauses and we'll have absolutely zero influence putting laws together.

That'll be an out/in then as opposed to an out/out!


----------



## Inoffthered

Rhossydd":rbghzk26 said:


> Eric The Viking":rbghzk26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had it been reversed, I presume you would have thought it decisive.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I wouldn't. It would show that a lot of people needed to know more about the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of them are not nasty racists, but see a problem that urgently needs sorting out, namely our EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think an awfully large number have been carefully and subtly manipulated into believing there are much bigger 'problems' than exist in reality. In the next few months and years very many will be bitterly disappointed to discover how little changes in their lives for the better.
Click to expand...


I think an awfully large number of Remainiacs have been carefully and subtly manipulated into believing that the EU is the answer to all of our problems and are now being manipulated by a liberal left media that struggles to accept the majority result at an election.


----------



## Rhossydd

Inoffthered":1b219jfu said:


> a liberal left media


I'm impressed you think the Guardian has that much influence, it only reaches about a million.


----------



## beech1948

I believe people are making this too complicated and just because they having voted and lost or won don't like it.

The easy way out but the hardest to live with is for Parliament to simply repeal the act which enshrined Masstrict (sp) into Uk law. That would mean that that Treaty and all subsequent treaties were no longer valid and we could leave immediately. Would be hard for the government to swallow and tough on the EU as well but doable.

You guys who are bitching about Leaveing should stay quiet and deal with it. Complaining and wingeing will not help us all. There was a referendum, it made a decision for the UK and we must live with it.

Calls for a second referendum are ludicrous and unrealistic. Imagine the Uk going back to Brussels and saying " Sorry but we got the right answer now so let us back in". A bad joke to be punished by a sneering lack of belief from the EU and being told to GO AWAY. Time for you all to be realistic. A second referendum would be disavowed by the losers just as strongly as today and nothing would be accepted as the UK was dragged kicking and screaming into the courts with mass riots in the major cities.

Londependence also a joke. Maybe the capital but not the voice of the UK. London centric people put us into this position.

What makes me laugh are the twits who said "I voted OUT but wasn't sure I meant it". Those who voted IN but were'nt sure they meant it as well. What utter useless juvenile stupid turnips these people are. Interesting they were mostly 30 ish.

My business has 37 employees with 17 under 25. Of these 11 voted OUT and 5 voted IN and one spoiled his vote out of disgust with the attitude of polititions. 12 are 30 to 45 and these were split 50/50 for IN and OUT. The 8 over 45 voted 6 OUT and 2 IN. The division caused within my team during the run up to the referendum has been unpleasant and arguementative. Productivity has been hit by a -19% drop.

I will not go through another referendum and will fight that tooth and nail to prevent it and you manipulated REMAINDERS getting one.

Time to get on with it.

Curious as well that the EU wants us to Hurry Up after being so slow and desperately treacle like for years.


----------



## Jacob

Inoffthered":1yusirgw said:


> Rhossydd":1yusirgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric The Viking":1yusirgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had it been reversed, I presume you would have thought it decisive.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I wouldn't. It would show that a lot of people needed to know more about the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of them are not nasty racists, but see a problem that urgently needs sorting out, namely our EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think an awfully large number have been carefully and subtly manipulated into believing there are much bigger 'problems' than exist in reality. In the next few months and years very many will be bitterly disappointed to discover how little changes in their lives for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think an awfully large number of Remainiacs have been carefully and subtly manipulated into believing that the EU is the answer to all of our problems and are now being manipulated by a liberal left media that struggles to accept the majority result at an election.
Click to expand...

I think an awfully large number of Brexiters have been crudely and un-subtly manipulated into believing that immigration* is the cause of all their problems and are now being manipulated by a right-wing media owned and controlled by non-dom mega-rich tax dodgers concerned only about having power, getting rich and keeping taxation down. 

Brexit will bring them nothing. Turkeys voting for christmas.

*Or you could add: excessive regulation, health and safety, benefit scroungers, single mothers etc. We all know the list inside out!


----------



## Rhossydd

beech1948":y8tpc7k2 said:


> Curious as well that the EU wants us to Hurry Up after being so slow and desperately treacle like for years.


Nothing curious about, they want some sort of stability as fast as possible as our decision is hurting their currency too.

But it WILL take years to get out. There's vast amounts of legislation and treaties to wade through and repeal or replace and negotiations with other countries to handle. One certainty in this is that rushed legislation is bad legislation.
Even the simple practicalities of who actually is employed to do it will take long enough.
It will cost the country a fortune and we'll be untangling the mess for a decade or more.


----------



## paulm

Paddy Roxburgh":2qpw2sin said:


> Rhossydd":2qpw2sin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nigel Farrage didn't think a 52-48 would be decisive enough.
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ni ... um-7985017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I'm not going to take ideas of what is right or wrong from that piece of .......
> When you play a game you have to decide on the rules at the outset, this "game" will have severe consequences and perhaps the referendum should have never been called, but it was and *common sense, tolerance and decency lost*. The only course of action now is to try and mitigate the harm this will cause to the economy and to the hard working tax paying immigrants who have made their home in this country, cleaning our hospital floors while lazy Brits collect their dole and complain about immigrants with their sickening sense of entitlement (that's what it's like on my estate anyway, there are quite a few Eastern Europeans and all of them get up and go to work like me, the Brits, not so much).
Click to expand...


No it didn't, to dismiss more than half of the voters in that way just because they don't happen to fit your preconceived ideas and preferences is quite frankly puerile and insulting, and far away from the tolerance that you mention, although perhaps you don't see the irony.


----------



## beech1948

Rhossydd":3ss6z9dq said:


> beech1948":3ss6z9dq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious as well that the EU wants us to Hurry Up after being so slow and desperately treacle like for years.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing curious about, they want some sort of stability as fast as possible as our decision is hurting their currency too.
> 
> But it WILL take years to get out. There's vast amounts of legislation and treaties to wade through and repeal or replace and negotiations with other countries to handle. One certainty in this is that rushed legislation is bad legislation.
> Even the simple practicalities of who actually is employed to do it will take long enough.
> It will cost the country a fortune and we'll be untangling the mess for a decade or more.
Click to expand...



No as I said repeal the Masstrict treaty and all other ttreaties and agreements become inoperable. You are making it too complicated.

The more difficult issue that the EU is concerned about is to saddle us with EU laws and conditions even though we are out as well as making us pay a tax on membership. Remember they have a £12Bn void to fill.


----------



## paulm

dynax":2ka2ombj said:


> The sooner a50 is implemented the sooner we can get out, then we can start rebuilding, there's no reason to drag it out any longer than necessarry,



Yes there is  

As a committed Remainiac, Cameron can't possibly start and execute the process of leaving with any credibility and appetite for a good result. He would completely, not necessarily purposefully I would hope, queer the pitch for the new team and tie their hands or go for different priorities than they would prefer.

Far better and more realistic for informal discussions and negotiations to take place in the background until the new team are in place and can execute on their priorities without hindrance and more baggage from the past than necessary.


----------



## rafezetter

Rhossydd":1y3tp4vn said:


> Jacob":1y3tp4vn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only good news is that this referendum is not legally binding and Parliament could vote to ignore it, if they have the guts.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see that happening despite only 37% of the electorate being in favour.
Click to expand...


Here's a bit of information my father sent me - a man far more in tune with such matters than myself; being in high level finance (neither banker or stocks, but linked to both) what the UK economy and global markets have been doing has been his stock in trade for close to 50 years. Being 70, he voted both times (in the first, out the second) and has seen first hand what has happened. However his email to me was about the margins:

I think the margin in the EU Referendum was a lot bigger than people realise.



Total votes cast in the referendum were 17,410,742 for Leave, with 16,141,241 for Remain; a winning margin of 1,269,501, or just over 1 and a quarter million people.



51.9% voted to Leave; 48.1% voted to Remain.



However, we are told the turnout was 72.2% of the total electorate (which is very high by UK standards), so altogether about 46,470,890 were entitled to vote.



Of the total possible Electorate:

· 37.5 % voted to Leave;

· 34.7% voted to Remain;

· 27.8% didn’t vote at all, not by post and not in person, so they were either "Don’t Know enough" or "Don’t Care enough" to make a decision.



Adding the Leave votes to the No Shows makes a total of 72.2% of possible UK voters. So we can safely say that almost three quarters of the UK voting population are either positively in favour of leaving the EU or were happy to leave that choice to others.


Not such a narrow margin after all !!

As they say, history is made by the people who show up – but sometimes the people who don’t show up make a difference too !

I am of course expecting the vocal ones in the remain camp to say their side could just as well claim that extra 27% of voters. Or it could well be have been just as split, as it is now - or with a bigger margin one way or the other - but the point I'm trying to make is all the reminers that are saying vote leave "only just" got the win isn't accurate because 27% of the registered voters didn't cast a vote at all.

I think the Govt ignoring the voters would be an extremely bad idea, they have little enough confidence from us as it is, and there were a great many voters who knew exactly what they were doing, and the implications when they voted.


----------



## MIGNAL

Rumours of HSBC moving jobs to Paris. 
TATA steel bidders having second thoughts after Brexit result. 
I think it's starting.


----------



## woodpig

Some interesting reading here. It never was just about trade.

http://www.rense.com/general87/nationstates.htm


----------



## Noel

NI kicked out of Europe twice in 2 days....


----------



## Eric The Viking

woodpig":9px1t623 said:


> Some interesting reading here. It never was just about trade.
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general87/nationstates.htm



Grrr. I was looking for that Monnet quote a couple of weeks ago!


----------



## lurker

Moderators s please shut this down.

People who I had previously considered to be nice are full of bile and hatred and I don't want to know about that side of them.

Things were fairly good until the result but now it's just nasty


----------



## woodpig

Eric The Viking":3r29j9d0 said:


> woodpig":3r29j9d0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some interesting reading here. It never was just about trade.
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general87/nationstates.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grrr. I was looking for that Monnet quote a couple of weeks ago!
Click to expand...


Well just ignore the first few lines then and read the rest. :wink:


----------



## Phil Pascoe

woodpig":1ri8jpsm said:


> Some interesting reading here. It never was just about trade.
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general87/nationstates.htm



If you read about its history from the beginning, it is 100% obvious that it never was. The electorate have been lied to consistently since the Treaty of Rome. What do we know, though, eh?


----------



## Rhossydd

rafezetter":1oz0ijmn said:


> Adding the Leave votes to the No Shows makes a


Great spin. So everyone that's on electoral register and didn't/couldn't vote wanted to leave ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

No, they were happy to go with the majority - otherwise they'd have voted.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":t1anmt7r said:


> woodpig":t1anmt7r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some interesting reading here. It never was just about trade.
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general87/nationstates.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read about its history from the beginning, it is 100% obvious that it never was. The electorate have been lied to consistently since the Treaty of Rome. What do we know, though, eh?
Click to expand...

If you believe it was all about some garbled fantasy of Monnet's which we only know as supposedly taken (out of context) from a 1952 letter to a friend, then you can believe anything. 

The one big thing which gives the lie to the big conspiracy is the idea of EU freedom of movement as a fundamental right. This is in complete and utter contrast to all tyrannies old and new - with strict population control (even to the point of extermination). 

Mega political conspiracy makes for entertaining fiction but not to be confused with the real world!


----------



## heimlaga

All right chaps. The referendum is over.
PLEASE CALM DOWN AND BE CIVILE TO EACH OTHERS!

To put everything in perspective I want to point out that the Faroe Islands stayed outside the EU when Denmark joined. 
The total area of the Faroes is 1399 square kilometres and the population is 49000 of which 15000 live in Tórshavn which is the biggest city. 
Their only natural resorces are fish and pastureland and edible sea birds and some potato patches and of cause the coal mine at Hvalba which is worked by 2-4 men.
The Faroes thrive and prosper outside the EU. Anyone claiming that Great Britain with it's huge natural resources and woodlands and farmland and large population cannot do the same is nothing but a liar. 
There is no reason what so ever to listen to the fearmongers.

Democracy is all about letting the people govern themselves. Setting upp referendum upon referendum until the people vote the way the establishment wants has nothing to do with democracy. Setting up another referendum in the next decade would be a step back to medieval times. A decision is made and now it is time to carry it out in practise.
By the way I would have liked to have you Brits with us in the EU trying to reform the thoroughly rotten EU oligarchy from inside but democracy has to prevail! 
Time for you to build the new independent GREAT BRITAIN!


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

paulm":1tkfplpr said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":1tkfplpr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhossydd":1tkfplpr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nigel Farrage didn't think a 52-48 would be decisive enough.
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ni ... um-7985017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I'm not going to take ideas of what is right or wrong from that piece of .......
> When you play a game you have to decide on the rules at the outset, this "game" will have severe consequences and perhaps the referendum should have never been called, but it was and *common sense, tolerance and decency lost*. The only course of action now is to try and mitigate the harm this will cause to the economy and to the hard working tax paying immigrants who have made their home in this country, cleaning our hospital floors while lazy Brits collect their dole and complain about immigrants with their sickening sense of entitlement (that's what it's like on my estate anyway, there are quite a few Eastern Europeans and all of them get up and go to work like me, the Brits, not so much).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it didn't, to dismiss more than half of the voters in that way just because they don't happen to fit your preconceived ideas and preferences is quite frankly puerile and insulting, and far away from the tolerance that you mention, although perhaps you don't see the irony.
Click to expand...



I'm accepting the result, doesn't mean I gotta like it. As a decedent of immigrants who came to work and help build this country I've been sickened by peoples attitude to hard working tax paying immigrants. What do you want, you won, isolationism here we come, recession here we come, nothing I can do about it, but I'm not going to agree with it just because you won. If I was the last person left in the UK who didn't blame immigrants for the nations problems I still wouldn't change my opinions.


----------



## dynax

heimlaga":2a0vdj66 said:


> By the way I would have liked to have you Brits with us in the EU trying to reform the thoroughly rotten EU oligarchy from inside but democracy has to prevail!
> Time for you to build the new independent GREAT BRITAIN!



If this was possible it would have been done a long time ago, but the only way to change the eu is for every member state to leave and become independants,


----------



## Cheshirechappie

heimlaga":3kwqrx89 said:


> All right chaps. The referendum is over.
> PLEASE CALM DOWN AND BE CIVILE TO EACH OTHERS!
> 
> To put everything in perspective I want to point out that the Faroe Islands stayed outside the EU when Denmark joined.
> The total area of the Faroes is 1399 square kilometres and the population is 49000 of which 15000 live in Tórshavn which is the biggest city.
> Their only natural resorces are fish and pastureland and edible sea birds and some potato patches and of cause the coal mine at Hvalba which is worked by 2-4 men.
> The Faroes thrive and prosper outside the EU. Anyone claiming that Great Britain with it's huge natural resources and woodlands and farmland and large population cannot do the same is nothing but a liar.
> There is no reason what so ever to listen to the fearmongers.
> 
> Democracy is all about letting the people govern themselves. Setting upp referendum upon referendum until the people vote the way the establishment wants has nothing to do with democracy. Setting up another referendum in the next decade would be a step back to medieval times. A decision is made and now it is time to carry it out in practise.
> By the way I would have liked to have you Brits with us in the EU trying to reform the thoroughly rotten EU oligarchy from inside but democracy has to prevail!
> Time for you to build the new independent GREAT BRITAIN!



Thank you, Heimlaga - a calm voice of sanity when we need it! You are quite right - we can go forward as an independent nation, not at all isolationist, but looking to the whole world rather than just the EU. 

I look forward to the day when a proud and independent Finland can join the UK and many other nations in building an association of free states co-operating for our mutual benefit on trade, security and any other matter we might see fit, respectful of each other's culture and sovereignty. 

I hope that day comes soon. I think it might - I can't see the EU lasting long in it's present form.


----------



## t8hants

I very much doubt if the EU will allow anyone else to leave, they will make it so hard that no other country will dare to.


----------



## custard

lurker":r80cp7k8 said:


> Moderators s please shut this down.
> 
> People who I had previously considered to be nice are full of bile and hatred and I don't want to know about that side of them.



Apparently this is currently happening on many forums and in many social groups. People that had happily chatted for years are suddenly drawing In/Out battle lines. I heard this morning that a local Scrabble group has now split into a Remain Scrabble group and an Exit Scrabble group, I don't know whether to regard that as amusingly silly or absolutely terrifying? In much of life we manage to confine our associations to fairly like minded people, it's sad in a way because all we ever hear in that echo chamber is our own beliefs fed back to us, however it does make for a peaceful existence. Move out of those groups and the unwritten rule is "don't talk about politics or religion", so we chat about the weather and rub along without incident. 

But this is all so raw and acrimonious, it's something few of us are really used to and we haven't worked out any social rules yet.

Be nice to think it'll soon blow over, but something tells me it'll take a long time before this one cools off. There are such massive expectations on the leave side for a change that I'm convinced will simply never happen, when that realisation hits home their anger will be incandescent. While on the remain side every economic and social set back will get furiously blamed on the leave vote. Rather than calming down this could stay boiling and seething for years to come.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":15c94bjo said:


> ....we can go forward as an independent nation, not at all isolationist, but looking to the whole world rather than just the EU......


We already are looking at the whole world not just the EU. 
All the EU does is make EU business easier - it does not limit our activities in the rest of the world and we trade everywhere. Never heard of Chinese woodwork tools, Japanese cars, etc etc?


----------



## Jacob

dynax":2oqo69rk said:


> heimlaga":2oqo69rk said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way I would have liked to have you Brits with us in the EU trying to reform the thoroughly rotten EU oligarchy from inside but democracy has to prevail!
> Time for you to build the new independent GREAT BRITAIN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this was possible it would have been done a long time ago, but the only way to change the eu is for every member state to leave and become independants,
Click to expand...

The EU is continuously changing, according to the wishes of it's members and to changes in the world. It's not "fixed" it's a democratic institution and can continually renew and adjust.


----------



## Jacob

lurker":1trooe3b said:


> Moderators s please shut this down.
> 
> People who I had previously considered to be nice are full of bile and hatred and I don't want to know about that side of them.
> 
> Things were fairly good until the result but now it's just nasty


Nah! 
It's all very interesting and nobody seems to be falling out.
It's much more interesting than being on say facebook where most of my friends are singing from the same sheet!
People need to say what they think and listen to what others think.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":2c3zt1lo said:


> Cheshirechappie":2c3zt1lo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....we can go forward as an independent nation, not at all isolationist, but looking to the whole world rather than just the EU......
> 
> 
> 
> We already are looking at the whole world not just the EU.
> All the EU does is make EU business easier - it does not limit our activities in the rest of the world and we trade everywhere. Never heard of Chinese woodwork tools, Japanese cars, etc etc?
Click to expand...


Oh - Jacob! If the EU were just a free trade area, we wouldn't have needed a referendum, would we? The EU has become far, far more than just a free trade area - and that's the root of the problems. See rest of this thread for details.


----------



## heimlaga

t8hants":1isyk5em said:


> I very much doubt if the EU will allow anyone else to leave, they will make it so hard that no other country will dare to.


Right......and who are EU going to send to stop you? The Austrian navy with landing troops from the Swedish army :roll: 
Yo will need to muster a full dozen men at the nearest pub to bundle up that invasion and put them on the next ferry to Calais.

When the people in a democratic country makes a decision together and carries it out together in an atmosphere of freedom and equality then almost nothing can stop them. History has proven this over and over again.
Don't worry and stop blaming each others for heaven's sake.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":2fq5hw25 said:


> ....The EU has become far, far more than just a free trade area - .....


I agree. Its a bigger and more imaginative scheme than first proposed, with enormous potential to benefit all of us.


----------



## dynax

Jacob":1ancouje said:


> dynax":1ancouje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heimlaga":1ancouje said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way I would have liked to have you Brits with us in the EU trying to reform the thoroughly rotten EU oligarchy from inside but democracy has to prevail!
> Time for you to build the new independent GREAT BRITAIN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this was possible it would have been done a long time ago, but the only way to change the eu is for every member state to leave and become independants,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU is continuously changing, according to the wishes of it's members and to changes in the world. It's not "fixed" it's a democratic institution and can continually renew and adjust.
Click to expand...


ordinarily i don't get involved with politics, but for nearly 30 years i have always said we would be better off out than in, the idiots and i'm being kind to them, are just self centered power hungry control freaks that have been given a green light to do whatever they want, and like all bullies don't expect anyone to stand up to them, but we have and they don't like it, we may be a small minority that want change, but don't dismiss the little man, if pushed too far, some may be happy to live under a cloak of lies and deceit, but those who do want to live in a true democratic enviroment will find a way and will change it,


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

custard":2u0zgpp1 said:


> lurker":2u0zgpp1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moderators s please shut this down.
> 
> People who I had previously considered to be nice are full of bile and hatred and I don't want to know about that side of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently this is currently happening on many forums and in many social groups. People that had happily chatted for years are suddenly drawing In/Out battle lines. I heard this morning that a local Scrabble group has now split into a Remain Scrabble group and an Exit Scrabble group, I don't know whether to regard that as amusingly silly or absolutely terrifying? In much of life we manage to confine our associations to fairly like minded people, it's sad in a way because all we ever hear in that echo chamber is our own beliefs fed back to us, however it does make for a peaceful existence. Move out of those groups and the unwritten rule is "don't talk about politics or religion", so we chat about the weather and rub along without incident.
> 
> But this is all so raw and acrimonious, it's something few of us are really used to and we haven't worked out any social rules yet.
> 
> Be nice to think it'll soon blow over, but something tells me it'll take a long time before this one cools off. There are such massive expectations on the leave side for a change that I'm convinced will simply never happen, when that realisation hits home their anger will be incandescent. While on the remain side every economic and social set back will get furiously blamed on the leave vote. Rather than calming down this could stay boiling and seething for years to come.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. This was just the most binary and divisive situation. Personally, I think (hope) that by venting these opinions, by avoiding the cut of the censorial knife, we will, in some cathartic way, come to realise that we have more that unite than divide us. We were all "woodworkers" before the referendum and that community includes Americans, Finnish, Scots, irish, Canadians, South Africans etc. I think when the anger, disappointment, soreness has abated, we will once again be woodworkers and we can put this behind us. People generally behave with good intentions in mind but do that without all the facts. I think during the run up to this referendum both sides of the debate have been starved of facts and have had instead to make do with the usual spin and rhetoric from politicians and the media. Just think about that, how much of what influences our opinions is fed to us from sources where an agenda is driving the message. We take that message as gospel at our peril!

One of the things I've always liked about working with a natural material like wood is that it removes the subject from the equation. "Opinion" won't help plane twisted grain in a piece of curly maple, only skill and experience comes to the rescue in that situation. These are the things that we discuss here with enthusiasm, relish and by pooling our collective knowledge, solve the problems. Those noble goals transcend politics, borders, colour, race and religion because they challenge us all in the same way and in so doing unite our endeavour. 

I don't doubt we will return to that after some time when the rawness of this unique set of circumstances has had time dull it's edge. 

But while it is still raw, it just seems inappropriate to me to censor the views and opinions across the political spectrum by locking this thread. I will appeal to all to keep the comments away from personal insults because they really don't help and just injure the publisher. But I have faith and it really is nothing more than a sort of blind confidence that this community of people, from all walks of life, will find a way back to civil discussion about wood again. Actually, it's not that blind, it comes from direct experience of seeing post after post, thread after thread of folk helping each other out. When their partners have critical illness, when they're short of a "bit of ebony", when they need a manual for the Wadkin "iron lump" from 1937. Underneath the soreness of the recent seismic political shifts are a bunch of genuinely decent human beings, and their true colours will return in due course. Of that I'm quite sure, because that's what their real identity is....not the angry person we see at the moment.

So I think this thread should be allowed to run it's course while each has something to say. Freedom of speech at this time seems important. Moving beyond the schism is desirable and I don't really know why I'm quietly confident we'll get there....I just am.


----------



## t8hants

I half suspect that for the next few months the EU will be really nasty to us, then there will be some sort of olive branch, a suggestion from within our parliament for a new referendum, and all those who its claimed have just gone OMG what have we done, will be invited to correct their mistake by voting the official way.
Isn't that what happened to Ireland when they reject the Lisbon Treaty.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

custard":27qupqyb said:


> lurker":27qupqyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moderators s please shut this down.
> 
> People who I had previously considered to be nice are full of bile and hatred and I don't want to know about that side of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently this is currently happening on many forums and in many social groups. People that had happily chatted for years are suddenly drawing In/Out battle lines. I heard this morning that a local Scrabble group has now split into a Remain Scrabble group and an Exit Scrabble group, I don't know whether to regard that as amusingly silly or absolutely terrifying? In much of life we manage to confine our associations to fairly like minded people, it's sad in a way because all we ever hear in that echo chamber is our own beliefs fed back to us, however it does make for a peaceful existence. Move out of those groups and the unwritten rule is "don't talk about politics or religion", so we chat about the weather and rub along without incident.
> 
> But this is all so raw and acrimonious, it's something few of us are really used to and we haven't worked out any social rules yet.
> 
> Be nice to think it'll soon blow over, but something tells me it'll take a long time before this one cools off. There are such massive expectations on the leave side for a change that I'm convinced will simply never happen, when that realisation hits home their anger will be incandescent. While on the remain side every economic and social set back will get furiously blamed on the leave vote. Rather than calming down this could stay boiling and seething for years to come.
Click to expand...


The referendum result was somewhat unexpected, and still so recent as to be raw to many. I'm sure there will be many newspaper articles exploring 'why' - as usual, some may be more enlightening than others.

As to 'leave' side expectations, I'm sure there will be some that expect instant change, but I think many more will look at the Article 50 two-year time scale. Others will probably expect it all to take longer than that - we've been 'in' for forty years, so disentangling all the threads will take a long time. In the meantime, all the other business of government and reaction to world events will have to continue as well.

Things will settle in time; for now, it's not unreasonable to chew over the implications, but it's worth remembering that whichever way anybody voted, they did so in a peaceful, democratic exercise, believing that they cast their vote for the best, and not with malice.

If we're going to discuss the matter at all on this forum, lets do it calmly and with respect for each other's views.


----------



## Inoffthered

Rhossydd":2208weq2 said:


> Inoffthered":2208weq2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a liberal left media
> 
> 
> 
> I'm impressed you think the Guardian has that much influence, it only reaches about a million.
Click to expand...



Have you been watching the BBC since the result was announced?


----------



## Jake

Pretty much - that's politics for you, and people would after all be exercising their free democratic will as the Irish did both times.


----------



## paulm

Paddy Roxburgh":3h3u74vn said:


> paulm":3h3u74vn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paddy Roxburgh":3h3u74vn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't, to dismiss more than half of the voters in that way just because they don't happen to fit your preconceived ideas and preferences is quite frankly puerile and insulting, and far away from the tolerance that you mention, although perhaps you don't see the irony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm accepting the result, doesn't mean I gotta like it. As a decedent of immigrants who came to work and help build this country I've been sickened by peoples attitude to hard working tax paying immigrants. What do you want, you won, isolationism here we come, recession here we come, nothing I can do about it, but I'm not going to agree with it just because you won. If I was the last person left in the UK who didn't blame immigrants for the nations problems I still wouldn't change my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


With respect, you seem to be projecting your own fears and concerns onto others in an arbitrary fashion. 

My personal decision as to which way to vote did not involve isolationism or blaming immigrants for the nations problems, whatever you think those may be. 

My own motivations were entirely positive and constructive and forwards looking, as I believe many others were too, and I am disappointed that some seem disinclined to accept that they have had their say but now need to get behind the majority and make it work as best we can.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Fair play Paul. Just to be clear I am accepting the result, we've had the referendum and the leave side won, I accept that and my post you objected to was actually saying that whilst many people are not happy with the result we have to accept it regardless of the numbers of non voters, and that another poster calling for another referendum is not on. I also really hope that I am wrong about the negative consequences for this country, the rest of Europe and the world. I'm glad that you did not vote leave because of demonising immigrants, many did however. My next great fear is Trump winning in the US with similar rhetoric to Farage (although somewhat more extreme)


----------



## Rhossydd

Inoffthered":2ef521bf said:


> Have you been watching the BBC since the result was announced?


Not all the time, but a fair bit when I haven't been working.

A lot of people will be thinking that the BBC and others gave the leave campaign far too much uncritical exposure.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Many people who voted out voted out not because they demonise immigrants, but because they don't want 100,000s every year over whom they have no control. I am delighted that a highly skilled, coloured surgeon wants to make his and his family's life here - I'm not over the moon that we have no way of stopping a Romanian pickpocket with twelve children.


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":3mtrllvs said:


> Many people who voted out voted out not because they demonise immigrants, but because they don't want 100,000s every year over whom they have no control. I am delighted that a highly skilled, coloured surgeon wants to make his and his family's life here - I'm not over the moon that we have no way of stopping a Romanian pickpocket with twelve children.


Lmfao, don't demonise immigrants much then? Unreal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":272papye said:


> Romanian pickpocket with twelve children.


Meet many of them ?
I'm frequently in central London where these people supposedly cause trouble, but the nearest thing to that I've ever experienced is someone trying to wash the windscreen of my car unasked.

I really think you ought to get out more. Believing in the exaggerations and nonsense the tabloids have peddled is causing a lot of unnecessary hatred and anger.


----------



## Noel

t8hants":3c3fn1mv said:


> I half suspect that for the next few months the EU will be really nasty to us, then there will be some sort of olive branch, a suggestion from within our parliament for a new referendum, and all those who its claimed have just gone OMG what have we done, will be invited to correct their mistake by voting the official way.
> Isn't that what happened to Ireland when they reject the Lisbon Treaty.



Ireland likes their referenda, 40 or so held over the years. The adoption of same sex marriage being the most well known. The first Lisbon Treaty referendum was accompanied by much the same nonsense that was evident in the run up to Thursday's vote. Everything from free abortions on demand to abandoning neutrality. Think the result was 55-45 rejecting the treaty. Another was held a year or so later and with all the scare rumours being seen simply as general discussion as opposed to "fact" the treaty was accepted by 70-30 approximately. It was a sensible move: people were more informed, both sides knew they couldn't pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate. It wouldn't be the worst idea to rerun this current referendum again in 12 months.


----------



## Jake

phil.p":9so8p7bn said:


> Many people who voted out voted out not because they demonise immigrants, but because they don't want 100,000s every year over whom they have no control. I am delighted that a highly skilled, coloured surgeon wants to make his and his family's life here - I'm not over the moon that we have no way of stopping a Romanian pickpocket with twelve children.



By coloured do you mean someone who has a skin complexion of a colour which does not vary from between a pinkish-tanny-white to really quite brown dependent on UV levels? 

To have a right to remain under EU law you have to be looking for work and if you have not found it within 6 months you can be booted out. Pick-pocketing with or without children does not count.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

OK, I get it now, it's not about demonising immigrants, it's just that they're pick pockets with 12 children ???????


----------



## n0legs

custard":lul35ncf said:


> I heard this morning that a local Scrabble group has now split into a Remain Scrabble group and an Exit Scrabble group,




And Exit wins again :lol: 
Exit= 11 points
Remain= 8 points 

Irony, excellent :lol:


----------



## dexter

I wasn't for out, but I had a gut feeling that the leave campaign would be successful and it was. 
OK,, I will accept that as disappointed as I am. 
What I now find is totally incredulous is that, considering the sh-t storm that has been generated not only in the UK but in Europe as well, apart from the Prime Minister chucking his ticket in, (and I don't blame him for that), none of the main players in the leave campaign have apart from a brief appearance yesterday in front of the press, actually spoken to the country about what they want or expect to happen now.
Millions of people are scared stiff about what is going on now and Boris Johnson takes himself off to play cricket whilst the most the media can get out of Michael Gove was,"good morning" as he walked down the street.
The leave campaign have changed the UK's history and future forever but appear to have taken the weekend off after day one, I say shame on them.
Meanwhile back in the EU the main players are getting together to formulate their response to the decision and it ain't going to be pretty.
Where is the leadership that the UK now so desperately needs? I honestly think that Johnson, Gove, and the rest of the main players in the leave campaign are in shock at what they've brought about. In the last few months not one of them it seemed could miss an opertunitiy to apear before the cameras and promote their urge to! "Take back control" well the ball is firmly in their court now but where are they?
Or is it a situation of, "we've made the bullets, it's up to someone else to fire them",
The futures of tens of millions of UK citizens are now in the hands of those politicians who sought to take them out of the EU. They should at least have the courage of their convictions to jump straight in and reassure those tens of millions that they are enthusiastically persueing the promises that they made.
Whether we voted in or out we must accept the decision, but for those who brought us here at their bidding to then
pipper of for a game of cricket or say no more than,"good morning" is an insult to us all.


----------



## rafezetter

Noel":10vr4t7r said:


> rafezetter":10vr4t7r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noel":10vr4t7r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sour grapes? It's not a game, many lives will be adversely affected if this goes ahead, many firms will go to the wall and many people will lose their livelihood. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like all those people in the UK's Tata, Thamesteel, SSI and Caparo plants because of EU legislation and other factors linked to our current govt and EU membership?
> 
> Forget about them did you? Convenient.
> 
> We know it's not a game Noel and to say otherwise is extremely disrespectful to all posters on both sides who have commited a lot of time and effort to their posts.
> 
> We voted, and we had a result, but because things didn't go your way you are having a pi$$y fit and seemingly holding the out voters on the forum responsible when the entire United Kingdoms took part.
> 
> This is how democracy works, if you are not happy living under it's protection, you can always move to N Korea or China.
> 
> Or maybe you could stuff yourself back in your box and pipe down because you have no idea how this will pan out longterm either.
> 
> Or, seeing as we could well continue be members for at least 2 years, you can relocate to one of the other european countries and work from there - but somehow I think you like the fact that the Pound is strong against the Euro, which it has thus remained, regardless of the decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be fun at parties. Later.
Click to expand...


A flippant and empty reply.

Setting aside my remarks and suggestions as to what you can do about the situation, is that the best you can do to reply to my valid points about how thousands of jobs in the steel industry across the UK have been lost, in large part, due to EU legislation in the last 5 years? (and lets not forget the fisheries, and a whole bunch of others in the last couple of decades, plus those barely clinging on by their fingernails)

You are shouting quite loudly and pointing fingers at the out voters about how we have ruined the country and your business whilst at the same time completely ignoring some glaring proven facts about the EU's actions having a detrimental affect on our core industries.

I've checked your post history Noel and you've never once made any sort of post in sympathy to the plight of any major industrial loss in the uk, but maybe that's because it wasn't YOUR business affected, so it didn't really matter. Of course there are plenty of other members whom have also not posted such sympathy to those people, but they are not hopping up and down the way you are, demanding attention and pointing fingers.

You are showing exactly the same mentality and disdain for those people as the EU leadership did for them. The irony is staggering.

And you are quite right, I'm socially awkward and not very good at parties at all.

But that doesn't make me wrong, at least about your behaviour, does it.


----------



## rafezetter

Rhossydd":3oo493yd said:


> paulm":3oo493yd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting it would be more just for quite a bit less than 37% of the electorate, the Remainiacs, to keep the country in Europe when the rest didn't vote for that ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm pointing out that 17m people out of a population 65m isn't much of a real majority for such radical damaging change.
Click to expand...



There are not 65 million registered voters ...... (edited)

There are about 46.5ish - and of those 33 million voted or.... 72% of the registered voters, as has been stated a thousand times on every major news net on earth. Do some basic mathematics; 33 million isn't 72% of 65 million.

The rest don't qualify for a vote so their views, however they may have been, don't count, _on both sides_. Just as it has always been in democracy. As I said to Noel, this is how it works, it's suited you just fine before but now you didn't get the outcome you wanted you don't like it. You and all the others in the remain camp are like the two old brothers in that film "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd in the scene near the end when they have lost all their money and are screaming at the stock exchange machines to "turn them back on"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K0oYcGD9V0 (having just watched it again, the similarity is closer than those in the remain camp might be comfortable with)  tough.

Edit - I've just found this:



Rhossydd":3oo493yd said:


> For anyone regretting 37% of the electorate trying to get us out of Europe might like to sign this
> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215



So it looks as though you can't even get your figures right within your own posts because 17 million isn't 37% of 65 million either, OR the post above about 65 million was a deliberate attempt to strengthen your point by quoting false information.

As for posting that petition, do you SERIOUSLY think that will happen? What would you do if the same result ocurred? Try again?... and again.. and again? making a complete mockery of the democratic system.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

We knew from the opinion polls that the result would be close - it could easily have been the Leave camp bleating about the outcome and wanting another referendum. So we should not be surprised and as a Remainer I accept that we had a vote and it went the wrong way for me.

I think both campaigns were a very poor reflection on our political processes and political leadership. Selective use of figures, half truths, denial, spin and soundbites characterised both campaigns. 

But the issue now is what happens next - a few thoughts:


1. A "full strength" Brexit risks utterly alienating 48% of the population - not a socially responsible or politically attractive outcome.

2. The longer the delay until Article 50 is invoked, the more likely it is that the realities of Brexit on jobs, investment etc will emerge. This may materially alter public support for the referendum result - justification far a 2nd referendum?

3. We need to work with EU to extract ourselves - they are clearly somewhat shocked by the outcome which could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of the nature of the EU. Brexit could prompt them to re-appraise the overall direction of travel - although they have no track record in thinking so radically

4. We could go for a Norway type deal ("Brexit lite") - as it stands this would not eliminate the free movement of people, but materially reduce the amount of EU legislation which needs to be incorporated into UK law, allow the UK to do trade deals outside the EU etc

5. I have long thought that a two tier Europe would emerge - those joined by the Euro which it is clear requires much closer integration and the others which are capable of operating with far more individual national discretion. Brexit may be the trigger. UK may actually be able to lead the charge.

6. There is a clear majority in the House of Commons for Remain. I am not sure whether legally the Head of State giving Article 50 notice needs a vote, but it is very clear that the mass of subsequent legislation would need parliamentary ratification. A Prime Minister would be utterly irresponsible to give notice unless there was high confidence that all major necessary legislative changes would be passed. A general election would be no guarantee of a House of Commons majority for the Leave campaign.

The UK is not alone in having a strong anti EU element - the core EU is running scared that the contagion may spread. At the moment they appear to be playing tough so as not to encourage the others. Delaying Article 50 - certainly by several months - could increase the pressure upon them, particularly if other member states also start to get pressured to hold their own referendum.


----------



## rafezetter

Rhossydd":1zhtgp11 said:


> beech1948":1zhtgp11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious as well that the EU wants us to Hurry Up after being so slow and desperately treacle like for years.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing curious about, they want some sort of stability as fast as possible as our decision is hurting their currency too.
> 
> But it WILL take years to get out. There's vast amounts of legislation and treaties to wade through and repeal or replace and negotiations with other countries to handle. One certainty in this is that rushed legislation is bad legislation.
> Even the simple practicalities of who actually is employed to do it will take long enough.
> It will cost the country a fortune and we'll be untangling the mess for a decade or more.
Click to expand...


All valid points worth discussing (now maybe we can get on the the actual dissection and speculation and lose the blame game aspect eh?), and I quite agree for most of it - I'm not so sure it'll be a lot of years, because pressure by big business to sort certain aspects will always be considered, and not forgetting the EU leaders themselves wishing to stem the tide.

Yes it will cost a fortune (but whether it'll be more than 9 billion a year is doubtful), and yes it'll be a mess, I don't think any of the vote leave have said any different, it's the longterm goal we are aiming for, I'm 46 so I doubt I'll see much of the growth that should come from this, but my nieces and nephews certainly should see a much brighter future, where their vote is actually worth something.


----------



## paulm

dexter":171kstjn said:


> I wasn't for out, but I had a gut feeling that the leave campaign would be successful and it was.
> OK,, I will accept that as disappointed as I am.
> What I now find is totally incredulous is that, considering the sh-t storm that has been generated not only in the UK but in Europe as well, apart from the Prime Minister chucking his ticket in, (and I don't blame him for that), none of the main players in the leave campaign have apart from a brief appearance yesterday in front of the press, actually spoken to the country about what they want or expect to happen now.
> Millions of people are scared stiff about what is going on now and Boris Johnson takes himself off to play cricket whilst the most the media can get out of Michael Gove was,"good morning" as he walked down the street.
> The leave campaign have changed the UK's history and future forever but appear to have taken the weekend off after day one, I say shame on them.
> Meanwhile back in the EU the main players are getting together to formulate their response to the decision and it ain't going to be pretty.
> Where is the leadership that the UK now so desperately needs? I honestly think that Johnson, Gove, and the rest of the main players in the leave campaign are in shock at what they've brought about. In the last few months not one of them it seemed could miss an opertunitiy to apear before the cameras and promote their urge to! "Take back control" well the ball is firmly in their court now but where are they?
> Or is it a situation of, "we've made the bullets, it's up to someone else to fire them",
> The futures of tens of millions of UK citizens are now in the hands of those politicians who sought to take them out of the EU. They should at least have the courage of their convictions to jump straight in and reassure those tens of millions that they are enthusiastically persueing the promises that they made.
> Whether we voted in or out we must accept the decision, but for those who brought us here at their bidding to then
> pipper of for a game of cricket or say no more than,"good morning" is an insult to us all.



Most of the leave team, including Boris, aren't in the government, they can't do anything to make things happen or provide leadership, that's the job of Cameron and the Cabinet until a new leader is appointed.


----------



## Benchwayze

I wonder if we'll be able to return to calling a smoked haddock a smoked haddock, wherever it's smoked? :lol:


----------



## doctor Bob

I'm off to do things........... enjoy yourselves talking pinapples............. see you later.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... fraud.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eberg.html

facts, even if they are in the Mail. They're not all innocent - before someone works out the figures, I know it's a small proportion. 

When some of you eventually come down from the moral high ground and stop to think - whose lives do you think these people's lives make hardest? Yes - the average, honest working immigrant who is tarred with the same brush, who just wants to keep his head down, live within the law, and make a better life for himself and his family. Pity really for him that some of you can't see it.


----------



## Rhossydd

rafezetter":3vipvy22 said:


> There are not 65 million registered voters ...... (edited) ..........


A fine example of not reading what I wrote or understanding it.


> lose the blame game aspect eh?


 You think people are just going shrug this off immediately ? This has and will continue to cause deep divisions within the UK, especially if the more pessimistic forecasts prove correct.


----------



## DiscoStu

Guys, can I suggest that we lock this thread now and get back to wood working? This site is meant to be non political and I think it's run its course? 

It seems to me that in 65 pages of opinions etc nobody has changed theirs and whilst debate is good, the vote has happened and therefore it's no longer a debate and is turning into a negative spiral of posts. 

I think it would be better if this ended and we got back to sharpening arguments! 

(Please note these comments aren't aimed at anyone, just think everyone will be better off if we move on) 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cedarwood

I have not posted on this thread but now feel compelled to, all I do know is this, 
1. That all facts and figures can be interpreted for the interests of either side.
2. We in this country abide by the will of a majority vote, no matter how small it is.
3. Perhaps it is time now that we should adopt a voting system whereby ALL registered voters must vote.

There is I know the petition to the government to hold a second referendum, now I may be naive but we had the first one in 1975 and that this has been the second time the people have been asked to vote on the subject, so now do we go on and on till one side gets the result that they want.

Do we now wait till the next general election to vote in a party that says it will take us back into the EU, the lib dems have already stated that would be their intention. I for one know full well we are not going to get any preferential treatment if we go down that route and we will be much worse off than we are now.

The deal that David Cameron secured has already been torn up, we are now effectively out of the EU bar the legalities.

I do have a solution of sorts ALL those who voted to remain should move to the EU then ALL the immigrants and refugees would have plenty of room to come and live here in the UK.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

There's an interesting post on Guido Fawkes' blog about social media filter bubbles. "Eh?" I hear you say - I'd never heard of them either.

It seems that someone has been monitoring Facebook for reactions to the referendum vote, and can find virtually nothing at all from people who voted Leave, despite the fact that more voted Leave than voted Remain. He feels that this is a manifestation of a phenomenon he's noticed before, that social media tends to act as a self-supporting echo-chamber for people of similar views. They exist outside social media, too - he cites the example of the London mayoral election between Livingstone and Johnson, during which, he noticed that almost no car-drivers knew anybody voting for Livingstone, and almost no public transport users anybody voting for Johnson.

He feels that rather than promoting debate, social media is becoming a polarising influence. the divide between 'left' and 'right' of politics is becoming worse because neither side listens to the other AT ALL. Hence the utter incomprehension from some at the outcome of a democratic vote.

One thing about this thread is that at least both sides have DEBATED - put their views across. It does seem that in some parts of the wider political landscape, that's happening much less, which is worrying.

Ignore the comments - that's just Guido's usual crowd reinforcing their own prejudices to some extent, though I think the first comment does sum up why a lot of people voted Leave - it's the main post that's worth a read.

http://order-order.com/2016/06/25/socia ... ing-anger/

(Edited to correct a slight miss-reading of Guido's post on my part.)


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Phil, the article about "cash point crime" is typical Daily Mail nonsense, a dubious claim often repeated. The source for this information was a single police officer's statement, DCI Paul Bernard, estimating from "intelligence", something based on absolutely no data. Indeed there is no records kept of "cash point crime" and no definition of a "cash point crime", indeed what is a "cash point crime"? 
I employ a Romanian lad from time to time, he is hard working and honest, yet is faced with discrimination whenever he tells people where he is from. Sure there are some Romanian criminals, but it's hardly like the streets of London are dangerous because of marauding gags of Romanians. Nearly all football hooligans are white British, the figure is 96% (a figure I made up just now based on "intelligence").

Another thing, the crisis in the uk steel industry is because of global prices due to massive over production in China and nothing to do with our EU membership. Indeed the takeover looks as if it will now stall because of Brexit.

Anyway I'm off to work fixing boats. The referendum is over and we are leaving, overall I hope that you Brexiters are right and I'm wrong, no one wants a recession.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":2b798vm7 said:


> phil.p":2b798vm7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romanian pickpocket with twelve children.
> 
> 
> 
> Meet many of them ?
> I'm frequently in central London where these people supposedly cause trouble, but the nearest thing to that I've ever experienced is someone trying to wash the windscreen of my car unasked.
Click to expand...


They would have to be a pretty damned good pickpocket to pick yours while you're sitting cocooned in your car. 


Rhossydd":2b798vm7 said:


> I really think you ought to get out more. Believing in the exaggerations and nonsense the tabloids have peddled is causing a lot of unnecessary hatred and anger.


Shall we put the debate-stifling, leaden, politically-correct claptrap firmly back in its box, eh? Just remember Rotherham and Rochdale where the PC brigade ensured all those girls were left alone to be molested.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Phil, the article about "cash point crime" is typical Daily Mail nonsense, a dubious claim often repeated. The source for this information was a single police officer's statement, DCI Paul Bernard, estimating from "intelligence", something based on absolutely no data. Indeed there is no records kept of "cash point crime" and no definition of a "cash point crime", indeed what is a "cash point crime"? 
I employ a Romanian lad from time to time, he is hard working and honest, yet is faced with discrimination whenever he tells people where he is from. Sure there are some Romanian criminals, but it's hardly like the streets of London are dangerous because of marauding gags of Romanians. Nearly all football hooligans are white British, the figure is 96% (a figure I made up just now based on "intelligence").

Rafezetter, the crisis in the uk steel industry is because of global prices due to massive over production in China and nothing to do with our EU membership. Indeed the takeover looks as if it will now stall because of Brexit.

Anyway I'm off to work fixing boats. The referendum is over and we are leaving, overall I hope that you Brexiters are right and I'm wrong, no one wants a recession.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":25jxfitv said:


> ....the divide between 'left' and 'right' of politics is becoming worse because neither side listens to the other AT ALL. Hence the utter incomprehension from some at the outcome of a democratic vote............
> One thing about this thread is that at least both sides have DEBATED - put their views across. It does seem that in some parts of the wider political landscape, that's happening much less, which is worrying....


I agree. 
But I don't think there is a cunning plot behind facebook - it's simply that you are likely to hear your own opinions reflected back from the FB friends you choose and who chose you.
In fact I've at least one Brexit FB friend who clearly isn't being stifled in any way - unstoppable - he could rant for England!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":2gpayk8o said:


> Cheshirechappie":2gpayk8o said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....the divide between 'left' and 'right' of politics is becoming worse because neither side listens to the other AT ALL. Hence the utter incomprehension from some at the outcome of a democratic vote............
> One thing about this thread is that at least both sides have DEBATED - put their views across. It does seem that in some parts of the wider political landscape, that's happening much less, which is worrying....
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> But I don't think there is a cunning plot behind facebook - it's simply that you are likely to hear your own opinions reflected back from the FB friends you choose and who chose you.
> In fact I've at least one Brexit FB friend who clearly isn't being stifled in any way - unstoppable - he could rant for England!
Click to expand...


I agree that it's a reflection of FB friend choice. However, I still think it's pertinent. Guido makes the point that it's more a problem for the left than the right of politics; he feels that the left tend to be in more of a bubble than the right, and given the nature of what he does, he's in a good position to make a fair assessment.

If politics is to mean anything, we all have to at least hear each other's arguments. We may still disagree, but at least we'll know better what we disagree with and why.

An example - it really shocked me how many Remain voters classed all Leave voters as racist, xenophobes or bigoted. I voted for freedom and democracy, and most certainly not out of any nationalistic BNP-type prejudice, and I can't believe that there are 17 million racist, xenophobic bigots in the country. Why on earth does this sort of thing take root? Maybe the 'echo-chamber' theory partly explains it.


----------



## iNewbie

Paddy Roxburgh":12u7qd0o said:


> Phil, the article about "cash point crime" is typical Daily Mail nonsense, a dubious claim often repeated. The source for this information was a single police officer's statement, DCI Paul Bernard, estimating from "intelligence", something based on absolutely no data. Indeed there is no records kept of "cash point crime" and no definition of a "cash point crime", indeed what is a "cash point crime"?
> I employ a Romanian lad from time to time, he is hard working and honest, yet is faced with discrimination whenever he tells people where he is from. Sure there are some Romanian criminals, but it's hardly like the streets of London are dangerous because of marauding gags of Romanians. Nearly all football hooligans are white British, the figure is 96% (a figure I made up just now based on "intelligence").



According to Police Professional there is an increase in arrests of Romanians. 

http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=26285

That doesn't mean every case is a conviction. 

My concern is the wasted time - when they could be doing other things when we're short staffed as it is.


----------



## woodpig

Rhossydd":2onkdxnt said:


> phil.p":2onkdxnt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romanian pickpocket with twelve children.
> 
> 
> 
> Meet many of them ?
> I'm frequently in central London where these people supposedly cause trouble, but the nearest thing to that I've ever experienced is someone trying to wash the windscreen of my car unasked.
> 
> I really think you ought to get out more. Believing in the exaggerations and nonsense the tabloids have peddled is causing a lot of unnecessary hatred and anger.
Click to expand...


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/378232 ... ers-rising

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/po ... st-3463695


----------



## AJB Temple

This whole thing may play out in unexpected ways over the coming weeks. The silly person Farage hasnow said that he expects teh UK to enter recession but it is nothing to do with Brexiit. There is a massive public petition. Lots of leave voters expressing remorse. Increasingly vocal social media voices with young voters essentially arguing they have been betrayed by the old. Labour party imploding this morning. 

We may well end up with a general election with a stay / leave agenda, and article 50 not invoked until after the election. This would probably be the best outcome for all as it would at least deliver a proper government mandate.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":2di646jg said:


> .......it really shocked me how many Remain voters classed all Leave voters as racist, xenophobes or bigoted. I voted for freedom and democracy, and most certainly not out of any nationalistic BNP-type prejudice, and I can't believe that there are 17 million racist, xenophobic bigots in the country. Why on earth does this sort of thing take root? Maybe the 'echo-chamber' theory partly explains it.


Not all Leave voters were racist but definitely a lot of them were - along the lines of "I'm not a racist/xenophobe, but we don't want all these immigrants". It's been a major theme and definitely swung the vote. For many it seemed to be the only issue.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

> An example - it really shocked me how many Remain voters classed all Leave voters as racist, xenophobes or bigoted. I voted for freedom and democracy, and most certainly not out of any nationalistic BNP-type prejudice, and I can't believe that there are 17 million racist, xenophobic bigots in the country. Why on earth does this sort of thing take root? Maybe the 'echo-chamber' theory partly explains it.



Just for some clarity from my point of view. I do not think that the 17 million leave voters are xenophobes and racists, However a section of the leave campaign, Farage in particular, have run a racist xenophobic campaign, Boris not so much, he just ran a campaign to further his career. This has in my view handed a victory to racists and xenophobes, for many hard working honest people this has created a climate of fear as their future and that of their families now hangs in the balance. When my grandfather came to this country he faced massive discrimination "no dogs, no Irish", he worked hard and contributed to the UK economy (although was never the most popular man in the Sheffield factories as he fixed the clocking in machines)

One of the reasons that this forum (and your scrabble club example) has seen such argument is that we are not in our normal "echo chamber" environment as our connections here are based on our interest in woodwork and not on our general social outlook.

Facebook echo chamber effect mirrors our normal social echo chamber effect (I'm kinda guessing as I never go on facebook). There is some irony that the Guido Fawkes guy thinks that the left is more of an echo chamber than the right when his website is a massive echo chamber for the right. 

This vote has made me terrified for the future of this country and I feel like our normal culture off tolerance, which is one of our greatest attributes, is being ripped up, please let me be wrong. I also think we're heading for a massive recession, please let me be wrong.

This is my last post here on Brexit as I have great respect for many of you for your woodworking knowledge and would not want this debate to sour relations.
Paddy (a descendant of immigrants whose family have done nothing but work hard and contribute to this country)


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

woodpig":2fgenm3r said:


> Rhossydd":2fgenm3r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":2fgenm3r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romanian pickpocket with twelve children.
> 
> 
> 
> Meet many of them ?
> I'm frequently in central London where these people supposedly cause trouble, but the nearest thing to that I've ever experienced is someone trying to wash the windscreen of my car unasked.
> 
> I really think you ought to get out more. Believing in the exaggerations and nonsense the tabloids have peddled is causing a lot of unnecessary hatred and anger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/378232 ... ers-rising
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/po ... st-3463695
Click to expand...



Works both ways http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crimede ... n-bulgaria


----------



## MIGNAL

There is another factor that may have swung the vote for out: the undecided. In fact I personally know 3 people who were undecided right up until voting day. All of them ended up voting out. Perhaps they weren't voting for out but change for the sake of change. Don't know, all 3 are the most confused people that I know. You send them to the shop for a loaf of bread and they come back with a packet of crisps!


----------



## dynax

I have no problem with the freedom of movement of immigrants, or even the idea of a european union, for me it is being told what to do by a bunch of a***holes, who wouldn't know a democracy from a cowpat,


----------



## MIGNAL

Wait until you get Doris and Gove.  Don't know who Gove is going to see when he needs a kidney operation, Rupert Bear?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":31e4z46m said:


> Cheshirechappie":31e4z46m said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......it really shocked me how many Remain voters classed all Leave voters as racist, xenophobes or bigoted. I voted for freedom and democracy, and most certainly not out of any nationalistic BNP-type prejudice, and I can't believe that there are 17 million racist, xenophobic bigots in the country. Why on earth does this sort of thing take root? Maybe the 'echo-chamber' theory partly explains it.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all Leave voters were racist but definitely a lot of them were - along the lines of "I'm not a racist/xenophobe, but we don't want all these immigrants". It's been a major theme and definitely swung the vote. For many it seemed to be the only issue.
Click to expand...


Immigration was most certainly a major issue. However, it wasn't hatred of immigrants, it was a reaction to the powerlessness of ordinary people to change things through the ballot box.

Immigration has been a talking point in politics for over a decade. Since the numbers allowed to enter the country rose from the 'tens of thousands a year' before about 2000, to somewhere near 300,000 net per year over the last decade or so. You will recall that the matter was on the public's radar in 2010, when Gillian Duffy's remarks to Gordon Brown, and his reaction to it, stirred huge comment. In the 2015 election, the Tories promised to limit numbers to tens of thousands annually, but it has since become abundantly clear that they are powerless to do so - the decisions have been made by higher authorities than the Westminster Parliament, and we, the people, just have to live with it, whether we like it or not.

It isn't a dislike of immigrants that has driven the size of the vote - individual immigrants have been doing what the rules allowed them to do, in good faith. Good luck to them - it takes some determination to up sticks and move to a country and culture not your own, and try to make a better life. They should be respected for making the effort, and we should be proud that they chose Britain as a good place to be. No - it's not their fault AT ALL.

However, the sheer scale of immigration has caused problems, discussed in detail elsewhere. It seems right and proper that such matters, the conflicting arguments of economic advantage and of pressure on public services and housing, should be debated and settled in Parliament by people accountable to us - the people who have to live with the consequences - through the ballot box. It's now abundantly clear that the vast majority of people are happy with immigration, provided there is a limit on numbers commensurate with the country's needs and ability to absorb it.

Except - during the referendum debate, it has become abundantly clear that in the matter of immigration, democratically accountable Parliament no longer makes the decisions. Those are made for it by people in the EU who are not in any way democratically accountable to the people over whom they govern, and to whom 'free movement' is more important than the consequences it might bring for any country or population.

The same is true of other matters, too. I tried earlier in the thread to highlight the problem of Energy policy, over which the UK now has far less control. 

In the end, people looked at the slow, inexorable slipping away of control exerted by people accountable through the ballot box to people not accountable, and decided, when given the opportunity, to say that enough was enough. Enough people voted for Westminster over Brussels.

It was about Who Governs, not about immigration per se. Immigration was just the matter that highlighted the loss of Westminster's democratically-accountable control, that's all.


----------



## MIGNAL

But the leave campaign have since admitted that they never promised to reduce the numbers of immigrants, just that they can 'control' immigration. 
Make of that what you will. I would call it a con. It wasn't totally concerned with immigration but it was a large factor. I'm referring to the numbers of immigrants. Unfortunately whichever way you look at it there's a certain percentage of people who are always going to vote in a racist or xenophobic manner. I was even told by one woman that 'at least the Polish will have to pay the same amount of taxes as us now'. That was the day after the result.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":xjwhamv9 said:


> ...... No - it's not their fault AT ALL.
> 
> However, the sheer scale of immigration has caused problems, discussed in detail elsewhere. It seems right and proper that such matters, the conflicting arguments of economic advantage and of pressure on public services and housing,......


But EVERYBODY puts "pressure on public services and housing". 
The so-called problems of immigration haven't been looked at closely and there are strong counter arguments that immigration is a net benefit and resolves rather than causes problems. To put it simply - they provide the workforce to build the houses and run public services.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

I really got to stop reading posts cause I can't help answering and I'm sick of this.

If you see the world through the prism of the Mail and the Express no wonder you are worried about immigration. It is worth noting however that the areas with the most immigration are the areas with the lowest support of UKIP or Brexit. Down on the Cornish coast people worry about all the Romanian pick pockets, in London, not so much. Also the age group who are in most competition with immigrants for jobs and housing are the least supportive of Brexit or UKIP. Rural England is worried about change, in the cities we got used to it years ago, learning to judge people not by their place of birth ot colour of their skin but by the content of their character (to slightly paraphrase Martin Luther King).


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

It is interesting to hear the different points of view I have to say. I can honestly say I've seen more reasonable debate in this thread than anywhere else in this whole debacle. And, although a remainer myself I think Cheshirechappie's summary about scale of immigration rather than racism per se is close to the nail on the head that swung it for Brexit. The bottom line is the anger was directed towards a non accountable Governing entity being allowed to overrule our own accountable one. The immigration word just became a fulcrum to sell political careers (Farage, Boris et al) and newspapers by stoking the boiler of rage in people. But underneath that there is a genuine and quite legitimate concern about rules being foisted on us all that originate outside the democratic means of change.

In a rather naïve way I accept, it would be nice to think that Brussels might actually realise they've screwed up and voluntarily accept reform as a result of this "lesson" we're teaching them. That might then pave the means for a third way. I also agree that the consequential destruction of our domestic political parties may well result in a General election where the fulcrum vote is do we or don't we implement A50. These are turbulent times for sure. But my workshop is beckoning because I've got 2 pairs of legs in the clamps and the glues dry now so.......later.


----------



## Jacob

Yep I'm off down the allotment.


----------



## custard

Cheshirechappie":1t2162bc said:


> Immigration was most certainly a major issue. However, it wasn't hatred of immigrants, it was a reaction to the powerlessness of ordinary people to change things through the ballot box.



Now ordinary people are going to find out how powerless they are to change things even with a referendum.

-No one's going to be sent home or deported, that was made clear throughout the campaign, so the same brown faces and Polski Sklep shops that distressed voters yesterday will still be there tomorrow.
-The majority of immigrants come from non EU countries, the referendum doesn't change that.
-The next government's most pressing task will be to deal with a European continent just 22 miles away. They'll cut deals, they'll compromise. That's what we pay them to do.
-We'll hang on to the European Passport for financial services, we _have to_ or else we won't have the money we need. To retain that we'll compromise on free movement of people and we'll compromise on contributions to the European budget.
-We'll get concessions on things like the European Court of Human Rights and the Working Hours Directive. These will be trumpeted as _a very big deal,_ but we all know that to most people they're really not.

Five years from now the ordinary person will be completely stumped if you ask them to point to one concrete and material example of how their lives have improved or even changed due to the referendum. And if you doubt the veracity of that claim then test it for yourself, set out clearly how you expect your life to improve and change in concrete practical terms, and then monitor the progress over the coming years.


----------



## custard

Random Orbital Bob":2h3bfcag said:


> In a rather naïve way I accept, it would be nice to think that Brussels might actually realise they've screwed up and voluntarily accept reform as a result of this "lesson" we're teaching them.



Good point, I wish the Greeks had voted to leave the Euro when they had the chance then none of this would have been necessary. The Euro is the "bridge too far" that's wrecked the European project. 

And you're also right about the workshop. I've a job promised for delivery on Wednesday so it's time to get my apron on!


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":7qjzhky6 said:


> They would have to be a pretty damned good pickpocket to pick yours while you're sitting cocooned in your car.


Cars have doors Roger, they're just a means of transportation to where you're going. Then you get out and walk.

Actually the place where car windscreen washing is endemic, the A40 at White City, was the site of pretty nasty regular crimes where for a while people were being robbed whilst sitting in their cars in the traffic jam. So pretty much being mugged in their cars. Not by EU immigrants though.


----------



## stuartpaul

As the dust starts to settle we'll start to see how things shake down. Like others I'm not expecting to see any major change in the short term. 

Custard has suggested an interesting experiment in comparing what you'd like with what you'll get. There will be many disappointed people I'll bet.

It's interesting to see the EU wanting a swift trigger for Article 50 and us wanting to slow things down a bit. This will be the first of the friction between 'us and them'. I don't know if 'they' can insist on an earlier trigger? I think Cameron is right to resign but I really hope Boris doesn't get it as a 'reward' for his Brexit activities, - I don't think he deserves it.

The Leave campaign had no authority or power to suggest how we spend the money we will now save. My bet is the government of the day will spend it on things that make them look good so they can keep their seat of power secure.

Those areas that relied on EU cash are likely now well stuffed would be my guess.

I'm disappointed we're out but how we handle the next few months will provide an indication of the long (and conceivably bumpy) road ahead.


----------



## RogerS

iNewbie":1gdphp55 said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":1gdphp55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, the article about "cash point crime" is typical Daily Mail nonsense, a dubious claim often repeated. The source for this information was a single police officer's statement, DCI Paul Bernard, estimating from "intelligence", something based on absolutely no data. Indeed there is no records kept of "cash point crime" and no definition of a "cash point crime", indeed what is a "cash point crime"?
> I employ a Romanian lad from time to time, he is hard working and honest, yet is faced with discrimination whenever he tells people where he is from. Sure there are some Romanian criminals, but it's hardly like the streets of London are dangerous because of marauding gags of Romanians. Nearly all football hooligans are white British, the figure is 96% (a figure I made up just now based on "intelligence").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Police Professional there is an increase in arrests of Romanians.
> 
> http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=26285
> 
> That doesn't mean every case is a conviction.
> 
> 
> My concern is the wasted time - when they could be doing other things when we're short staffed as it is.
Click to expand...


Which pretty much vindicated what Phil P implied and yet got shouted down by some.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":as7ih85r said:


> .....
> Actually the place where car windscreen washing is endemic, the A40 at White City, was the site of pretty nasty regular crimes where for a while people were being robbed whilst sitting in their cars in the traffic jam. So pretty much being mugged in their cars. Not by EU immigrants though.



Source please ?


----------



## Jake

Jacob":3jexhnvp said:


> Cheshirechappie":3jexhnvp said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... No - it's not their fault AT ALL.
> 
> However, the sheer scale of immigration has caused problems, discussed in detail elsewhere. It seems right and proper that such matters, the conflicting arguments of economic advantage and of pressure on public services and housing,......
> 
> 
> 
> But EVERYBODY puts "pressure on public services and housing".
Click to expand...


And those are policies entirely under the control of Westminster, in which the EU has zero influence. Immigrants then get the blame for the results of daft policies like selling off council housing without permitting the proceeds to be used to build replacements, and the decision to squeeze the NHS budget as part of austerity measures. Neither of which are remotely anything to do with the EU.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

custard":2bacwstj said:


> Cheshirechappie":2bacwstj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration was most certainly a major issue. However, it wasn't hatred of immigrants, it was a reaction to the powerlessness of ordinary people to change things through the ballot box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now ordinary people are going to find out how powerless they are to change things even with a referendum.
> 
> -No one's going to be sent home or deported, that was made clear throughout the campaign, so the same brown faces and Polski Sklep shops that distressed voters yesterday will still be there tomorrow.
> -The majority of immigrants come from non EU countries, the referendum doesn't change that.
> -The next government's most pressing task will be to deal with a European continent just 22 miles away. They'll cut deals, they'll compromise. That's what we pay them to do.
> -We'll hang on to the European Passport for financial services, we _have to_ or else we won't have the money we need. To retain that we'll compromise on free movement of people and we'll compromise on contributions to the European budget.
> -We'll get concessions on things like the European Court of Human Rights and the Working Hours Directive. These will be trumpeted as _a very big deal,_ but we all know that to most people they're really not.
> 
> Five years from now the ordinary person will be completely stumped if you ask them to point to one concrete and material example of how their lives have improved or even changed due to the referendum. And if you doubt the veracity of that claim then test it for yourself, set out clearly how you expect your life to improve and change in concrete practical terms, and then monitor the progress over the coming years.
Click to expand...


Consider how matters might be different had the UK voted to leave the EEC in 1975. That might give some idea. We'd still be discussing immigration, but we could vote out a government that was getting it wrong if enough people thought so. We'd be trading with the whole world, able to make trade agreements with whoever we chose. We'd control our own energy policy, and our own courts would be interpreting our own laws. We'd be the outward-looking nation we have been for centuries, engaging with the whole world on our own terms, instead of an outpost of a failing supra-national bloc.

On Thursday, a majority decided to be governed from Westminster rather than Brussels. Speaking for myself, I voted Leave because I value freedom and democracy over powerlessness and oligarchy. History suggests that over time, free, democratic nations tend to do better than ones with more controlling, less democratically-accountable governments. That's good enough for me.

Edit to add - I cast my vote as much for the next generation, and the one after, as for mine. I want them to inherit a free, democratic, stable, outward-looking country. I don't want to bequeath a controlled, closely-managed outpost of the Brussels empire. I voted on the basis of what might happen over the next few decades, not what might happen next week.

I very much agree with Random Orbital Bob's comment that it would be nice to think that the EU might take the UK vote as a hint, and become more accountable to ordinary people. Sadly, so far, I see absolutely no signs of that happening, despite agitation from people across Europe. Certainly, the noises emanating from the EU during the referendum campaign gave no real hope of this. Maybe one day - change through the ballot box is preferable to change more violently.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":2hva8wpt said:


> Source please ?


I was there, friends of mine were mugged.
Back in the 90s there was still street crime, but very few EU immigrants.


----------



## NazNomad

This place is going to be unbearable when we have the 'Bring Back Hanging' Referendum.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Some of the smoke needs to clear. EU may want a swift resolution but nothing happens till the UK gives notice under Article 50.

When the Head of State (Cameron/Boris/Queen??) gives notice they need Parliament behind them. Even if notice does not require Parliamentary consent, all associated exit critical legislation will need a majority.

So I think things will be stalled until the ducks are in a row. Although the Tories command a majority it is insufficiently large for any new Tory leadership to rely upon even with a party whip - a few defections would derail the process. 

A general election would not guarantee a Brexit supporting majority and could risk a hung Parliament.

So we are breaking new democratic ground - we have had a referendum giving a marginal victory to the Leave campaign and a democratically elected Parliament whose members are substantially (65%+) in favour of Remain. A political car crash waiting to happen.


----------



## RogerS

Jake":3e985ibb said:


> Jacob":3e985ibb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":3e985ibb said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... No - it's not their fault AT ALL.
> 
> However, the sheer scale of immigration has caused problems, discussed in detail elsewhere. It seems right and proper that such matters, the conflicting arguments of economic advantage and of pressure on public services and housing,......
> 
> 
> 
> But EVERYBODY puts "pressure on public services and housing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those are policies entirely under the control of Westminster, in which the EU has zero influence. Immigrants then get the blame for the results of daft policies like selling off council housing without permitting the proceeds to be used to build replacements, and the decision to squeeze the NHS budget as part of austerity measures. Neither of which are remotely anything to do with the EU.
Click to expand...


But you cannot deny that if the population increase by x% then there will be a corresponding increase in the demand for resources.


----------



## Jacob

Terry - Somerset":gzu9glfm said:


> Some of the smoke needs to clear. EU may want a swift resolution but nothing happens till the UK gives notice under Article 50.
> 
> When the Head of State (Cameron/Boris/Queen??) gives notice they need Parliament behind them. Even if notice does not require Parliamentary consent, all associated exit critical legislation will need a majority.
> 
> So I think things will be stalled until the ducks are in a row. Although the Tories command a majority it is insufficiently large for any new Tory leadership to rely upon even with a party whip - a few defections would derail the process.
> 
> A general election would not guarantee a Brexit supporting majority and could risk a hung Parliament.
> 
> So we are breaking new democratic ground - we have had a referendum giving a marginal victory to the Leave campaign and a democratically elected Parliament whose members are substantially (65%+) in favour of Remain. A political car crash waiting to happen.


Except Parliament is sovereign and the decision rests with them. The referendum has no legal power; to ignore it would be politically difficult to say the least - but not impossible.


----------



## Wuffles

Terry - Somerset":3mjgqnyk said:


> Some of the smoke needs to clear. EU may want a swift resolution but nothing happens till the UK gives notice under Article 50.
> 
> When the Head of State (Cameron/Boris/Queen??) gives notice they need Parliament behind them. Even if notice does not require Parliamentary consent, all associated exit critical legislation will need a majority.
> 
> So I think things will be stalled until the ducks are in a row. Although the Tories command a majority it is insufficiently large for any new Tory leadership to rely upon even with a party whip - a few defections would derail the process.
> 
> A general election would not guarantee a Brexit supporting majority and could risk a hung Parliament.
> 
> So we are breaking new democratic ground - we have had a referendum giving a marginal victory to the Leave campaign and a democratically elected Parliament whose members are substantially (65%+) in favour of Remain. A political car crash waiting to happen.


Something popped up this morning about the Scottish Parliament's consent being required - or something like that, could be made up. Here's a link: https://twitter.com/Jonathan__Leake/sta ... wsrc%5Etfw


----------



## RogerS

Paddy Roxburgh":1cs426nk said:


> ..... hard working tax paying immigrants. ....



True, in theory they all pay tax (I'm assuming you mean income tax) but my understanding is that if they are not living here for a year then when they leave they can apply for a tax refund. Since many of them are seasonal workers and I am also sure that some will play the system, just exactly how many of them pay income tax (that is not refunded back to them) is open to debate.


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":2mh872zw said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":2mh872zw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... hard working tax paying immigrants. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, in theory they all pay tax (I'm assuming you mean income tax) but my understanding is that if they are not living here for a year then when they leave they can apply for a tax refund. Since many of them are seasonal workers and I am also sure that some will play the system, just exactly how many of them pay income tax (that is not refunded back to them) is open to debate.
Click to expand...

We all "play the system" one way or another.


----------



## thetyreman

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 01311.html


----------



## dynax

My personal view to move forward, would be for the Queen to abdicate, she has done enough for us and time she spent the remainder of her years without the weight of this on her shoulders, William to take sovereignty, and start the A50 proceedings, the banks and business ministers to start new negotiations for trade, then in a few months let a new set of parliament and prime minister candidates stand for election,


----------



## doctor Bob

Got loads done........ just having a quick tea break, the pinapples is strong I see...........


----------



## RogerS

Wuffles":2thffxxa said:


> ....
> Something popped up this morning about the Scottish Parliament's consent being required - or something like that, could be made up. Here's a link: https://twitter.com/Jonathan__Leake/sta ... wsrc%5Etfw



Oh jeepers... an interesting find but note the use of the words in there ...'might' ...'believed' etc. That means that someone has to determine legally if "might" really means "can". And who would that be? Ironic if it was the European Court of Justice !

This is just going to run and run and run. And the longer that the doubt and unknowns continue then the closer we come to a recession. Thinking that Parliament will veto the referendum result is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":27on7817 said:


> RogerS":27on7817 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paddy Roxburgh":27on7817 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... hard working tax paying immigrants. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, in theory they all pay tax (I'm assuming you mean income tax) but my understanding is that if they are not living here for a year then when they leave they can apply for a tax refund. Since many of them are seasonal workers and I am also sure that some will play the system, just exactly how many of them pay income tax (that is not refunded back to them) is open to debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all "play the system" one way or another.
Click to expand...


Surely not you, Jacob ?


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

RogerS":2w16e7zx said:


> iNewbie":2w16e7zx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paddy Roxburgh":2w16e7zx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, the article about "cash point crime" is typical Daily Mail nonsense, a dubious claim often repeated. The source for this information was a single police officer's statement, DCI Paul Bernard, estimating from "intelligence", something based on absolutely no data. Indeed there is no records kept of "cash point crime" and no definition of a "cash point crime", indeed what is a "cash point crime"?
> I employ a Romanian lad from time to time, he is hard working and honest, yet is faced with discrimination whenever he tells people where he is from. Sure there are some Romanian criminals, but it's hardly like the streets of London are dangerous because of marauding gags of Romanians. Nearly all football hooligans are white British, the figure is 96% (a figure I made up just now based on "intelligence").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Police Professional there is an increase in arrests of Romanians.
> 
> http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=26285
> 
> That doesn't mean every case is a conviction.
> 
> 
> My concern is the wasted time - when they could be doing other things when we're short staffed as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which pretty much vindicated what Phil P implied and yet got shouted down by some.
Click to expand...



from that source a 4% rise each year. "There was a year-on-year increase between 2014 and 2015 of four per cent." There has as you know been more Romanians coming here so is it a surprise that there has been an increase in the amount arrested. If the population of Romanians has doubled and the increase in arrests is 4%. that hardly sounds like an epidemic.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

thetyreman":3jef3bof said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html



Yes. The vast majority of EU money pays large Up country firms (who can afford to lobby) to bring down overpriced staff to build things no one wants. Great for people who know how to work the system. That might give you a clue why the Vote.


----------



## stuartpaul

doctor Bob":1id0kd1e said:


> Got loads done........ just having a quick tea break, the pinapples is strong I see...........


If you don't like or agree with the thread why do you keep viewing it?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Paddy - my point was not that there are millions of idle, thieving immigrants about (although I am tired of the belief that they are all honest downtrodden workers) but that the ones that are make life unpleasant for millions of others that just want to get on with their lives, and as such it would be good to be able to exclude them. They don't worry me a jot - if I'm going to get robbed, it'll be by one of our own "Gypsies". Like it was last time. And the time before.


----------



## Mr_P

Not sure where this is going ?

My next door neighboor was once ripped off badly by a joiner. Now I think all woodworkers are evil and working wood of any type should be baned.

Immigrtation is a massive issue but lets stick to numbers, until recently both Scotrland and Germanys populations were flatlining / decrerasing so they view it all very differently.

If they would have offered us something on immigration it would have easily gone the other way. A lot of talk about the Australian points system but no one mentioned another point about it, they control where immigrants go and live. i know of several school teachers who ended up in Adelaide when they wanted Melbounrne.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":yyaf5evz said:


> ....my point was not that there are millions of idle, thieving immigrants about (although I am tired of the belief that they are all honest downtrodden workers)...


They are not entirely either. They are normal people just like you, me and everybody else.


----------



## Noel

Ref the Cornwall council item, I've been speaking to a few folk (6 or so) in N Cornwall and not one of them knew about the £60m p/a the county was getting. Can't see the council getting anything like that from London in the future.


----------



## Claymore

NazNomad":jz1f7k6e said:


> This place is going to be unbearable when we have the 'Bring Back Hanging' Referendum.



I'll get in there first Naz, can I have the job of hanging the vermin? nothing would give me more pleasure than stringing scum up. :twisted:


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

the reality of population and immigration is that the year I was born, 1970, there was a world population of 3.7bn now it is 7.4bn and rising. We have a disproportionate amount of the worlds resources, of course people want to come here. Some of them are wrongens, most are good people. We can try to pull up the draw bridge, but the mass movement of people is a global phenomena. Over half the population of Jordan are refugees!!
By the way, did you see my earlier link to English and Irish travellers on a crime wave in Bulgaria and Romania? Seems it cuts two ways.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Claymore":3hdlvchi said:


> NazNomad":3hdlvchi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This place is going to be unbearable when we have the 'Bring Back Hanging' Referendum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get in there first Naz, can I have the job of hanging the vermin? nothing would give me more pleasure than stringing scum up. :twisted:
Click to expand...


Would it worry you when some of them were posthumously found to have been innocent?


----------



## Claymore

All this talk of immigration has got me thinking,For an example if a tiny island cut off from the mainland like Ailsa Craig (off the west coast of Ayrshire) has a total population of 1 Million Gannets with only enough food to feed them and all the cliff nesting places are full.........what happens when another 1 Million Gannets turn up to live on the same island but the food source stays the same and there is no more space for more nests? do we turn them away or do we cull all the elderly Gannets and give their nests to the newcomers or do we say sorry but we are full and can you stay on the mainland as there is much more space for your nests and also more food opportunities. Are we going to cull the British pensioners to make room for outsiders? do we sack all workers over 30 to give the jobs to the young? do we ban the elderly from hospitals to save the beds for the young? do we kick all British children from certain schools because they are a minority who only speak english? where will it all end? Great Britain? nope sadly those days are long gone.
anyone done anything good in their workshop lately are all of you glued to the newspapers and TV nowadays?


----------



## Jake

RogerS":2bc9dbm1 said:


> But you cannot deny that if the population increase by x% then there will be a corresponding increase in the demand for resources.



It's not a zero sum game, what you need is the right population balance which has enough economically active and productive population to support the inactive (young, old, infirm).

Britain is reproducing at less than replacement rate and has been for some time AND we have a rapidly aging population skew as life expectancy goes up. This is going to cause massive strains within society and the economy if we do close down immigration (hence Farage's 'NHS will have to be privatised to deal with the strains' argument).


----------



## Claymore

Paddy Roxburgh":4uo8gsuc said:


> Claymore":4uo8gsuc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NazNomad":4uo8gsuc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This place is going to be unbearable when we have the 'Bring Back Hanging' Referendum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get in there first Naz, can I have the job of hanging the vermin? nothing would give me more pleasure than stringing scum up. :twisted:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it worry you when some of them were posthumously found to have been innocent?
Click to expand...


Not in the slightest as if they were caught in the act ie shooting innocent people in theatres/shops etc then they deserve to hang..... its VERY rare for a criminal to get sentenced to life imprisonment but those that do should hang instead of wasting money on them. Would you rather release Peter Sutcliffe once he has served a few years for being a naughty boy? or once proven guilty just execute him? what about Fred West/Hindley/Brady/Black? have they found any of them innocent? If one of your family was attacked by scum would you just say " Don't be naughty lads" or would you nail them? I personally would do whatever I felt was necessary to even the score and not wait for a judge to release them.


----------



## Rhossydd

Noel":3iva2n7g said:


> Ref the Cornwall council item, I've been speaking to a few folk (6 or so) in N Cornwall and not one of them knew about the £60m p/a the county was getting.


Actually the figure is higher than that. According to https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/business/europe/ funding was due to be a staggering €603,706,864 (about £431m) over six years 2014-20. Whether they'll get the last of that is probably in doubt now.
Are they going to get that replaced from a new government ?

I was in Mousehole two weeks ago and noticed a label on a fishing hoist in the harbour that flagged up it had been partially funded by the EU. Nothing major, just one of the little things the EU funds across the country people forget about.
http://www.westbriton.co.uk/what-would- ... story.html
and it's not just Cornwall
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## MIGNAL

Jake":3vmcj4v5 said:


> RogerS":3vmcj4v5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you cannot deny that if the population increase by x% then there will be a corresponding increase in the demand for resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a zero sum game, what you need is the right population balance which has enough economically active and productive population to support the inactive (young, old, infirm).
> 
> Britain is reproducing at less than replacement rate and has been for some time AND we have a rapidly aging population skew as life expectancy goes up. This is going to cause massive strains within society and the economy if we do close down immigration (hence Farage's 'NHS will have to be privatised to deal with the strains' argument).
Click to expand...


Even Farage will eventually need the services of an immigrant ars* wiper. Let's hope it's a Rumanian hobby woodworker armed with a sheet or two of 40 G sandpaper!


----------



## Claymore

MIGNAL":16feto4g said:


> Jake":16feto4g said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":16feto4g said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you cannot deny that if the population increase by x% then there will be a corresponding increase in the demand for resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a zero sum game, what you need is the right population balance which has enough economically active and productive population to support the inactive (young, old, infirm).
> 
> Britain is reproducing at less than replacement rate and has been for some time AND we have a rapidly aging population skew as life expectancy goes up. This is going to cause massive strains within society and the economy if we do close down immigration (hence Farage's 'NHS will have to be privatised to deal with the strains' argument).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Farage will eventually need the services of an immigrant ars* wiper. Let's hope it's a Rumanian hobby woodworker armed with a sheet or two of 40 G sandpaper!
Click to expand...



:lol: :shock: that's brought tears to my eyes! any chance of using some 400grit?


----------



## CStanford

Nicola Sturgeon? I lost my coffee -- sounds like a name from a Tracey Ullman skit. Then I saw her referred to as BraveTart on some other site and I totally lost it. My abdominals will be sore for three days.


----------



## Noel

Rhossydd":2x91bbcx said:


> Noel":2x91bbcx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ref the Cornwall council item, I've been speaking to a few folk (6 or so) in N Cornwall and not one of them knew about the £60m p/a the county was getting.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the figure is higher than that. According to https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/business/europe/ funding was due to be a staggering €603,706,864 (about £431m) over six years 2014-20. Whether they'll get the last of that is probably in doubt now.
> Are they going to get that replaced from a new government ?
> 
> I was in Mousehole two weeks ago and noticed a label on a fishing hoist in the harbour that flagged up it had been partially funded by the EU. Nothing major, just one of the little things the EU funds across the country people forget about.
> http://www.westbriton.co.uk/what-would- ... story.html
> and it's not just Cornwall
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ?CMP=fb_gu
Click to expand...


Interesting. nice place Mousehole (used to call it Mouse Hole...).
Much the same in NI, EU funding over last 5 years was 3.5B (billon) Euro and the same figure again offered until 2020, 600m + Euro p/a.


----------



## Claymore

CStanford":hlhwl0ll said:


> Nicola Sturgeon? I lost my coffee -- sounds like a name from a Tracy Ullman skit. Then I saw her referred to as BraveTart on some other site and I totally lost it. My abdominals will be sore for three days.



did you know Sturgeon and her ex boyfriend Salmond also do a Krankies Tribute Band Act at weekends and she loves to sing Power Ballads while wearing her trademark 80's style padded shoulder jackets! lol


----------



## CStanford

MIGNAL":13fxb8pr said:


> Jake":13fxb8pr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":13fxb8pr said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you cannot deny that if the population increase by x% then there will be a corresponding increase in the demand for resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a zero sum game, what you need is the right population balance which has enough economically active and productive population to support the inactive (young, old, infirm).
> 
> Britain is reproducing at less than replacement rate and has been for some time AND we have a rapidly aging population skew as life expectancy goes up. This is going to cause massive strains within society and the economy if we do close down immigration (hence Farage's 'NHS will have to be privatised to deal with the strains' argument).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Farage will eventually need the services of an immigrant ars* wiper. Let's hope it's a Rumanian hobby woodworker armed with a sheet or two of 40 G sandpaper!
Click to expand...


Oh let's not disparage Mr. Farage...


----------



## Eric The Viking

phil.p":3lhjzg3z said:


> thetyreman":3lhjzg3z said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The vast majority of EU money pays large Up country firms (who can afford to lobby) to bring down overpriced staff to build things no one wants. Great for people who know how to work the system. That might give you a clue why the Vote.
Click to expand...


Cornish film studio anyone? 

Oh sorry, that's now a housing estate. 

The biggest number I found associated with that was 6.5m total investment, of which about 2/3 was public money including a large EU grant.* I believe there's a fraud trial either pending or recently concluded, but how it ever got that far isn't a mystery for anyone who watches these things.

I daresay most of the local small businesses would have much preferred that to be spent on giving them a tax holiday and/or helping Cornwall\s young unemployed it would have gone a long way.

E.

*Originally our money, returned minus commissioners' commission, etc.


----------



## CStanford

Claymore":2xo9d8jn said:


> CStanford":2xo9d8jn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nicola Sturgeon? I lost my coffee -- sounds like a name from a Tracy Ullman skit. Then I saw her referred to as BraveTart on some other site and I totally lost it. My abdominals will be sore for three days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you know Sturgeon and her ex boyfriend Salmond also do a Krankies Tribute Band Act at weekends and she loves to sing Power Ballads while wearing her trademark 80's style padded shoulder jackets! lol
Click to expand...


Honestly nothing would surprise me... what great fun and laughs!


----------



## Eric The Viking

Rhossydd":b3xtod11 said:


> Noel":b3xtod11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ref the Cornwall council item, I've been speaking to a few folk (6 or so) in N Cornwall and not one of them knew about the £60m p/a the county was getting.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the figure is higher than that. According to https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/business/europe/ funding was due to be a staggering €603,706,864 (about £431m) over six years 2014-20. Whether they'll get the last of that is probably in doubt now.
> Are they going to get that replaced from a new government ?
> 
> I was in Mousehole two weeks ago and noticed a label on a fishing hoist in the harbour that flagged up it had been partially funded by the EU. Nothing major, just one of the little things the EU funds across the country people forget about.
> http://www.westbriton.co.uk/what-would- ... story.html
> and it's not just Cornwall
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ?CMP=fb_gu
Click to expand...


They are all _required_ to display the circle of stars prominently as condition of getting the dosh. And it's been enforced, too, in the past.

I have no doubt the irony of the EU funding a fishing hoist isn't lost on the locals one bit. Quite a few of them used to be fishermen...


----------



## dynax

Not in the slightest as if they were caught in the act ie shooting innocent people in theatres/shops etc then they deserve to hang..... its VERY rare for a criminal to get sentenced to life imprisonment but those that do should hang instead of wasting money on them. Would you rather release Peter Sutcliffe once he has served a few years for being a naughty boy? or once proven guilty just execute him? what about Fred West/Hindley/Brady/Black? have they found any of them innocent? If one of your family was attacked by scum would you just say " Don't be naughty lads" or would you nail them? I personally would do whatever I felt was necessary to even the score and not wait for a judge to release them.[/quote]

Hanging is too boring, strap'em to a few high octane machines and rip'em limb from limb, have a proper nitro circus,


----------



## Rhossydd

Eric The Viking":3gitzqr5 said:


> I have no doubt the irony of the EU funding a fishing hoist isn't lost on the locals one bit. Quite a few of them used to be fishermen...


As a serious fishing port Mousehole's been totally passed by for a very much longer time than we've been in the EU. Newlyn just round the coast has a much bigger harbour and has the transport infrastructure to deal with the catch to the customers.
The hoist really only helps a couple of day boats.


----------



## iNewbie

Jacob":1jk0di10 said:


> phil.p":1jk0di10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....my point was not that there are millions of idle, thieving immigrants about (although I am tired of the belief that they are all honest downtrodden workers)...
> 
> 
> 
> They are not entirely either. They are normal people just like you, me and everybody else.
Click to expand...


Hold on Jacob, when were you declared normal?


----------



## Claymore

dynax":198g2zy5 said:


> Not in the slightest as if they were caught in the act ie shooting innocent people in theatres/shops etc then they deserve to hang..... its VERY rare for a criminal to get sentenced to life imprisonment but those that do should hang instead of wasting money on them. Would you rather release Peter Sutcliffe once he has served a few years for being a naughty boy? or once proven guilty just execute him? what about Fred West/Hindley/Brady/Black? have they found any of them innocent? If one of your family was attacked by scum would you just say " Don't be naughty lads" or would you nail them? I personally would do whatever I felt was necessary to even the score and not wait for a judge to release them.



Hanging is too boring, strap'em to a few high octane machines and rip'em limb from limb, have a proper nitro circus,[/quote]

Now ya talking! I like your style and if we could make it into a new X Game sport then all the better  I was sharpening my Claymore (battle ready replica of a certain Mr Wallace's) and the local farmer drove past past and shouted "Are ya getting ready for the Wee Tourists" LOL They filmed the movie The Wickerman near my home and going by the locals its actually more like a documentary than a fiction based movie lol 
Off to dance in the garden....
Sumer is Icumen in,
Loudly sing, cuckoo!
Grows the seed and blows the mead,
And springs the wood anew;
Sing, cuckoo!
Ewe bleats harshly after lamb,
Cows after calves make moo;
Bullock stamps and deer champs,
Now shrilly sing, cuckoo!
Cuckoo, cuckoo
Wild bird are you;
Be never still, cuckoo! :wink:


----------



## doctor Bob

stuartpaul":1tpael3g said:


> doctor Bob":1tpael3g said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got loads done........ just having a quick tea break, the pinapples is strong I see...........
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like or agree with the thread why do you keep viewing it?
Click to expand...


I never said I didn't like it, my point was how much time people are wasting saying the same old thing over and over (look at the time lines, they are on here all day) when they could actually DO something, possibly even DO something for someone else, lot of talkers these days, no doers, same for the country......... every one wants to be management and talk about whats wrong.


----------



## heimlaga

Good point doctor Bob

I am not going into detail as the discussion concerns your country not mine........ but I think the new Independent Democratic Kindom of Great Britain would gain a lot in the long term if everybody tried to come up with constructive solutions to problems and reasonable compromizes that will be bearable even for your antagoinsts and try to find ways to fix things. 
Suddenly all your problems will be solved.

I am pretty sure the harbour crane in Mousehole was financed by EU to less than 30%. Money which originally came to EU from Britain. Some resources will be there whether you belong to EU or not if you learn to utilize them.

Up here in Österbotten we sometimes get a bit of EU money for various projects in our communities but more often we just get together and build what we want from what we can find. Sometimes without building permit in order to reduce costs. 
When we want a new quay in the harbour or a new hockey rink or a village hall someone will sponsor the logs and some volunteers will fell the trees and help out at the sawmill and some local engineer will sponsor the drawings and a local contractor will do the excavator work at cost. Gravel will come from an illegal gravelpit transported to the site by local farmers with their tractors. Local voulunteers will do the job led by a local carpenter who wants pay for only one quarter of his workhours. Suddenly we have what we want. No problems.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

:lol: Shitt ... we'd have every official in Christendom on site within a few hours if we did that.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

[/quote]

I'll get in there first Naz, can I have the job of hanging the vermin? nothing would give me more pleasure than stringing scum up. :twisted:[/quote]

Would it worry you when some of them were posthumously found to have been innocent?[/quote]

Not in the slightest as if they were caught in the act ie shooting innocent people in theatres/shops etc then they deserve to hang..... its VERY rare for a criminal to get sentenced to life imprisonment but those that do should hang instead of wasting money on them. Would you rather release Peter Sutcliffe once he has served a few years for being a naughty boy? or once proven guilty just execute him? what about Fred West/Hindley/Brady/Black? have they found any of them innocent? If one of your family was attacked by scum would you just say " Don't be naughty lads" or would you nail them? I personally would do whatever I felt was necessary to even the score and not wait for a judge to release them.[/quote]


Fascinating. Just to be clear are you saying it wouldn't bother you if you hanged someone who posthumously (after you've killed them) was proved to be innocent? And your reason is because they deserved it, whether or not they did it because other people have done bad stuff? There area fair few people found guilty of murder who are later exonerated and released, particularly with DNA evidence, not those you mentioned but still quite a few, 6 from Birmingham and 4 from Guildford spring to mind but there are plenty of others . If you've killed them and they were innocent would their family then be justified in killing you?


----------



## Glynne

Re the Cornwall bit, some of the canvassing was saying that only Transylvania is deemed a poorer area and receives the most subsidy with Cornwall second. Unfortunately I'm going to link Cornwall with Transylvania from now on, so can anyone from Cornwall not post during the hours of darkness as I'm going to make another connection.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Don't get much darkness this time of year.


----------



## Sheptonphil

Claymore":3qnz0p3a said:


> NazNomad":3qnz0p3a said:
> 
> 
> 
> This place is going to be unbearable when we have the 'Bring Back Hanging' Referendum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get in there first Naz, can I have the job of hanging the vermin? nothing would give me more pleasure than stringing scum up. :twisted:
Click to expand...

After Ms Sturgeon has given you independence, you of course will only be able to hang Scottish criminals, you wont be allowed to practice in England. Sorry, cross border agreements not in place. I therefore lay claim to the English position. If we make everything more serious than shoplifting a capital crime (that would remain corporal and only subject to a flogging), it will take any doubt away from the criminals the punishment available. If we then change the rope to a bullet they could be offered to sponsorship to cover costs. We would also be outside the realms of European Court of Human Rights so there would be no grounds of appeal above the high court in this country.

Sorted!

Phil


----------



## RobinBHM

Nicola Sturgeon's claim that its possible to veto brexit, is bluster for the popularity vote. As is a claim a second reforendum for independance would allow Scotland to stay in EU. 

EU will note allow Scotland to remain. In theory Scotland could apply to join Europe, not very likely and in any case any new entrants to Europe have to be in the Euro zone. Also there would need to be a border control.


----------



## Woodmatt

Andrew Marr this morning summed it all up very well I thought 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcxH9z8VdaY


----------



## Max Power

Fandabby Dozy


----------



## Sheptonphil

The saddest part of a 92 page toxic topic splitting former allies in this forum is that if is extremely unlikely to ever happen. Cameron handed over the poison challis to ensure nobody ever pulls the trigger on invoking article 50. 

Boris et al would be damned if they didn't, and hung drawn and quartered if they did. Nobody in their right mind is going to take responsibility of dismantling the way a whole Nation is run or trades. It will never happen. Nobody has the funds, the means or the will to do it. 


Phil


----------



## Jacob

I agree. 
I don't think it's going to happen. Cameron has dipped out of a very firm promise (not for the first time) and handed the poison chalice to Boris/Gove - already trimming like mad, or someone else. Corbyn might end up as PM and could ignore the whole thing as a tory internal party battle not of his making.


----------



## Benchwayze

Sturgeon wants one thing only. Independence for Scotland. She has the blinkers on; unable to see she would be breaking away form one historic enemy, England; (which is what she's all about of course) and would then sacrifice newly won Independence to the control of the United States of Europe. Even less democratic than she brands Westminster! And if she can't see that, then she hasn't the wit I thought she had.

'Nuff said for me. Back to the workshop in the morning.


----------



## Jake

Jacob":2utvufoz said:


> Corbyn might end up as PM.



Indeed. In a universe in which he was a competent leader, able to sing to anyone outside the choir.


----------



## MIGNAL

Sheptonphil":1kjtg9eb said:


> The saddest part of a 92 page toxic topic splitting former allies in this forum is that if is extremely unlikely to ever happen. Cameron handed over the poison challis to ensure nobody ever pulls the trigger on invoking article 50.
> 
> Boris et al would be damned if they didn't, and hung drawn and quartered if they did. Nobody in their right mind is going to take responsibility of dismantling the way a whole Nation is run or trades. It will never happen. Nobody has the funds, the means or the will to do it.
> 
> 
> Phil



Broket. 
Brexit from Brexit.
Just apologise to the Chinese, the Japanese and the rest of the world. Tell them that the strong Polish lager they have been sending over is a little stronger than what we are accustomed to. 
As I said previously, the politics of the lunatic asylum.


----------



## Inoffthered

After days of the BBC continuing with its Remain agenda and Project Fear, it is interesting to see how other people view Brexit.

Paolo Barnard, the most censored italian economic journalist, reveals his view on BREXIT and the European Union.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9cLwoTkWes



Die Welt, a major German newspaper savages the EU

"Britain Votes Merkel Out Of Office, Too" is the astonishing headline from Germany's 3rd largest newspaper Die Welt. Pinning the blame for The Brits' vote, the op-ed lambasts The EU's political failure, "The British do not leave the EU as narrow-minded snobs that had not meant it to happen that way, but as proud democrats that no longer wanted to put up with the snags and political failures of the EU;" and puts the blame squarely on the sagging shoulders of Angela Merkel (and her solo attempts at refugee policy)... "voters in Britain basically also voted Angela Merkel out of office. Before she becomes the EU's gravedigger for good, she should follow David Cameron's example."


The full article is worth reading
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-2 ... ravedigger

Funny how others are now seeing the reality of Brexit but the Brussels Broadcasting Company is stuck in a time warp and talking the country and the Brexit decision down


----------



## BearTricks

Hilariously, the petition for a second referendum was actually started by a leave supporter who clearly didn't have much confidence in the leave vote winning, and was presumably acting on Farage's idea that 48 - 52 was too close of a margin. 

By some twist of fate the actual vote was 52 - 48 in the opposite direction, and the petition was co-opted by the remain voters. I thought the lead up to the vote was a shambles, but it continues. 

I actually think the political sniping at the moment is fascinating. An MP from the leave campaign admitted today that they had no exit strategy because they assumed Cameron would take care of it, but they didn't count on him resigning and handing the job over to them. I have actually come out of this with a bigger respect for Cameron that I was previously comfortable with. Osbourne, Hunt, Boris and Gove have gone down even further in my estimations however. 

Boris's rhetoric considering his dual citizenship, fluent French, the amount of time he has spent in Europe and the fact that his dad is one of the biggest pro-EU campaigners to date I seriously worry about what would happen if he became PM. He has revealed that he is happy to compromise his integrity for a chance at a promotion or two; when the likes of Murdoch are attempting to line his pockets we might have our very own Burlosconi.


----------



## MIGNAL

'Boris Johnson says the UK will continue to "intensify" cooperation with the EU and tells his fellow Leave supporters they must accept the 52-48 referendum win was "not entirely overwhelming". 

The pro-Leave campaign head, says "the only change" will be to free the country from the EU's "extraordinary and opaque" law, which "will not come in any great rush". 

It's getting more and more watered down by the day.


----------



## MIGNAL

Meanwhile the £ is taking another hit on the asian market. 
We just might need that $250 billion of funny money Mr. Carney.


----------



## custard

Very astute article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the (pro-Brexit) Telegraph. He puts political and legal flesh on the theoretical bones of how Brexit will happen without really happening at all.

-Prime Minister Boris (or whoever) advocates going back to the _pre-Maastricht_ rules on migration, so there's a _right to work_ rather than free migration under the banner of EU citizenship. So no change then for all the industrious Poles who want to come, but the politicians can still spin us a story that they've saved us from an invasion of millions of benefit scroungers. And if they need more migration ammunition they can introduce an Australian points style system for non-EU immigrants, that would _sound_ impressive but in reality it's not that different to what exists today.

-This is increasingly being described as the "soft Brexit" option, it would be acceptable to the majority of parliamentarians, and furthermore they'll rightly claim they have a duty to act for everyone, and that includes the remain vote as well as the exit vote.

-As well as Parliament this would certainly get the support of the Trades Unions, the City, and Industry.

-Furthermore there's a special duty of care actually written into the devolution settlements of Scotland and Northern Ireland. So a nervous politician could claim to angry Leave voters that his hands were tied, the referendum after all was only _advisory_, but there is a legal duty to protect the wishes of Scotland and NI.

-There'd be some ceremonial scrapping of some peripheral EU legislation, trivial stuff like curly bananas or high powered vacuum cleaners, enough to be able to say "look, we really have taken back control".

-Francois Villeroy de Galhau from the European Central Bank is already making encouraging overtures suggesting this route would preserve the passporting rights for the UK financial services industry, and the powerful German lobbying group, the BDI, is also suggesting this is the way to go, allowing two way trade between the UK and EU to be maintained virtually unchanged.

-Significantly the next PM will be emphasising the degree to which we're all conveniently playing by rules set not by the EU, but by global bodies _above_ the EU; like the World Trade Organisation, Financial Stability Board, and Basel Banking Committee. 

-Most important of all is Chancellor Merkel, and her mumsy directive "there is no need to be nasty", this trumps the federalist rage of Jean Claude Juncker so we can safely discount him.

-There's no doubt that Italy are desperate for just such a compromise, some of their banks suffered share price falls on Friday greater than in the post-Lehman mess, so their vote is virtually in the bag already.

Anyone who remembers "Yes Minister" will recognise immediately that this is almost certainly the way it will all play out. Brexit does really happen...just nothing actually changes.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":gr29mcjn said:


> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26/die-welt-calls-merkels-resignation-slams-eus-gravedigger
> 
> Funny how others are now seeing the reality of Brexit but the Brussels Broadcasting Company is stuck in a time warp and talking the country and the Brexit decision down



You can always find opinions to validate your decision, and the best place to look first if those are of the nutcase variety is zerohedge (guido if you want a bit more domestic flavour).


----------



## Inoffthered

MIGNAL":2hp4m8pk said:


> .
> 
> It's getting more and more watered down by the day.




There will be a huge backlash at the next general election.
Labour is in meltdown and still hasn't recognised that it is on a totally different page to its core voters.
Ditto the Tories.

The by election at Birstall will be interesting if UKIP put up a candidate. Birstalll voted out in the referendum.

As for the decision not to invoke Article 50, I understand that the reason is that once invoked the EU nominate a negotiating team and all discussions go through them, until then the UK can speak to other governments directly.
I see that the Czech prime minister has suggested that Juncker should resign because the crisis in the EU is down to him. It makes you wonder what is going on in the background.

As for the petition, the really amusing thing is to see the BBC getting so excited about it and wilfully ignoring the fact that most of the names have been added by bots , but hey, anything they can use to denigrate the country and create strife is good for them. They are clearly a propaganda outfit for someone and they need sorting out.


----------



## Claymore

How are we going to fix the country guys? is it fixable and in the words of one of our fellow Craftsmen Bob The Builder.... Can we fix it? :wink:


----------



## Inoffthered

Jake":2idugrx5 said:


> Inoffthered":2idugrx5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26/die-welt-calls-merkels-resignation-slams-eus-gravedigger
> 
> Funny how others are now seeing the reality of Brexit but the Brussels Broadcasting Company is stuck in a time warp and talking the country and the Brexit decision down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find opinions to validate your decision, and the best place to look first if those are of the nutcase variety is zerohedge (guido if you want a bit more domestic flavour).
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call Die Welt a nutcase publication but hey you have your echo chambers, I'll have mine.

I can recommend the Guardian comments if you want a laugh, all of the little Tarquins and Jemimas having apoplexy at how the working classes/old folk etc are making it more expensive to get to the villa in Italy, and all of the nast Leavers they have unfriended lol priceless.


----------



## Jake

Inoffthered":77ft5w96 said:


> Jake":77ft5w96 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inoffthered":77ft5w96 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26/die-welt-calls-merkels-resignation-slams-eus-gravedigger
> 
> Funny how others are now seeing the reality of Brexit but the Brussels Broadcasting Company is stuck in a time warp and talking the country and the Brexit decision down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find opinions to validate your decision, and the best place to look first if those are of the nutcase variety is zerohedge (guido if you want a bit more domestic flavour).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and the Guardian comments are well worth a look as well, all of the little Tarquins and Jemimas having apoplexy at how the working classes/old folk etc are making it more expensive to get to the villa in Italy, and all of the nast Leavers they have unfriended lol priceless.
Click to expand...


I couldn't be bothered to read those either. I don't think they are direct parallels though as you would have to head off way further to find leftwing nutjobs with as bonkers views.


----------



## MIGNAL

custard":2dtszjt9 said:


> Very astute article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the (pro-Brexit) Telegraph. He puts political and legal flesh on the theoretical bones of how Brexit will happen without really happening at all.
> 
> -Prime Minister Boris (or whoever) advocates going back to the _pre-Maastricht_ rules on migration, so there's a _right to work_ rather than free migration under the banner of EU citizenship. So no change then for all the industrious Poles who want to come, but the politicians can still spin us a story that they've saved us from an invasion of millions of benefit scroungers. And if they need more migration ammunition they can introduce an Australian points style system for non-EU immigrants, that would _sound_ impressive but in reality it's not that different to what exists today.
> 
> -This is increasingly being described as the "soft Brexit" option, it would be acceptable to the majority of parliamentarians, and furthermore they'll rightly claim they have a duty to act for everyone, and that includes the remain vote as well as the exit vote.
> 
> -As well as Parliament this would certainly get the support of the Trades Unions, the City, and Industry.
> 
> -Furthermore there's a special duty of care actually written into the devolution settlements of Scotland and Northern Ireland. So a nervous politician could claim to angry Leave voters that his hands were tied, the referendum after all was only _advisory_, but there is a legal duty to protect the wishes of Scotland and NI.
> 
> -There'd be some ceremonial scrapping of some peripheral EU legislation, trivial stuff like curly bananas or high powered vacuum cleaners, enough to be able to say "look, we really have taken back control".
> 
> -Francois Villeroy de Galhau from the European Central Bank is already making encouraging overtures suggesting this route would preserve the passporting rights for the UK financial services industry, and the powerful German lobbying group, the BDI, is also suggesting this is the way to go, allowing two way trade between the UK and EU to be maintained virtually unchanged.
> 
> -Significantly the next PM will be emphasising the degree to which we're all conveniently playing by rules set not by the EU, but by global bodies _above_ the EU; like the World Trade Organisation, Financial Stability Board, and Basel Banking Committee.
> 
> -Most important of all is Chancellor Merkel, and her mumsy directive "there is no need to be nasty", this trumps the federalist rage of Jean Claude Juncker so we can safely discount him.
> 
> -There's no doubt that Italy are desperate for just such a compromise, some of their banks suffered share price falls on Friday greater than in the post-Lehman mess, so their vote is virtually in the bag already.
> 
> Anyone who remembers "Yes Minister" will recognise immediately that this is almost certainly the way it will all play out. Brexit does really happen...just nothing actually changes.



Hear, hear. All that fuss for f.a. 
Wonder how much the whole thing cost? Probably a year or two of EU contributions when you factor in all the lost production. I'm pretty sure that Cameron owes me a couple of grand given the amount of time I've downed tools.


----------



## Rhossydd

MIGNAL":3n1np9t5 said:


> Wonder how much the whole thing cost? Probably a year or two of EU contributions when you factor in all the lost production.


If you include the loss of UK value through the fallen pound and stock market, the last figure I saw was the equivalent of 40 years of contributions.


----------



## woodpig

Shame I've only just seen this as I would have passed it along before:

https://youtu.be/gILTIDr4Ra8


----------



## BearTricks

With that petition, 'most' of the votes hadn't been added by bots. They removed 77,000 dodgy ones out of three million votes.


----------



## dexter

This is turning into a screenwriters dream. Who would you pick for the main players (Jimmy Crankie has already been cast).


----------



## CStanford

I've been reading about all of this stuff, especially with regard to Scotland, and I got curious about economic statistics so I looked some up. There are 25 states in the United States that have a higher annual GDP than Scotland. My state, Tennessee, is one of them. Surely, England can do without Scotland can't it? Good God if it can't.... And the rest of Europe is salivating to have Scotland stay in the EU and their annual GDP is less than Wisconsin's, or Oregon's, or Tennessee's? This is some crazy sheet.. Scotland's GDP is rounding error for the United States. I mean, come on.


----------



## Inoffthered

CStanford":22zxkbt4 said:


> I've been reading about all of this stuff, especially with regard to Scotland, and I got curious about economic statistics so I looked some up. There are 25 states in the United States that have a higher annual GDP than Scotland. My state, Tennessee, is one of them. Surely, England can do without Scotland can't it? Good God if it can't.... And the rest of Europe is salivating to have Scotland stay in the EU and their annual GDP is less than Wisconsin's, or Oregon's, or Tennessee's? This is some crazy sheet.. Scotland's GDP is rounding error for the United States. I mean, come on.




If you look at it logically, Scotland would not want leave the UK to join the EU. However, the Scots Nats don't do logical and they would cut their nose off to spite their face.
They hate being governed by Westminster (even tho' they have devolved powers in their own parliament) even though they have a disproportionate number of MPs in Westminster given their population and they obstruct legislation that has no direct impact on Scotland just because they can. They would prefer to be ruled by the EU but whether the EU could pay them what they suck out of the UK via the Barnett Formula is doubtful. 
Imho if they want to leave they can go.


----------



## Noel

Boris, Gove et all have managed to come up with a bit of a plan...published in the Telegraph:



> I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be. There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment. EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.
> 
> British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. Britain is and always will be a great European power, offering top-table opinions and giving leadership on everything from foreign policy to defence to counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing – all the things we need to do together to make our world safer.
> The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal. This will bring not threats, but golden opportunities for this country – to pass laws and set taxes according to the needs of the UK.
> 
> Yes, the Government will be able to take back democratic control of immigration policy, with a balanced and humane points-based system to suit the needs of business and industry. Yes, there will be a substantial sum of money which we will no longer send to Brussels, but which could be used on priorities such as the NHS. Yes, we will be able to do free trade deals with the growth economies of the world in a way that is currently forbidden.



It appears he does not want to actually leave the EU (what was that referendum about?) but basically wants to cherry pick all that is part of the EU package today, pay less and not abide by the rules. Access to the single market but limit free movement....currently one with the other to gain full access. Not be part of the EC of Justice and laws? All the benefits but no rules? Bit like going into your local Tesco and telling the customer service person you don't agree with the rules in the small print of the Club vouchers you are using to get discount on that nice BBQ.... 
As someone said elsewhere: does the UK now own the EU? 
More watering down of pre ref promises will be needed (or just ditch the lot of them, might be easier). 


Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... --and-alw/


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

Starting to sound suspiciously like Custard's "Yes Minister" summary of the direction isn't it


----------



## Phil Pascoe

MIGNAL":s8ppuxje said:


> custard":s8ppuxje said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very astute article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the (pro-Brexit) Telegraph. He puts political and legal flesh on the theoretical bones of how Brexit will happen without really happening at all.
> 
> -Prime Minister Boris (or whoever) advocates going back to the _pre-Maastricht_ rules on migration, so there's a _right to work_ rather than free migration under the banner of EU citizenship. So no change then for all the industrious Poles who want to come, but the politicians can still spin us a story that they've saved us from an invasion of millions of benefit scroungers. And if they need more migration ammunition they can introduce an Australian points style system for non-EU immigrants, that would _sound_ impressive but in reality it's not that different to what exists today.
> 
> -This is increasingly being described as the "soft Brexit" option, it would be acceptable to the majority of parliamentarians, and furthermore they'll rightly claim they have a duty to act for everyone, and that includes the remain vote as well as the exit vote.
> 
> -As well as Parliament this would certainly get the support of the Trades Unions, the City, and Industry.
> 
> -Furthermore there's a special duty of care actually written into the devolution settlements of Scotland and Northern Ireland. So a nervous politician could claim to angry Leave voters that his hands were tied, the referendum after all was only _advisory_, but there is a legal duty to protect the wishes of Scotland and NI.
> 
> -There'd be some ceremonial scrapping of some peripheral EU legislation, trivial stuff like curly bananas or high powered vacuum cleaners, enough to be able to say "look, we really have taken back control".
> 
> -Francois Villeroy de Galhau from the European Central Bank is already making encouraging overtures suggesting this route would preserve the passporting rights for the UK financial services industry, and the powerful German lobbying group, the BDI, is also suggesting this is the way to go, allowing two way trade between the UK and EU to be maintained virtually unchanged.
> 
> -Significantly the next PM will be emphasising the degree to which we're all conveniently playing by rules set not by the EU, but by global bodies _above_ the EU; like the World Trade Organisation, Financial Stability Board, and Basel Banking Committee.
> 
> -Most important of all is Chancellor Merkel, and her mumsy directive "there is no need to be nasty", this trumps the federalist rage of Jean Claude Juncker so we can safely discount him.
> 
> -There's no doubt that Italy are desperate for just such a compromise, some of their banks suffered share price falls on Friday greater than in the post-Lehman mess, so their vote is virtually in the bag already.
> 
> Anyone who remembers "Yes Minister" will recognise immediately that this is almost certainly the way it will all play out. Brexit does really happen...just nothing actually changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hear, hear. All that fuss for f.a.
> Wonder how much the whole thing cost? Probably a year or two of EU contributions when you factor in all the lost production. I'm pretty sure that Cameron owes me a couple of grand given the amount of time I've downed tools.
Click to expand...


Pity the EU didn't have sense to think this way before it all blew up (as it obviously was going to) except of course that they are too full of themselves to think beyond the grand Project Europe.


----------



## swagman

The USA needs to keep their comments in check on the Brexit result ; if they vote to make Donald Trump the next President of the United States there will be absolute chaos around the world. You have the likes of China and Russia sitting back waiting for someone like a Trump to trigger the next world conflict. http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_ ... -trump.jpg


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Scotland is currently estimated to have a GDP deficit of approx 10%. Aside from the fact that this is well outside convergence criteria for joing the Euro, the last thing the EU and Euro need now is another basket case economy.

But politics often trumps common sense .........


----------



## MIGNAL

And that deficit is unlikely to improve anytime soon. All the economic signs are looking downwards, with UK investment 'all but dried up'. We are going to have a very shaky 6 months - at the very least. What happens after that is anyone's guess.


----------



## chipmunk

swagman":37xalwdt said:


> The USA needs to keep their comments in check on the Brexit result ; if they vote to make Donald Trump the next President of the United States there will be absolute chaos around the world. You have the likes of China and Russia sitting back waiting for someone like a Trump to trigger the next world conflict. http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_ ... -trump.jpg



...Any "Trump effect" will be purged pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things - he will likely only get one presidential term IMHO. 
Let's not kid ourselves - We'll still be negotiating our exit or still be feeling the fall-out from it when Trump has been and gone.


----------



## bushwhaker

Sorry guys. I am a foreigner, i live far as well. So venom, malevolence, cleavage. Regret, too bad.


----------



## Inoffthered

In the early days of the referendum there was a suggestion that the UK would vote out and then the EU would come to its senses and offer concessions. 
Cameron and Juncker said this would not happen but when you look around and see what is happening now.....

The longer term effects of this will lie dormant until the next general election when I suspect a large number of politicians , both red and blue, will discover that the 17m that voted out will exercise their democratic right again and the make of the next parliament could look totally different to this one.

Interestingly an analysis of the referendum vote show that on a FPTP basis the result would have been a landslide for Brexit. That is something that the like of David Lammy and Anna Soubry should bear in mind while considering their long term future.


----------



## Jacob

Inoffthered":1u678usc said:


> ....
> Interestingly an analysis of the referendum vote show that on a FPTP basis the result would have been a landslide for Brexit. That is something that the like of David Lammy and Anna Soubry should bear in mind while considering their long term future.


Well yes.
What has been brought to light more clearly than anything else is that politicos need to take note of the dissatisfaction and unease of a large sector of the population. They need to either correct errors of fact or to concede that things really are serious issues.
Personally I don't think immigration is a real issue, however much it plays on the minds of Brexiters, but housing, jobs, welfare, quality of life, education, opportunity, etc are big and real.
One failing of the EU (and our own lot) is the temptation to invest in flagship projects in run-down areas such as fancy mid city bridges and other amenities, which leave the outer city still run down and not a nice place to live and grow up in. We need more investment in human capital rather than hardware.
One very big failing is our own complete neglect of housing and the resultant bubble in prices - probably the most economically divisive issue of our times.


----------



## Rhossydd

Jacob":6rq2k3u8 said:


> Inoffthered":6rq2k3u8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Personally I don't think immigration is a real issue,
Click to expand...

That's probably due to where you live. The mid east coast see things very differently.
Sadly it's too easy to blame over stretched services on those that are using them and seem foreign, rather than the politicians that fail to make good plans and provision for a growing population.


----------



## Jacob

Rhossydd":2zbcsjc0 said:


> Jacob":2zbcsjc0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inoffthered":2zbcsjc0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Personally I don't think immigration is a real issue,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's probably due to where you live. The mid east coast see things very differently.
> Sadly it's too easy to blame over stretched services on those that are using them and seem foreign, rather than the politicians that fail to make good plans and provision for a growing population.
Click to expand...

It seems that where there is least immigration there is most unease. Protests in Newcastle on Tyne - no immigrants go there anyway unless they are utterly desperate! They go to the mid east because there is work which the local population cannot handle.


----------



## BearTricks

Custard's prediction was spot on and, to be honest, I like it as a remain voter.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Yes. But as I said - Pity the EU didn't have sense to think this way before it all blew up (as it obviously was going to) except of course that they are too full of themselves to think beyond the grand Project Europe. 
The downside being if that happened it would only postpone the inevitable, the upper echelons of the EU aren't prepared to abandon articles of core belief - that it is a political alliance not a mutual benefit society. There would again come a time they refused to budge, and the cycle repeats.


----------



## AJB Temple

Not sure that people have worked out the implications yet. If FTSE and pound stay under pressure, then pensioners who voted out will have voted for a quite significant pay cut in real terms. Recession seems likely: just the the negative City effects on the financial services industry may be enough to secure that. Most employers will adopt a risk averse stance and stop recruitment. I am thinking about doing the same but will wait a few days before making any definite decisions. 

Interesting comments on Radio 4 this morning from pro-Brexit Peter Hargreaves. He reckons that UK companies with significant overseas earnings will make a killing from the materially devalued pound as UK remittances will be worth more. This of course depends on people doing business with those multinationals adopting a "business as usual" stance, which may well not happen. Devaluation will be something of a shock to many once the effects filter into real everyday costs. 

Labour party is tearing itself apart and the pro Brexit tories are back peddling on NHS savings and controlling immigration. The fishermen seem happy. Not sure why as it won't stop the Spanish trawling everything in sight. It all looks a bit of a shambles really. Will take ages to settle down and we are reliant on the Germans to calm down the EU. Ironic really.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":11xhb6ah said:


> ....... that it is a political alliance not a mutual benefit society. ........


What is the difference?


----------



## Phil Pascoe

You don't know? Nor do they. That's the beginning of all this.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":ec83l9zb said:


> You don't know? Nor do they. That's the beginning of all this.


Do you know yourself?


----------



## n0legs

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.
Take 1 down and pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall,


----------



## clk230

to be honest the referendum should never have taken place without a brexit plan and the only one to blame for that is Cameron due to the fact he is the prime minister plus he allowed the referendum .
I know there's going to be people saying but he didn't want to leave , did he really not believe there was a chance we would leave .

He should have had a plan in place he is our countries leader !


----------



## MIGNAL

A Brexit plan wouldn't have helped much. It was pretty obvious that there was going to be carnage after an out vote. I'm afraid the economies of the world are very interdependent. We are seemingly heading for recession at an alarming rate.


----------



## Jacob

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -ebbw-vale?


----------



## Jacob

clk230":1outv0gp said:


> .....
> He should have had a plan in place he is our countries leader !


He did have a plan; a firm commitment to prompt immediate implementation of Article 50 if the vote was to leave. He changed his mind straightaway. Unbelievably feeble.


----------



## Inoffthered

Jacob":3v0m5jy2 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?



And your point is what exactly?


----------



## Rhossydd

Jacob":2mk1xdzc said:


> Unbelievably feeble.


Or very smart ? Delaying may just allow the enormity of a decision to leave to really be seen for it was forecast to be, a complete disaster.

We've already seen so many Brexiters frantically back peddling and denying their promises.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ?CMP=fb_gu
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/06/s ... or-brexit/
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/articl ... WySvafrAVZ


----------



## stuartpaul

Jacob":br7zmvwo said:


> clk230":br7zmvwo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> He should have had a plan in place he is our countries leader !
> 
> 
> 
> He did have a plan; a firm commitment to prompt immediate implementation of Article 50 if the vote was to leave. He changed his mind straightaway. Unbelievably feeble.
Click to expand...

But what you don't know is what advice he received to the contrary. I doubt very much indeed if he made the decision on his lonesome.

I heard one financial 'expert' on Friday suggesting that an immediate trigger of 50 would cause even more financial chaos and time was needed to let the markets settle a bit.

Quite what that settlement will be is anyones guess as I note at least 3 cents off the pound in a single morning.


----------



## Jacob

Inoffthered":lp2gkhax said:


> Jacob":lp2gkhax said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is what exactly?
Click to expand...

My point is fairly obvious.

But it has to be said - both the EU and our govt spend on schemes - regeneration or whatnot, which is good. But they are reluctant to spend on people direct i.e. give them proper benefits and a good standard of living when things are difficult. 
It's all very well having a new swimming pool etc but if you are skint it may not improve your life a great deal if you have more pressing problems.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":6upmjmk7 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?



I think if that tells us anything, it is that politics is changing, but one of the major parties isn't changing with it. Labour became the Blairite party of the Metropolitan bien-penseur, more recently the party of a revived Militant Tendency; neither of those has really bothered about the white working classes in the North, just taking them for granted as vote fodder. Those in Scotland have deserted it for the SNP, those in England and Wales are still looking for someone to support, UKIP being the answer for some (though not all).

A more thoughtful analysis from Douglas Carswell; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... leave-ukip


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Paddy Roxburgh":312ex9mh said:


> And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/



Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.


----------



## custard

stuartpaul":ybxziamx said:


> But what you don't know is what advice he received to the contrary. I doubt very much indeed if he made the decision on his lonesome.



Interesting question. 

My guess is he would have taken legal advice from a constitutional lawyer. In which case we now know what that advice may well have been,

Geoffrey Robertson QC, a constitutional lawyer said this morning that because the act which set up the referendum says nothing about its implementation that means it was purely _advisory_, and a new bill must now be enacted in parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. But here's the rub, it's the constitutional right of MP's to make or break legislation and the constitutional right of peers to accept or reject that legislation, so progress depends on passing two further hurdles in which the referendum result per se carries no legal imperative whatsoever. 

So the advice to Cameron would have been that for him to trigger Article 50 on his own, without the backing of the commons and the lords, would have been void and risked a subsequent legal challenge. 

Indeed point one of Article 50 states that, "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union _in accordance with its own constitutional requirements_", and our "constitutional requirements" are crystal clear, sovereignty in this matter rests with parliament and not with the referendum. That appears to be the key fact, the way this country works is that we all vote for representatives to parliament who then vote on our behalf, and a referendum doesn't actually body swerve around that requirement.

So it looks as though the referendum itself doesn't have any actual legal weight, it was if you like an opinion poll, a testing of the water, an opportunity for the people to express their thoughts. But to have the weight of law it's now up to MPs to factor the referendum vote alongside other evidence and their individual consciences regarding what is in the best interest of the UK and then vote accordingly, and then it's for the Lords to accept or reject that vote. So if an MP believed the referendum vote was corrupted by inaccurate campaign promises, or that they thought many people had subsequently changed their minds, or they thought the referendum result was plain wrong for the UK, then they would be perfectly entitled to risk the wrath of their constituency voters and vote remain.

As Geoffrey Robertson QC says, backed up incidentally in a letter to The Times this morning from Charles Flint QC, another leading constitutional lawyer, "this has a long way to run yet".


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":3ctlsbmk said:


> Inoffthered":3ctlsbmk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":3ctlsbmk said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is fairly obvious.
> 
> But it has to be said - both the EU and our govt spend on schemes - regeneration or whatnot, which is good. But they are reluctant to spend on people direct i.e. give them proper benefits and a good standard of living when things are difficult.
> It's all very well having a new swimming pool etc but if you are skint it may not improve your life a great deal if you have more pressing problems.
Click to expand...


Governments of all stripe have spent years spending directly on people by giving them benefits, and eventually realised that all that did is trap them in welfare dependency. Whether IDS was right or wrong with his reforms, and whether or not they have some positive effects, he at least tried to find ways to get people off benefits and into supporting themselves. I'm sure there are a million and one objections to what he did, but at least he didn't just duck the issue like all his predecessors, of all political stripe, did.


----------



## Wuffles

Cheshirechappie":9pkrzy5z said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":9pkrzy5z said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.
Click to expand...

The argument is that it's now been legitimised, read the article, there's more than 4 blokes in Newcastle being talked about. Similar story in the Guardian too if that's more your thing.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":2zv4mmz3 said:


> .....
> Governments of all stripe have spent years spending directly on people by giving them benefits, and eventually realised that all that did is trap them in welfare dependency. ...


One person's "benefit trap" is another persons liberation from poverty and the opportunity to make something more of his life other than merely surviving. Or merely to get through a difficult patch without losing house and home etc.
"Welfare dependency" a very old fashioned notion as by now I think everybody has realised that we are all state "welfare dependent" to a greater or lesser extent, from birth to the grave.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

custard":dcuunag6 said:


> Indeed point one of Article 50 states that, "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union _in accordance with its own constitutional requirements_", and our "constitutional requirements" are crystal clear, sovereignty in this matter rests with parliament and not with the referendum. That appears to be the key fact, the way this country works is that we all vote for representatives to parliament who then vote on our behalf, and a referendum doesn't actually body swerve around that requirement.
> 
> So it looks as though the referendum itself doesn't have any actual legal weight, it was if you like an opinion poll, a testing of the water, an opportunity for the people to express their thoughts. But to have the weight of law it's now up to MPs to factor the referendum vote alongside other evidence and their individual consciences regarding what is in the best interest of the UK and then vote accordingly, and then it's for the Lords to accept or reject that vote. So if an MP believed the referendum vote was corrupted by inaccurate campaign promises, or that they thought many people had subsequently changed their minds, or they thought the referendum result was plain wrong for the UK, then they would be perfectly entitled to risk the wrath of their constituency voters and vote remain.
> 
> As Geoffrey Robertson QC says, backed up incidentally in a letter to The Times this morning from Charles Flint QC, another leading constitutional lawyer, "this has a long way to run yet".



However - against that - is that a very clear majority (small, but nonetheless clear) instructed Parliament that the will of the people was to leave the EU. For Parliament to ignore the will of the people would be pretty well impossible, despite what constitutional lawyers may or may not say. A referendum is a means for the government to seek instruction from the people - it's now got its instruction.

The challenge for politicians is now to find an acceptable compromise that satisfies the instruction from the majority, as far as possible pacifies the large minority that voted for the status quo (including the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland), and extracts the UK from the EU with minimal damage to the economic positions of both. From news reports so far, it does seem that the saner heads in both London and on the continent are looking for ways to do just that.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Cheshirechappie":3pu3n81y said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":3pu3n81y said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.
Click to expand...


Hope you right. That's something I keep finding myself saying to Brexiters, my desire to be right is completely overpowered by my fears for the direction of travel in the nations politics.
I spoke to a neighbour of Jo Cox this morning, her kids play regularly with Jo's and are also friends of my daughters. It was quite clear who she blamed for the murder, in that conversation I was the one saying he was just a lone nutter and you couldn't put the blame on the change in the current political climate, funnily enough she hoped I was right.
Paddy


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Wuffles":34ljbz07 said:


> Cheshirechappie":34ljbz07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paddy Roxburgh":34ljbz07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is that it's now been legitimised, read the article, there's more than 4 blokes in Newcastle being talked about. Similar story in the Guardian too if that's more your thing.
Click to expand...


Racism is not legitimised, except in the deluded heads of a few bigots. The sooner they are reminded that the vast majority do not share their views, the better.

We voted to regain control of governmental responsibility ceded to Brussels, not to demonise people.

By the way, I'm more Telegraph than Guardian, but I'll read thoughtful analysis wherever it's printed.


----------



## RogerS

Inoffthered":24d5frk8 said:


> Jacob":24d5frk8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is what exactly?
Click to expand...


Haven't you cottoned on yet? Jacob just loves quoting meaningless links to newspaper articles !!


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":2kx0ho4p said:


> Cheshirechappie":2kx0ho4p said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> Governments of all stripe have spent years spending directly on people by giving them benefits, and eventually realised that all that did is trap them in welfare dependency. ...
> 
> 
> 
> One person's "benefit trap" is another persons liberation from poverty and the opportunity to make something more of his life other than merely surviving. Or merely to get through a difficult patch without losing house and home etc.
> "Welfare dependency" a very old fashioned notion as by now I think everybody has realised that we are all state "welfare dependent" to a greater or lesser extent, from birth to the grave.
Click to expand...



Oh Jacob...I just love reading your posts from the other side of reality :lol:


----------



## RogerS

MIGNAL":14f2sorr said:


> A Brexit plan wouldn't have helped much. It was pretty obvious that there was going to be carnage after an out vote. I'm afraid the economies of the world are very interdependent. We are seemingly heading for recession at an alarming rate.



But at least a plan of some sort would help! Gove,Johnson and Farage are very quiet. I know that it is the Govt of the day that has to implement Article 50 etc but if those three Brexiteers actually had a plan to offer the Govt for consideration then that would be something. As it is they remind me of Blair after the Iraq War...'OK, chaps, we zapped Saddam. What do you mean 'what's next'? What do you mean 'where's the plan'?"


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The Brexiteers aren't in a position to do much really, though, are they? Just because they won their side of the referendum they don't move straight into government - it's a referendum, not a coup. Realistically there should be an election, although it would be a total shambles as things stand atm.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

It's government's job to govern. Just because it got a different instruction to the one it was complacently expecting from the referendum doesn't absolve them of responsibility to govern. Actually, whilst it is in a partial state of flux since the PM has stated his intention to resign when a new leader is in chosen, government is still intact and functional. The opposition isn't, but that's a separate issue.


----------



## Wuffles

Cheshirechappie":ydakd4ra said:


> Racism is not legitimised, except in the deluded heads of a few bigots. The sooner they are reminded that the vast majority do not share their views, the better.
> 
> We voted to regain control of governmental responsibility ceded to Brussels, not to demonise people.


Yes, *you* may have, but not everyone did. My money is this charmer doesn't give a monkeys about Brussels.







Through a process of filtration we have a "leavers" bucket filled with those with right-minded reasoning for leaving such as yourself (provided you're being honest here) and those like our friend above or any of the other deluded bigots - of which there are a lot more than you think. Flip side is the other bucket contains liberals and lefties and people with a seriously vested interest in the EU too, also not great company.

I think, and this is difficult to explain, that the "remainiacs" kind of found themselves struggling to possibly vote with some of the nasty things that ended up being put in your bucket. No matter how much sense getting rid of the Brussels nonsense made, it would have left a nasty taste.

In this thread we've had mention of "potato worriers", "coloureds" all sort of 1970s throwbacks, so no, it's not all been pleasant, will it get any better? We'll just have to see how your bucket reacts to the slime that's in there with you.

We'll no doubt see Farage go one further and really go to town on the foreigners in his next campaign, pick up all the bigots, racists and anti-immigration crowd spilling out of the leave bucket, because they'll feel really let down by this last referendum and the actual real-life result.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":1x51etqa said:


> It's government's job to govern. Just because it got a different instruction to the one it was complacently expecting from the referendum doesn't absolve them of responsibility to govern. Actually, whilst it is in a partial state of flux since the PM has stated his intention to resign when a new leader is in chosen, government is still intact and functional. The opposition isn't, but that's a separate issue.


The opposition is looking more intact than the govt at the moment, now we have dumped the defectors!
This is interesting.
"As some of the core claims made by the leave campaign unravel, Parliament might decide that the case for Brexit has not been made – or was gained under a false prospectus. As Edmund Burke taught us, ours is a representative, not a direct, democracy."

I think we could have a general election in the offing!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

The 'Carry On' team are re-forming to make a new film, 'Carry On Governing'.

Coming soon to a multiplex near you, and available through Netflix for free (oh, OK, we'll pay you...)

Starring;

Sid James as Nigel Farage
Kenneth Williams as George Osborne
Hattie Jacques as Angela Merkel and Theresa May
A Nondescript Ball of Wool as Jeremy Corbin
Harry Secombe as Tom Watson
Peter Cushing as Donald Tusk
Boris Johnson as Himself
Jimmy Crankie as Bravetart
33 million Extras as The Voters


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Wuffles - are you trying to say that 17 million people who voted to leave the EU are all racist, xenophobic bigots? Or are you trying to make a big issue out of a few nasty nutcases?


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Wuffles, What was the "potato worriers" comment, and what does it mean? Sounds like it could be some sort of anti Irish slur, if so I'd like to say I'm much more amused than offended.
As for the company, my Dad seemed to be pro Brexit with every comment but was always voting remain. I asked him why and it was because of the company he'd be keeping on the Brexit side, he thinks the EU is flawed and what he voted for in the 70s was the EEC not the EU, but he just couldn't stand next to Farage. Weirdly. now he's applying for an Irish passport so he can remain in the EU, actually I'm thinking of doing the same
Paddy


----------



## Max Power

Jacob":3f3jn5yg said:


> It seems that where there is least immigration there is most unease. Protests in Newcastle on Tyne - no immigrants go there anyway unless they are utterly desperate! They go to the mid east because there is work which the local population cannot handle.


hi



In case you are wondering this is one of Newcastles MPs.
But you probably already knew that and we're talking out of as usual


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Cheshirechappie":3prsme08 said:


> Wuffles - are you trying to say that 17 million people who voted to leave the EU are all racist, xenophobic bigots? Or are you trying to make a big issue out of a few nasty nutcases?


 Nobody's saying that all Brexiters are racist xenophobes, just that racism and xenophobia are on the rise (see UKIP for details) and this has been a big boost for them, indeed even some of the leading Brexiters have been a bit disturbed by this like Baroness Warsi.


----------



## dexter

I don't recall any mention of the constitutional issues that would have to be faced if the vote was to leave being made by either side during the campaigning. 
I was at my dentist's this morning here in the middle of rural France, we ended talking about the decision to leave the EU and his first comment was, "if you ever leave that is. This is only the start and it's a very long swim to America."
He then went on about the main players, "your Cameron and Johnson," ( he just slowly shook his head), "and Farage he is a dangerous man" we both agreed the whole affair was turning into a fiasco and I paid him 40 euros for my filling.


----------



## Wuffles

Cheshirechappie":33zscgif said:


> Wuffles - are you trying to say that 17 million people who voted to leave the EU are all racist, xenophobic bigots? Or are you trying to make a big issue out of a few nasty nutcases?


I thought I made it quite clear. Why not try reading it?

The bit about leavers being unfortunately dumped into the leavers bucket with all sorts of nasty things would indicate that I'm not in any way suggesting that, I honestly don't know how that's what you figured out from it either. Or are you just being argumentative about the few nasty nutcases in the leavers camp?



Paddy Roxburgh":33zscgif said:


> Wuffles, What was the "potato worriers" comment, and what does it mean? Sounds like it could be some sort of anti Irish slur, if so I'd like to say I'm much more amused than offended.


Glad you are, not sure everyone would be. It was towards Bob Geldof when he challenged Farage on the Thames, can't recall who said it, but it was someone on here - unless it was deleted.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jean-Claude Juncker now facing calls to resign, the calls coming from several European governments.

http://order-order.com/2016/06/27/junck ... up-begins/

*rubs hands* - pass the popcorn. This IS fun!


----------



## Max Power

I'm sure much worse could be said about Geldof , he's hardly the epitome of an upstanding pillar of the community :roll:
He would be better off concentrating his efforts on his family


----------



## Wuffles

Max Power":2fp5zdey said:


> I'm sure much worse could be said about Geldof , he's hardly the epitome of an upstanding pillar of the community :roll:
> He would be better off concentrating his efforts on his family


Wow.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Paddy Roxburgh":dfi56gqh said:


> Wuffles, What was the "potato worriers" comment, and what does it mean? Sounds like it could be some sort of anti Irish slur, if so I'd like to say I'm much more amused than offended.


Glad you are, not sure everyone would be. It was towards Bob Geldof when he challenged Farage on the Thames, can't recall who said it, but it was someone on here - unless it was deleted.[/quote]

I'm amused by their stupidity, not their wit


----------



## Terry - Somerset

> I think we could have a general election in the offing!



Why would the Tories want to call an election:

- they may lose the fairly small majority at present
- even the Remain camp in the Tory party know that in supporting an election, they could be turkeys voting for christmas
- Labour currently in chaos would not support an imminent election
- If Brexit force an election (Boris elected as PM) they could not be sure of a Leave supporting majority amongst MPs



If 
-


----------



## RogerS

phil.p":7u5fw8c4 said:


> The Brexiteers aren't in a position to do much really, though, are they? Just because they won their side of the referendum they don't move straight into government - it's a referendum, not a coup. Realistically there should be an election, although it would be a total shambles as things stand atm.



That's not true. It was a vote between two opposing viewpoints. To gee people up into voting Leave and then turn round and shrug your shoulders is unforgivable.


----------



## RogerS

Terry - Somerset":2y90kwyt said:


> I think we could have a general election in the offing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Tories want to call an election:
> 
> - they may lose the fairly small majority at present True
> - even the Remain camp in the Tory party know that in supporting an election, they could be turkeys voting for christmas Possibly
> - Labour currently in chaos would not support an imminent election They have no say whether or not there is a general election
> - If Brexit force an election (Boris elected as PM) they could not be sure of a Leave supporting majority amongst MPs Brexit is not a political party and cannot force an election.
> 
> 
> 
> If
> -
Click to expand...


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":1ops1opg said:


> Cheshirechappie":1ops1opg said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's government's job to govern. Just because it got a different instruction to the one it was complacently expecting from the referendum doesn't absolve them of responsibility to govern. Actually, whilst it is in a partial state of flux since the PM has stated his intention to resign when a new leader is in chosen, government is still intact and functional. The opposition isn't, but that's a separate issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The opposition is looking more intact than the govt at the moment, now we have dumped the defectors!
> ....
Click to expand...



Jacob, you owe me a new keyboard! I spat my coffee out laughing so much when I read this, it was such a hoot. Labour is in disarray. It is like the Monty Python parrot. It is no more. It has gone to meet its maker.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

RogerS":3oucpemo said:


> phil.p":3oucpemo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Brexiteers aren't in a position to do much really, though, are they? Just because they won their side of the referendum they don't move straight into government - it's a referendum, not a coup. Realistically there should be an election, although it would be a total shambles as things stand atm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. It was a vote between two opposing viewpoints. To gee people up into voting Leave and then turn round and shrug your shoulders is unforgivable.
Click to expand...


But what exactly does anyone think they can do? As I said - it wasn't a coup, you can't be expecting them to seize power, exactly. They can only leave it to the government, surely?


----------



## doctor Bob

Paddy Roxburgh":27t0ztmm said:


> indeed even some of the leading Brexiters have been a bit disturbed by this like Baroness Warsi.



or you could even say she thought she was going to damage her reputation by being on the losing side and switched........


----------



## custard

Cheshirechappie":lt4zbdtd said:


> custard":lt4zbdtd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed point one of Article 50 states that, "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union _in accordance with its own constitutional requirements_", and our "constitutional requirements" are crystal clear, sovereignty in this matter rests with parliament and not with the referendum. That appears to be the key fact, the way this country works is that we all vote for representatives to parliament who then vote on our behalf, and a referendum doesn't actually body swerve around that requirement.
> 
> So it looks as though the referendum itself doesn't have any actual legal weight, it was if you like an opinion poll, a testing of the water, an opportunity for the people to express their thoughts. But to have the weight of law it's now up to MPs to factor the referendum vote alongside other evidence and their individual consciences regarding what is in the best interest of the UK and then vote accordingly, and then it's for the Lords to accept or reject that vote. So if an MP believed the referendum vote was corrupted by inaccurate campaign promises, or that they thought many people had subsequently changed their minds, or they thought the referendum result was plain wrong for the UK, then they would be perfectly entitled to risk the wrath of their constituency voters and vote remain.
> 
> As Geoffrey Robertson QC says, backed up incidentally in a letter to The Times this morning from Charles Flint QC, another leading constitutional lawyer, "this has a long way to run yet".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However - against that - is that a very clear majority (small, but nonetheless clear) instructed Parliament that the will of the people was to leave the EU. *For Parliament to ignore the will of the people would be pretty well impossible*, despite what constitutional lawyers may or may not say. A referendum is a means for the government to seek instruction from the people - it's now got its instruction.
> 
> The challenge for politicians is now to find an acceptable compromise that satisfies the instruction from the majority, as far as possible pacifies the large minority that voted for the status quo (including the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland), and extracts the UK from the EU with minimal damage to the economic positions of both. From news reports so far, it does seem that the saner heads in both London and on the continent are looking for ways to do just that.
Click to expand...


I think it's unlikely, but it's far from impossible or even improbable.

There are plenty of examples where MP's vote against the general run of public opinion, the death penalty is one (every poll I've ever seen shows a majority of British voters are pro hanging), the question of Northern Ireland during the troubles was another (again, all the polls were crystal clear, hand Northern Ireland back to Eire and bring the troops home). And in the eyes of the law a referendum is nothing more than a big opinion poll.

The second thing is that every politician is told they have to balance three frequently conflicted positions when they vote; their conscience, their constituency, and their party. No mention on this list of a referendum result or the _national_ will, and I don't see how it trumps the other three.

I haven't done the parliamentary maths but you could have a situation where many Labour MP's say the position of my party was remain, so that's how I'll vote. We already know that's the instruction that will be handed down by the Lib Dem whips (or the "recommendation" in an open vote). Then there's all the Scottish and Northern Ireland MP's, presumably they'll also vote remain. And what about MP's from say London or Brighton or central Manchester constituencies, which were in favour of remain? Every chance they'll vote remain too. Then you've got MP's who are facing retirement, deselection, or a simple wipe out in the next election; we know that about two thirds of parliamentary MP's were in favour of remain going into this, so what's to stop them exiting their parliamentary careers on a principled high by voting their conscience?

And that's just the Commons. Beyond that there's the Lords to consider, where Lib Dems are rather more numerous and where they've already demonstrated in the last year their willingness to go against a democratically supported vote from the Commons.

Furthermore, all these factors will have a real bearing on the exit negotiations, watering it down and down, rowing back from promise after promise, in order to head off any risk of a parliamentary revolt.

Like I say, on balance it's unlikely that the referendum will be disregarded. But it's far from impossible and there's absolutely no legal reason why it has to be upheld.


----------



## RogerS

phil.p":2q5qypd1 said:


> RogerS":2q5qypd1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":2q5qypd1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Brexiteers aren't in a position to do much really, though, are they? Just because they won their side of the referendum they don't move straight into government - it's a referendum, not a coup. Realistically there should be an election, although it would be a total shambles as things stand atm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. It was a vote between two opposing viewpoints. To gee people up into voting Leave and then turn round and shrug your shoulders is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what exactly does anyone think they can do? As I said - it wasn't a coup, you can't be expecting them to seize power, exactly. They can only leave it to the government, surely?
Click to expand...


They could have prepared a plan as to how they saw things pan out, offered it to the Govt. After all, the Brexiters were the ones clamouring for us to leave. They shouldn't just sit back and wash their hands...which is what they are doing.


----------



## RogerS

custard":1l96ppp3 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1l96ppp3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> custard":1l96ppp3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed point one of Article 50 states that, "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union _in accordance with its own constitutional requirements_", and our "constitutional requirements" are crystal clear, sovereignty in this matter rests with parliament and not with the referendum. That appears to be the key fact, the way this country works is that we all vote for representatives to parliament who then vote on our behalf, and a referendum doesn't actually body swerve around that requirement.
> 
> So it looks as though the referendum itself doesn't have any actual legal weight, it was if you like an opinion poll, a testing of the water, an opportunity for the people to express their thoughts. But to have the weight of law it's now up to MPs to factor the referendum vote alongside other evidence and their individual consciences regarding what is in the best interest of the UK and then vote accordingly, and then it's for the Lords to accept or reject that vote. So if an MP believed the referendum vote was corrupted by inaccurate campaign promises, or that they thought many people had subsequently changed their minds, or they thought the referendum result was plain wrong for the UK, then they would be perfectly entitled to risk the wrath of their constituency voters and vote remain.
> 
> As Geoffrey Robertson QC says, backed up incidentally in a letter to The Times this morning from Charles Flint QC, another leading constitutional lawyer, "this has a long way to run yet".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However - against that - is that a very clear majority (small, but nonetheless clear) instructed Parliament that the will of the people was to leave the EU. *For Parliament to ignore the will of the people would be pretty well impossible*, despite what constitutional lawyers may or may not say. A referendum is a means for the government to seek instruction from the people - it's now got its instruction.
> 
> The challenge for politicians is now to find an acceptable compromise that satisfies the instruction from the majority, as far as possible pacifies the large minority that voted for the status quo (including the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland), and extracts the UK from the EU with minimal damage to the economic positions of both. From news reports so far, it does seem that the saner heads in both London and on the continent are looking for ways to do just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's unlikely, but it's far from impossible or even improbable.
> 
> There are plenty of examples where MP's vote against the general run of public opinion, the death penalty is one (every poll I've ever seen shows a majority of British voters are pro hanging YouGov...45 to 39 in favour...yes, a majority but hardly a large one), the question of Northern Ireland during the troubles was another (again, all the polls were crystal clear, Which polls ? As far as NI is concerned, in Sept 2015, 66% (of both Catholics and Protestants) wanted to stay in the UKhand Northern Ireland back to Eire and bring the troops home). And in the eyes of the law a referendum is nothing more than a big opinion poll.
> 
> ........
Click to expand...


----------



## stuartpaul

RogerS":2uv129ao said:


> phil.p":2uv129ao said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Brexiteers aren't in a position to do much really, though, are they? Just because they won their side of the referendum they don't move straight into government - it's a referendum, not a coup. Realistically there should be an election, although it would be a total shambles as things stand atm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. It was a vote between two opposing viewpoints. To gee people up into voting Leave and then turn round and shrug your shoulders is unforgivable.
Click to expand...

Roger, - think you'll find the words 'politics' and 'manefesto' have some bearing on the situation!


----------



## RogerS

stuartpaul":i50e7ixf said:


> RogerS":i50e7ixf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":i50e7ixf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Brexiteers aren't in a position to do much really, though, are they? Just because they won their side of the referendum they don't move straight into government - it's a referendum, not a coup. Realistically there should be an election, although it would be a total shambles as things stand atm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. It was a vote between two opposing viewpoints. To gee people up into voting Leave and then turn round and shrug your shoulders is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roger, - think you'll find the words 'politics' and 'manefesto' have some bearing on the situation!
Click to expand...


Manifesto...are you really trying to say that what the Leave camp were saying was not effectively a manifesto? If it wasn't then what exactly were they proposing...which, after all, is what a manifesto is.


----------



## Roughcut

It's a New World Order fellas: :shock:


----------



## stuartpaul

RogerS":mnpb28hg said:


> stuartpaul":mnpb28hg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":mnpb28hg said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. It was a vote between two opposing viewpoints. To gee people up into voting Leave and then turn round and shrug your shoulders is unforgivable.
> 
> 
> 
> Roger, - think you'll find the words 'politics' and 'manefesto' have some bearing on the situation!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manifesto...are you really trying to say that what the Leave camp were saying was not effectively a manifesto? If it wasn't then what exactly were they proposing...which, after all, is what a manifesto is.
Click to expand...

Sorry Roger, - there should be an irony icon on this thread!

Of course it was a 'manifesto', - the problem is they were absolutely not in a position to deliver any of it as the leave campaign (and the remain come to that) had no power to do so. I suspect a number of voters have effectively been conned into voting for something that won't/can't be delivered against.

It would be rather nice if £350 million a week would be spent on the NHS but somehow I don't think it will together with the 'promise' to deliver against all current EU grants/spending.

I'm afraid the old 'how can you tell when a politician is lying' comes to the fore more so now than it ever has!


----------



## Noel

England is in such a mess.
Half time and one down.

I shouted 'GO ON MY SON' when Iceland scored & the bloke beside me says 'it was actually Sigthorśson that scored"...


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Half time???????? Christ! Not another hundred pages!


----------



## CHJ

stuartpaul":f7dbv6m8 said:


> ...It would be rather nice if £350 million a week would be spent on the NHS but somehow I don't think it will together with the 'promise' to deliver against all current EU grants/spending.....



At what point does national expenditure percentage on Health and Welfare just become unsustainable.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/piech ... 5_UK_total







And Expenditure 2016


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

The issue with the NHS is a complex one because clinical outcomes are pretty much always (generically speaking) improved with additional investment. The NHS could quite happily consume all public spending and still "need" more because of the above principle. It simply expands in it's quality and success of outcomes, proportional to the spending. The far more difficult question is how much is enough?

To bring that down to earth, my Missus had an anti cancer drug for 18 months that cost £1500 per jab and she had it every 3 weeks for that period. It's almost certainly (in combination with chemo therapy and surgery) saved her life. But wow, what a cost. I reckon she's cost our local acute hospital many tens of thousands all told. Boy am I glad of that funding decision. But where do you stop? What's ethical for one saved life versus another? My son has a bone disease and he's being treated at RNOH Stanmore. He gets treated because he qualifies but a recent spinal problem patient's family had to raise £40K to have the surgery because the NHS ruled his procedure too risky and therefore not "worthy". With additional funding, the quality envelope would probably net him in!

So, funding the NHS is a tightrope of immense balancing, ethics and political juggling and I for one don't envy anyone who has to make those calls. As an aside, from recent personal experience with my own family, I think despite the stresses and strains they clearly suffer, they are off the chart superb in my opinion. Wonderful, dedicated, decent human beings that do an amazing job in staggeringly difficult circumstances in many cases (A&E in particular).


----------



## finneyb

Brexit leaders walking back on promises. ie they lied, while being paid by public funds. If you voted Leave on the basis of NHS funding or immigration they bought your vote with your money. We need a judicial review and then sanctions against those that lied - time to get some honesty into politics. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... -promises/

Brian


----------



## finneyb

Random Orbital Bob":2dcmh5ak said:


> The issue with the NHS is a complex one because clinical outcomes are pretty much always (generically speaking) improved with additional investment. The NHS could quite happily consume all public spending and still "need" more because of the above principle. It simply expands in it's quality and success of outcomes, proportional to the spending. The far more difficult question is how much is enough?
> 
> To bring that down to earth, my Missus had an anti cancer drug for 18 months that cost £1500 per jab and she had it every 3 weeks for that period. It's almost certainly (in combination with chemo therapy and surgery) saved her life. But wow, what a cost. I reckon she's cost our local acute hospital many tens of thousands all told. Boy am I glad of that funding decision. But where do you stop? What's ethical for one saved life versus another? My son has a bone disease and he's being treated at RNOH Stanmore. He gets treated because he qualifies but a recent spinal problem patient's family had to raise £40K to have the surgery because the NHS ruled his procedure too risky and therefore not "worthy". With additional funding, the quality envelope would probably net him in!
> 
> So, funding the NHS is a tightrope of immense balancing, ethics and political juggling and I for one don't envy anyone who has to make those calls. As an aside, from recent personal experience with my own family, I think despite the stresses and strains they clearly suffer, they are off the chart superb in my opinion. Wonderful, dedicated, decent human beings that do an amazing job in staggeringly difficult circumstances in many cases (A&E in particular).



Bob,

Glad to hear of the success with your wife & son. 

Don't forget the current budget for the NHS divided by the population of England equates to £2,000 per head per annum ie assuming your son lives at home with you and is an only child ie there is three of you in the household. Your household is contributing the equivalent of £6,000 one way or another each and every year, regardless of whether you use the NHS that year or not. 

Don't get me wrong the NHS is the best system of funding by far - but it is not free by any means to you or me. 
I've been involved with the NHS for 30 years in voluntary roles - in my experience if you can make a case for specific treatment they do their very best to fund, one way or another, if the case stands up to scrutiny.

Brian


----------



## Noel

England out of Europe twice in 4 days.


----------



## RobinBHM

Noel":3qoogkq7 said:


> England out of Europe twice in 4 days.



Didnt we do well =D>


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Like what was said after the England v Australia on Saturday - now two continents hate us! :lol:


----------



## iNewbie

Random Orbital Bob":25a0ofvc said:


> My son has a bone disease and he's being treated at RNOH Stanmore.



Sorry to hear that, Bob - all the best to him. 

Funny Hospital that. The X-ray dept there is on such a gradient its almost scary wheeling someone in a wheelchair. Its something I'll never forget.


----------



## Inoffthered

RobinBHM":3j74umjd said:


> Noel":3j74umjd said:
> 
> 
> 
> England out of Europe twice in 4 days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt we do well =D>
Click to expand...



Who is going to start a petition thread asking for the game to be replayed?


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

Lets not forget America!! Hollywood always cast a Brit as the villain (because it reflects national expectation).....and then claim they broke the enigma code


----------



## Rhossydd

finneyb":1lrarzd1 said:


> Don't forget the current budget for the NHS divided by the population of England equates to £2,000 per head per annum ie assuming your son lives at home with you and is an only child ie there is three of you in the household. Your household is contributing the equivalent of £6,000 one way or another each and every year, regardless of whether you use the NHS that year or not.


This is the sort of misleading statistic that does no one any favours in understanding how the NHS is funded.
It's not a simple charge on each individual, the money comes from _overall_ tax and duty revenues. So someone not paying any income tax will only be making a tiny contribution from the small amounts of tax and duty levied on goods and services they buy. On the other hand a rich tourist from abroad might be contributing much more from their spending in UK on holiday and never benefit from it all. Those people earning large amounts, paying big tax bills and spending a lot in the UK will be contributing very, very much more. Also big businesses contribute from taxes like corporation tax and receive no benefit at all from the NHS.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

iNewbie":2l1s0xri said:


> Random Orbital Bob":2l1s0xri said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son has a bone disease and he's being treated at RNOH Stanmore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that, Bob - all the best to him.
> 
> Funny Hospital that. The X-ray dept there is on such a gradient its almost scary wheeling someone in a wheelchair. Its something I'll never forget.
Click to expand...


You know that's one of the things I love about not just Stanmore, but this country. RNOH Stanmore (for those of you who don't know it) has the very epicentre of the hospital built on a hill, a pretty steep hill too. There's a central corridor that runs right the way down this hill and off that corridor are:

All the operating theatres, X-ray, imagery and scanning. In other words, most of the sharp end of the activity that's carried out diagnostically and in terms of treatment away from the wards. Remember, its the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital...that's bones to you and me. What do you get with bone patients? Crutches and wheelchairs....on a hill....inside the hospital  It's an absolute classic. Reminds me of a Doctor Who set from the Brigadier Lethbridge Stuart and Jon Pertwee days.

But despite the appalling facilities they have, it's am amazing hospital that performs close to miracle cures on all manner of seriously deformed bone problems...because the people are wonderfully eccentric and just...care. They don't care about shiny, they make do and mend all the time and focus on the patients. It's a truly wonderful place. But if you showed Donald Trump round it, he'd have it condemned in a blink, because it's not shiny! (That may have been slightly unfair but I don't really care)


----------



## AJB Temple

Indeed. I had cause to take my wife to Stanmore for a serious issue a few years ago. We were shocked at the state of the place, which looked like it was cobbled together from temporary buildings about 50 years ago, but the staff were simply fantastic and very highly skilled.


----------



## custard

Random Orbital Bob":285cvy3b said:


> As an aside, from recent personal experience with my own family, I think despite the stresses and strains they clearly suffer, they are off the chart superb in my opinion. Wonderful, dedicated, decent human beings that do an amazing job in staggeringly difficult circumstances in many cases (A&E in particular).



+1 

Hope your family's health continues to bloom.


----------



## Jacob

Noel":f25dzgfm said:


> England is in such a mess.
> Half time and one down.
> 
> I shouted 'GO ON MY SON' when Iceland scored & the bloke beside me says 'it was actually Sigthorśson that scored"...


Is it the tennis season again? Must get my bat out.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Yes. It's been in your belfry for far to long.


----------



## n0legs

98 bottles of beer on the wall, 98 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around, 97 bottles of beer on the wall.


----------



## BearTricks

Jacob":c6dmn2zh said:


> clk230":c6dmn2zh said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> He should have had a plan in place he is our countries leader !
> 
> 
> 
> He did have a plan; a firm commitment to prompt immediate implementation of Article 50 if the vote was to leave. He changed his mind straightaway. Unbelievably feeble.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure he did. If I've come out of this with any respect for anyone it's probably Cameron for calling Boris and Gove's bluff and putting the onus on them to make the next move, when they clearly had no plan and no idea. The issue is that the EU then turned around and called Cameron's bluff to make an example out of us all for putting political bickering before any sensible economic argument.



Cheshirechappie":c6dmn2zh said:


> By the way, I'm more Telegraph than Guardian, but I'll read thoughtful analysis wherever it's printed.



Well thank God there's someone still around who's prepared to actually read something instead of just looking at the url and making a snarky comment based on whoever published it.


----------



## BearTricks

Random Orbital Bob":2bzgifvb said:


> iNewbie":2bzgifvb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Random Orbital Bob":2bzgifvb said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son has a bone disease and he's being treated at RNOH Stanmore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that, Bob - all the best to him.
> 
> Funny Hospital that. The X-ray dept there is on such a gradient its almost scary wheeling someone in a wheelchair. Its something I'll never forget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's one of the things I love about not just Stanmore, but this country. RNOH Stanmore (for those of you who don't know it) has the very epicentre of the hospital built on a hill, a pretty steep hill too. There's a central corridor that runs right the way down this hill and off that corridor are:
> 
> All the operating theatres, X-ray, imagery and scanning. In other words, most of the sharp end of the activity that's carried out diagnostically and in terms of treatment away from the wards. Remember, its the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital...that's bones to you and me. What do you get with bone patients? Crutches and wheelchairs....on a hill....inside the hospital  It's an absolute classic. Reminds me of a Doctor Who set from the Brigadier Lethbridge Stuart and Jon Pertwee days.
> 
> But despite the appalling facilities they have, it's am amazing hospital that performs close to miracle cures on all manner of seriously deformed bone problems...because the people are wonderfully eccentric and just...care. They don't care about shiny, they make do and mend all the time and focus on the patients. It's a truly wonderful place. But if you showed Donald Trump round it, he'd have it condemned in a blink, because it's not shiny! (That may have been slightly unfair but I don't really care)
Click to expand...


My girlfriend went for an MRI scan, or whichever one creates a huge magnetic field. One of the nurses told her that, when they installed it, someone forgot to realise that the staff bicycle parking was right on the other side of the wall, and they ended up with a few mangled bikes at the end of the first day. Not sure how much scientific sense that makes, but I hope it's true.


----------



## rafezetter

Noel":2o0z6xqw said:


> England out of Europe twice in 4 days.



I have to say noel, that's genius - made me laugh anyway


----------



## DiscoStu

What is it with Hospitals and hills? QA in Portsmouth is built on a steep hill (it's all level inside though) and when it snows or gets icy the A&E ambulances can't get to it. I'm a member of Hampshire Police Resilience and when it's bad (generally floods or snow) we get tasked with getting staff and resources where they need to be and that includes towing the ambulances up the hill into A&E 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cheshirechappie

I've long thought that HS2 was a project foisted on us by the EU, though I've never found any evidence to back that up. The whole idea of a high-speed line only set up to carry passengers is just ludicrous in economic terms - one thing railways are good at is moving bulk freight, and it's always been where their main revenues originate. I could see no possible way in which a passenger-only high capital cost high-speed railway could be anywhere near profitable, or even cover it's costs. In the UK, there are far better options for increasing rail system capacity at far lower cost, and giving a far more flexible system.

It seems it's now to be delayed, possibly as a first step to canning the whole shebang, which would be wise. Maybe it's the first change in government policy following the Brexit vote - or maybe it's just a pragmatic delay until economic turbulence calms and public finances and more predictable. We will have to wait and see.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... ncial-str/


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":2oym7osn said:


> I've long thought that HS2 was a project foisted on us by the EU, though I've never found any evidence to back that up. .....


Then why think it, still less say it? 

Otherwise I agree.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I have read somewhere long ago that the intention was to have fast links between far outposts of the EU, and the intention was to extend it to Scotland. In an age when so much business is done on line and people are people are being encouraged to work from home it always made little sense to me. If it cut an eight hour trip to three or something like that it might have been defensible, but what was it to cut - 20mins or something like that? In any case all it would succeed in doing would be to turn a few more villages and small towns into dormitories for London. It would be obsolete before it was completed anyway.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":2rhtjysb said:


> Cheshirechappie":2rhtjysb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've long thought that HS2 was a project foisted on us by the EU, though I've never found any evidence to back that up. .....
> 
> 
> 
> Then why think it, still less say it?
> 
> Otherwise I agree.
Click to expand...


That's a very negative comment, Jacob. Nothing wrong with blue-sky thinking. After all, you are a past master at that. 

By raising the idea, CC might find that someone else has had similar thoughts and actually found some evidence.

Apart from that, I agree !

A quick Google came up with this http://andrewchapman.org.uk/archive/AHC ... -02-15.pdf and seems to give some credibility to what Phil P posted and also CC.

And another one here that seems to confirm the EU's involvement - if tangential. http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2015-088-hs ... t-our-gov/


----------



## BearTricks

Osbourne has announced that taxes will go up.

Not sure if it's genuine, his way of saying "look what Boris and his mates made me do", or a way to raise public support for more negotiations.


----------



## Wuffles

BearTricks":3fem3jd8 said:


> Osbourne has announced that taxes will go up.
> 
> Not sure if it's genuine, his way of saying "look what Boris and his mates made me do", or a way to raise public support for more negotiations.


Fair point or sour grapes from Osborne - "It was not the responsibility of those who wanted to remain in the EU to explain what plan we would follow if we voted to quit the EU."


----------



## Jake

GDP was not recovering as well as his projections in any case and is taking a big setback as a result of the vote. So the govt either has to allow for fiscal expansion (not a popular option within the Tory party, although that doesn't mean it doesnt happen, or something has to give in tax or spending. This may not be helped by S&P's predictable downgrade, although flight to quality in the markets is helping counteract that.


----------



## Noel

Wasn't HS2 a government/Dept of Transport idea? Supported by public/private money. They then applied to one of the EU infrastructure funds for further finance, which I think they got.


----------



## RogerS

Noel":39tq6y58 said:


> Wasn't HS2 a government/Dept of Transport idea? Supported by public/private money. They then applied to one of the EU infrastructure funds for further finance, which I think they got.



Chicken or egg ? From one of my links.

_A Trans-European Railway (TEN-R)

The High Speed Rail line was defined by EU Council Directive 96/48/EC as far back as 23 July 1996. A Trans-European Union Railway (TEN-R) was intended to cover the whole of the EU and HS2 was the main part of its High Speed design in Britain as was an ‘HS3’._


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":1qhwsbpm said:


> I have read somewhere long ago that the intention was to have fast links between far outposts of the EU, and the intention was to extend it to Scotland. In an age when so much business is done on line and people are people are being encouraged to work from home it always made little sense to me. If it cut an eight hour trip to three or something like that it might have been defensible, but what was it to cut - 20mins or something like that? In any case all it would succeed in doing would be to turn a few more villages and small towns into dormitories for London. It would be obsolete before it was completed anyway.


Right . So it might have been a good idea but has been superseded by the net etc.


----------



## stuartpaul

Wuffles":2psbnusr said:


> BearTricks":2psbnusr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne has announced that taxes will go up.
> 
> Not sure if it's genuine, his way of saying "look what Boris and his mates made me do", or a way to raise public support for more negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point or sour grapes from Osborne - "It was not the responsibility of those who wanted to remain in the EU to explain what plan we would follow if we voted to quit the EU."
Click to expand...

Before taxes go up he's going to need to demonstrate quite clearly why there's a need otherwise it just becomes a punishment for all.

I'd want to see concrete, independent reasoning why it's necessary.

As far as I'm concerned the NHS is nothing short of fantastic but is and will continue to be a money pit. Older population, advances in medicine, adverts telling me to use it if I suspect x, y or z. Long may it prosper.


----------



## Wuffles

stuartpaul":jrwlhioj said:


> Wuffles":jrwlhioj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BearTricks":jrwlhioj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne has announced that taxes will go up.
> 
> Not sure if it's genuine, his way of saying "look what Boris and his mates made me do", or a way to raise public support for more negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point or sour grapes from Osborne - "It was not the responsibility of those who wanted to remain in the EU to explain what plan we would follow if we voted to quit the EU."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before taxes go up he's going to need to demonstrate quite clearly why there's a need otherwise it just becomes a punishment for all.
> 
> I'd want to see concrete, independent reasoning why it's necessary.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned the NHS is nothing short of fantastic but is and will continue to be a money pit. Older population, advances in medicine, adverts telling me to use it if I suspect x, y or z. Long may it prosper.
Click to expand...

He has already said even though there's a need for an emergency budget, it won't be by him, it'll be under the next PM.


----------



## MIGNAL

Jacob":3pwoj3fa said:


> Cheshirechappie":3pwoj3fa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've long thought that HS2 was a project foisted on us by the EU, though I've never found any evidence to back that up. .....
> 
> 
> 
> Then why think it, still less say it?
> 
> Otherwise I agree.
Click to expand...


I like this quote from Banksy:

“You're mind is working at its best when you're being paranoid. You explore every avenue and possibility of your situation
at high speed with total clarity.”  
The Brexit lot seem to do this kind of thing in huge doses. Probably spend too much time on certain Youtube videos.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jacob":2ci3wm2y said:


> phil.p":2ci3wm2y said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read somewhere long ago that the intention was to have fast links between far outposts of the EU, and the intention was to extend it to Scotland. In an age when so much business is done on line and people are people are being encouraged to work from home it always made little sense to me. If it cut an eight hour trip to three or something like that it might have been defensible, but what was it to cut - 20mins or something like that? In any case all it would succeed in doing would be to turn a few more villages and small towns into dormitories for London. It would be obsolete before it was completed anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Right . So it might have been a good idea but has been superseded by the net etc.
Click to expand...


No, but it is stupid on one hand to encourage people to work from home and on the other do your best to encourage them not to.


----------



## Wuffles

phil.p":62290f4b said:


> Jacob":62290f4b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":62290f4b said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read somewhere long ago that the intention was to have fast links between far outposts of the EU, and the intention was to extend it to Scotland. In an age when so much business is done on line and people are people are being encouraged to work from home it always made little sense to me. If it cut an eight hour trip to three or something like that it might have been defensible, but what was it to cut - 20mins or something like that? In any case all it would succeed in doing would be to turn a few more villages and small towns into dormitories for London. It would be obsolete before it was completed anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Right . So it might have been a good idea but has been superseded by the net etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but it is stupid on one hand to encourage people to work from home and on the other do your best to encourage them not to.
Click to expand...

Not everyone embraces technology Phil. Oh wait.

HS2 was just a govt vanity project to show they care about the North wasn't it? I'll be extremely happy it's been shelved if it is.

Anyone seen the John Oliver Brexit Update on Youtube, the original "before" edition was funny? NSFW (meaning NOT SAFE FOR WORK) due to swears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0ac5HUpDU


----------



## Woodmatt

Wales has its own mini HS2 its called the Heads of the Valleys road.A road to a large extend funded by EU (our) money.It cuts through large section of countryside and will shorten journey times considerably.It passes through some of the highest Leave vote areas so clearly EU funding has not persuaded locals that the EU and its money is something we should keep.The reason in my view is that a lot of those Leave voters have no jobs no prospect of jobs and cannot afford to run cars along this wonderful new road so it only really helps the ones who would have already voted remain.In a nut shell it sums up the disconnect between inners and outers.


----------



## Jacob

Woodmatt":lohqpvdn said:


> Wales has its own mini HS2 its called the Heads of the Valleys road.A road to a large extend funded by EU (our) money.It cuts through large section of countryside and will shorten journey times considerably.It passes through some of the highest Leave vote areas so clearly EU funding has not persuaded locals that the EU and its money is something we should keep.The reason in my view is that a lot of those Leave voters have no jobs no prospect of jobs and cannot afford to run cars along this wonderful new road so it only really helps the ones who would have already voted remain.In a nut shell it sums up the disconnect between inners and outers.


Nail on the head. Public infrastructure investments are good (in principle at least) but they don't address the immediate problems of the hard-up or unemployed in the region. We need more money invested directly into people - higher benefits and more security for a better quality of life.
This is an ancient problem - governments/rulers/kings n queens have always spent on conspicuous public shows, or utilities, for better or worse, but have always been reluctant to give money to the people direct.
The universal basic income could be the answer, and is on the cards with the EU.
There's no point in poverty and there's no point in excessive wealth, so the solution is obvious - invest in human capital.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

HS2 may not have been an EU funded project, but it would be difficult to tell the difference - rapidly escalating cost estimates, trivial consumer benefits (a few minutes off journey times), marginal financial benefits only after the figures had been massaged, and a full service delivery date so far into the future that demand may have been overtaken by changed behaviours (eg home working, etc)

Based on the Brexit campaign Phase 1 to Birmingham at £55bn would pay for around 180 new hospitals!! WE could buy even more with the Phase 2 money to Manchester.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

We've got a £27,000,000 road that goes from well, really, nowhere to nowhere. It doesn't really connect anything that wasn't connected before, it just cuts out a couple of back roads and doesn't even make your journey much easier. It's supposed to ensure another 6000 jobs by 2030 - but we know the pattern, the council will bribe firms to come down by giving them periods free of rates, they move in, import their management, pay the rest the minimum wage, and move again when the rates revert to normal. Very, very few ever stay. The main benefactors of these schemes are the people and firms who run them.


----------



## custard

Terry - Somerset":em091fsk said:


> Based on the Brexit campaign Phase 1 to Birmingham at £55bn would pay for around 180 new hospitals!!



And here are some of the skilful, wonderful, dedicated people who might work in those hospitals,


----------



## MIGNAL

Terry - Somerset":qnauxm5n said:


> HS2 may not have been an EU funded project, but it would be difficult to tell the difference - rapidly escalating cost estimates, trivial consumer benefits (a few minutes off journey times), marginal financial benefits only after the figures had been massaged, and a full service delivery date so far into the future that demand may have been overtaken by changed behaviours (eg home working, etc)
> 
> Based on the Brexit campaign Phase 1 to Birmingham at £55bn would pay for around 180 new hospitals!! WE could buy even more with the Phase 2 money to Manchester.



Or you could use the same amount of money to upgrade the entire network/electrification to the benefit of a far greater number of rail users.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

"We need more money invested directly into people - higher benefits ..." - Jacob.
Really? We have people in this area picking up on benefits two, two and half and up to as much as three times what they could conceivably earn - how much more would you give them?


----------



## Benchwayze

DiscoStu":cbcgh7r4 said:


> What is it with Hospitals and hills? QA in Portsmouth is built on a steep hill (it's all level inside though) and when it snows or gets icy the A&E ambulances can't get to it. I'm a member of Hampshire Police Resilience and when it's bad (generally floods or snow) we get tasked with getting staff and resources where they need to be and that includes towing the ambulances up the hill into A&E
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


the QA! That takes me back to the fifties. :wink: 8)


----------



## Woodmatt

I can't say I agree with further or increased benefits per say.In roughly the same area as the Head of Valley road is a proposal for the Circuit of Wales a privately funded project for a new state of the art Race circuit but it needs a Welsh Government guarantee to cover 70% of the funding which the government will not give.This would create building jobs in the construction phase and then potential engineering jobs that would support the race companies.It would bring tourists to the area during the racing season.Both TVR and Aston Martin are or were bringing new factories to the area and would have been using the circuit facilities for testing so there could be real jobs rather than handouts .EU money could have been used to support that project instead of a useless road and then locals would have seen a real benefit from the EU.


----------



## Wuffles

Did the EU just rock up somewhere and say, "hey you, we're building a road there...no no, let me speak, right there and we don't care how stupid it is"?

Sounds like that's what people think happened.

Was there no involvement in anyone local, at all? Sounds like they gave some money and someone else made a series of bad decisions to me if that's what you guys think about the investment made.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Undoubtedly - our idiots don't need help, but I don't doubt there are plans of which we are told nothing.


----------



## Rhossydd

phil.p":qymv3750 said:


> We've got a £27,000,000 road that goes from well, really, nowhere to nowhere.


what road are you actually talking about here ?


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":1sl6ylqb said:


> phil.p":1sl6ylqb said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've got a £27,000,000 road that goes from well, really, nowhere to nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> what road are you actually talking about here ?
Click to expand...


This one maybe ?

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/bri ... story.html


----------



## Noel

Wuffles":18uqrkax said:


> Did the EU just rock up somewhere and say, "hey you, we're building a road there...no no, let me speak, right there and we don't care how stupid it is"?
> 
> Sounds like that's what people think happened.
> 
> Was there no involvement in anyone local, at all? Sounds like they gave some money and someone else made a series of bad decisions to me if that's what you guys think about the investment made.



Yes, imagine it is a case of: let's build a road/bridge/thing, need some dough, let's apply to the EU. Isn't that the way it works?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Noel":ua7vjrnt said:


> Wuffles":ua7vjrnt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the EU just rock up somewhere and say, "hey you, we're building a road there...no no, let me speak, right there and we don't care how stupid it is"?
> 
> Sounds like that's what people think happened.
> 
> Was there no involvement in anyone local, at all? Sounds like they gave some money and someone else made a series of bad decisions to me if that's what you guys think about the investment made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, imagine it is a case of: let's build a road/bridge/thing, need some dough, let's apply to the EU. Isn't that the way it works?
Click to expand...


No, it's more a case of, "Here's a pot of money. Do something useful with it."

Certain parts of the EU have been designated 'less favoured areas' and are entitled to said pots of dosh. I'm not sure what the criteria are to be so designated, but it's probably something along the lines of economic activity per person in a region, compared to the national average, or whatever. There are several such areas in the UK.

It doesn't always work out. I was heavily involved in a heritage railway in North Wales some years ago. It turned out that we were eligible for an EU grant (by some means or other) through the local council. It didn't happen because the council didn't realise that they were entitled to said pot of dosh for worthy projects until about three months before the cut-off date, so the whole area lost out.

Sometimes, areas get their pot of dosh and then look for things to spend it on. There are, I gather, some beautifully-engineered new roads in parts of Spain, running through virtually uninhabited areas, and connecting nowhere to nowhere.

It was probably all done with good intent, but it's a good example of trying to manage from too far away. A new road sounds great, but it might be more useful to an area to generate economic activity to put traffic on it, and I'm not convinced that remote government is always very successful in promoting that.


----------



## Jacob

Yes Cornwall would have been a much nicer place without roads, railways, tin mines, fishing industry, new industries and all that expensive messing about. 
It's obvious really. If the Cornish wanted a road they should pay for it out of their own pockets . Let them choose - just stick £27m on council tax, or spend it on pasties.

And those crazy Spanish roads - start nowhere and go nowhere! Madness!

:roll: :roll: :roll:



> It doesn't always work out. I was heavily involved in a heritage railway in North Wales some years ago. It turned out that we were eligible for an EU grant (by some means or other) through the local council. It didn't happen because the council didn't realise that they were entitled to said pot of dosh for worthy projects until about three months before the cut-off date, so the whole area lost out.


Thats good to know - that money wasn't spent on unnecessary nutcase projects. It's not all bad news with the EU!! We can beat them at their own game by not applying for money. That'll show em what we are made of.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

RogerS":3c9jpes3 said:


> Rhossydd":3c9jpes3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phil.p":3c9jpes3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've got a £27,000,000 road that goes from well, really, nowhere to nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> what road are you actually talking about here ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This one maybe ?
> 
> http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/bri ... story.html
Click to expand...


Yes, that's it. There was talk of putting all the traffic between the two towns on that although it goes through an industrial estate, and keeping the old road for buses and taxis. I think there would have been a riot. 
Of course part of its raison d'etre might be the 7,500 houses they hope to build off it (unlikely that's to do with the EU  ) ... or might I just be a little cynical. :?


----------



## Wuffles

Noel":13fc4qha said:


> Wuffles":13fc4qha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the EU just rock up somewhere and say, "hey you, we're building a road there...no no, let me speak, right there and we don't care how stupid it is"?
> 
> Sounds like that's what people think happened.
> 
> Was there no involvement in anyone local, at all? Sounds like they gave some money and someone else made a series of bad decisions to me if that's what you guys think about the investment made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, imagine it is a case of: let's build a road/bridge/thing, need some dough, let's apply to the EU. Isn't that the way it works?
Click to expand...

Seems a little unfair to blame the EU then really, unless they're the ones dictating where the money is spent and on what...cue argument with the usual suspects.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

custard":3cn64scq said:


> Terry - Somerset":3cn64scq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Brexit campaign Phase 1 to Birmingham at £55bn would pay for around 180 new hospitals!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here are some of the skilful, wonderful, dedicated people who might work in those hospitals,
Click to expand...


That does raise some interesting questions. For example, why are we incapable of training enough of our own medical staff? What gives us the right to go about other countries poaching their trained (presumably at great expense) best people? Do Spain, Ireland and Greece have a surplus of good medics they don't need, or are we taking staff their populations really could do with? If they have trained a surplus, how come they're so much better at training enough people than we are?


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":2z5mvgfi said:


> .....) ... or might I just be a little cynical. :?


Surely not! Our resident optimist - always putting a positive slant on everything! :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo


----------



## Cheshirechappie

We seem to have started a fashion - there's growing demand for referendums of one sort or another across Europe, it appears.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... u-members/


----------



## Wuffles

Cheshirechappie":l32whgdk said:


> custard":l32whgdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry - Somerset":l32whgdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Brexit campaign Phase 1 to Birmingham at £55bn would pay for around 180 new hospitals!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here are some of the skilful, wonderful, dedicated people who might work in those hospitals,
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does raise some interesting questions. For example, why are we incapable of training enough of our own medical staff? What gives us the right to go about other countries poaching their trained (presumably at great expense) best people? Do Spain, Ireland and Greece have a surplus of good medics they don't need, or are we taking staff their populations really could do with? If they have trained a surplus, how come they're so much better at training enough people than we are?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much of it will matter if Jeremy Hunt gets the PM slot he's now shown an interest in. By which I mean people underestimate the hatred NHS staff of all backgrounds have for him and it will lead to chaos, sorry, more chaos.


----------



## Noel

Cheshirechappie":1v2uc6ef said:


> Noel":1v2uc6ef said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuffles":1v2uc6ef said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the EU just rock up somewhere and say, "hey you, we're building a road there...no no, let me speak, right there and we don't care how stupid it is"?
> 
> Sounds like that's what people think happened.
> 
> Was there no involvement in anyone local, at all? Sounds like they gave some money and someone else made a series of bad decisions to me if that's what you guys think about the investment made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, imagine it is a case of: let's build a road/bridge/thing, need some dough, let's apply to the EU. Isn't that the way it works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's more a case of, "Here's a pot of money. Do something useful with it."
> 
> Certain parts of the EU have been designated 'less favoured areas' and are entitled to said pots of dosh. I'm not sure what the criteria are to be so designated, but it's probably something along the lines of economic activity per person in a region, compared to the national average, or whatever. There are several such areas in the UK.
> 
> It doesn't always work out. I was heavily involved in a heritage railway in North Wales some years ago. It turned out that we were eligible for an EU grant (by some means or other) through the local council. It didn't happen because the council didn't realise that they were entitled to said pot of dosh for worthy projects until about three months before the cut-off date, so the whole area lost out.
> 
> Sometimes, areas get their pot of dosh and then look for things to spend it on. There are, I gather, some beautifully-engineered new roads in parts of Spain, running through virtually uninhabited areas, and connecting nowhere to nowhere.
> 
> It was probably all done with good intent, but it's a good example of trying to manage from too far away. A new road sounds great, but it might be more useful to an area to generate economic activity to put traffic on it, and I'm not convinced that remote government is always very successful in promoting that.
Click to expand...


No, nothing is offered/given without application. You really think (Cornwall in this instance) the local council checked their account one morning and saw millions lodged and a wee note saying: "here, heard you're skint, need to build a few things, here's a few quid to help you out."?
From your tale of the Welsh railway project surely you should've made your council aware of available funding, or done some campaigning? Perhaps you should have contacted your MEP, or spoken to your local EU office? It's hardly rocket science.
And surely if you had 3 months to work something out why didn't you?
No doubt there are some projects that could've been better managed around Europe but the EU don't "manage from too far away", that's like popping around to your local bank, getting a £20k loan and heading straight to Cheltenham and coming home without a brass farthing. Was it the bank's fault? The EU fund, the local council or whatever do the managing bit...


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Noel - as I understand it (I wasn't directly involved) the railway contacted the council's Grants Officer to see what was available, and was told nothing at present. It came to light months later that there was a relevant EU fund the Grants Officer should have known about, but didn't; he lost his job (so it must have been serious - to get sacked by a council you really have to screw up big-time). The fund was one that was open for about five years, but an application took six months or so to process. The council found out after four years and nine months. There was quite a stink about it in the local papers at the time, especially as the neighbouring council was crowing about the projects they'd funded. I don't think there was big money involved; enough to refurbish a public toilet block or install footpath signage, that sort of thing. Certainly not enough to build a railway.

Incompetence is not an exclusive preserve of the EU, sadly.


----------



## heimlaga

Cheshirechappie":ms2mpaie said:


> We seem to have started a fashion - there's growing demand for referendums of one sort or another across Europe, it appears.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... u-members/



The Perussuomalaiset or "Finns party" as the Telegraph translates it have other things on their program as well. One thing is deportation of the entire Swedish minority on the coast. Some 300000 people. We have been here since long before there was a Sweden nor a Finland nor any borders nor governments anywhere in northern Europe. Long before christianity and written records. Long before any Finns moved to this region. Still Perussuomalaiset say that we are newcomers and must leave our homeland to the Finns.

What worries me is that the very much needed ond much deserved critisism against EU in many cases come from that sort of toxic movements. If they succeed we will end up with a wave of massacres and etchnical clensings and deportations and of cause millions of European refugees looking for somewhere to stay. Probably a few full scale wars between European states. Not a very bright future.

What Europe needs in my oppinion is an EU-critic movement that is more matter-of-fact and down-to-point and not agressive towards ordinary people. The longer the establishment holds down all forms of critisism against the EU oligarchy and even in many cases actively directs agressions away from themselves and towards innocent foreigners or ethnical minorities the more people will flock to the facists and the more destructive the eventual turnover will be. 
We need to stop that toxic development very quickly before we find our selves caught up in a new world war.


----------



## Wuffles

When you mention "toxic movements" it'll be denied by people here, you see, even though a large number of the "get them out" crowd voted for Brexit in the UK, they're just a few mindless bigots we can ignore. Apparently. Even though incidents involving "foreigners" are up 57% or something since the vote.


----------



## Jacob

heimlaga":1szb0lts said:


> ..... The longer the establishment holds down all forms of critisism against the EU oligarchy and even in many cases actively directs agressions away from themselves and towards innocent foreigners or ethnical minorities the more people will flock to the facists and the more destructive the eventual turnover will be.
> We need to stop that toxic development very quickly before we find our selves caught up in a new world war.


The thin end of the wedge is objection to free movement. At the other end is movement by force. This leads to Auschwitz.


----------



## RobinBHM

I have to say the speech Nigel Farage gave to the European parliament, where he tells the MEP's they have never had a proper job, is really putting the EU in a negotiating frame of mind  

I dont like Juncker, but had to smile when he said 'what are you doing here?'


----------



## Noel

RobinBHM":3vly5uxz said:


> I have to say the speech Nigel Farage gave to the European parliament, where he tells the MEP's they have never had a proper job, is really putting the EU in a negotiating frame of mind
> 
> I dont like Juncker, but had to smile when he said 'what are you doing here?'



Got to agree with you Robin (and Juncker), enjoyed this from the Belgian MEP:



> Belgian ex-Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who leads the liberal group in the European parliament, said Mr Farage had used "Nazi propaganda" in the referendum campaign, referring to a poster showing lines of refugees.
> "Finally we are going to get rid of the biggest waste in the EU budget, which we have paid for 17 years, your salary!" he told Mr Farage.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Churchill clearly isn't one of Farages role models - Winston in WWII:

*“In War: Resolution,
In Defeat: Defiance,
In Victory: Magnaminity
In Peace: Good Will.” *

Gloating, insulting and arrogant behaviour in the EU Parliament this morning - the sort of language and delivery one may use in a pub argument (an environment I gather he is familiar with). I sincerely hope Boris has crossed his name off the negotiating team!


----------



## Benchwayze

Wuffles. 

You are entitled to your opinion, but I would be obliged if you would stop accusing ALL BREXIT voters of racism. I voted 'leave' because I don't like being considered as 'nothing but a dog cowpat' by smug, arrogant toads like Junker & Co. 

Immigration didn't enter into my reckoning, because :

a) I have enough sense to realise the value of most of the immigrants who come to this country:

b) I have a great deal of admiration for the immigrants who so devotedly help me and others like me, care for my invalid spouse. These sentiments extend to many others of their kind who keep our hospitals and care homes above water. 
and 

c) I empathise with them, knowing their reasons for coming here.

All racists might be Brexiters, but definitely not all Brexiters are racist. 

Likewise not ALL immigrants are 'Remainers'! 

Quite early, on the day after the referendum, one of my wife's carers arrived to tend to my wife. The woman asked me the result of the referendum.

When I told her, she actually did a dance for joy and went upstairs to rouse my wife, by whooping with glee! 
Yes, she is of Jamaican origin, and she is a Blessing, by name and by nature. Also among the immigrant carers who come to my home, she is not alone in her views. 

If it happens that you are not really calling ALL of us racist, then I apologise, but you must admit you do keep going on about Brexit and racism... as if the two are inextricably linked. SO please make it clear you are NOT generalising. 

Sorry for bringing this up, old chap, but your intimations are getting on my nerves a little.

Respectfully 

John


----------



## Wuffles

Benchwayze":yjsw7x4i said:


> Wuffles.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but I would be obliged if you would stop accusing ALL BREXIT voters of racism. I voted 'leave' because I don't like being considered as 'nothing but a dog cowpat' by smug, arrogant toads like Junker & Co.
> 
> Immigration didn't enter into my reckoning, because :
> 
> a) I have enough sense to realise the value of most of the immigrants who come to this country:
> 
> b) I have a great deal of admiration for the immigrants who so devotedly help me and others like me, care for my invalid spouse. These sentiments extend to many others of their kind who keep our hospitals and care homes above water.
> and
> 
> c) I empathise with them, knowing their reasons for coming here.
> 
> All racists might be Brexiters, but definitely not all Brexiters are racist.
> 
> Likewise not ALL immigrants are 'Remainers'!
> 
> Quite early, on the day after the referendum, one of my wife's carers arrived to tend to my wife. The woman asked me the result of the referendum.
> 
> When I told her, she actually did a dance for joy and went upstairs to rouse my wife, by whooping with glee!
> Yes, she is of Jamaican origin, and she is a Blessing, by name and by nature. Also among the immigrant carers who come to my home, she is not alone in her views.
> 
> If it happens that you are not really calling ALL of us racist, then I apologise, but you must admit you do keep going on about Brexit and racism... as if the two are inextricably linked. SO please make it clear you are NOT generalising.
> 
> Sorry for bringing this up, old chap, but your intimations are getting on my nerves a little.
> 
> Respectfully
> 
> John


I've never said that, sorry if you think I have.

I'll PM you my post from yesterday where I explained that the racist element is unfortunately in the same bucket of leavers as those with legitimate reasons. It was largely ignored to be fair.

I posted the quote from Billy Bragg where he stated (more or less what you have above) "not all leavers are racists, but all racists will be voting leave" well over a week ago, which was met with indignation from someone here who countered with something along the lines of "not all remainers are idiots, but all idiots will be voting remain" - brilliant response, well thought out.


----------



## Benchwayze

Wuffles":26qxzah2 said:


> When you mention "toxic movements" it'll be denied by people here, you see, even though a large number of the "get them out" crowd voted for Brexit in the UK, they're just a few mindless bigots we can ignore. Apparently. Even though incidents involving "foreigners" are up 57% or something since the vote.



Wuffles 

My post was connected with this one, but for some reason I neglected to actually 'quote' it with my post. Also I happen to agree that the vermin are starting to emerge from their sewers, but it has to be left to the law o sort them out. Lets hope it an be sorted before the bottles and bricks start to fly.' Still I hope you can see how it might irritate someone like me, to be lumped in among the true racists. It might even irritate them somewhat! 

'So 'nuff said. I think we could agree that labels can be misleading and muddying overall.

Respects 

John


----------



## Wuffles

Benchwayze":2we5zcxg said:


> Wuffles":2we5zcxg said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention "toxic movements" it'll be denied by people here, you see, even though a large number of the "get them out" crowd voted for Brexit in the UK, they're just a few mindless bigots we can ignore. Apparently. Even though incidents involving "foreigners" are up 57% or something since the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuffles
> 
> My post was connected with this one, but for some reason I neglected to actually 'quote' it with my post. Also I happen to agree that the vermin are starting to emerge from their sewers, but it has to be left to the law o sort them out. Lets hope it an be sorted before the bottles and bricks start to fly.' Still I hope you can see how it might irritate someone like me, to be lumped in among the true racists. It might even irritate them somewhat!
> 
> 'So 'nuff said. I think we could agree that labels can be misleading and muddying overall.
> 
> Respects
> 
> John
Click to expand...

Yes, that was in response to someone suggesting the current inflated violence towards Polish and others was just a few bad eggs and that it should be pretty much ignored. I'll find the post, but it wound me up.


----------



## clk230

the 57% equates to about an extra 30 reports , I'm in no way condoning the attacks .


----------



## Wuffles

Wuffles":33cqtenj said:


> Cheshirechappie":33cqtenj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paddy Roxburgh":33cqtenj said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is that it's now been legitimised, read the article, there's more than 4 blokes in Newcastle being talked about. Similar story in the Guardian too if that's more your thing.
Click to expand...

This was it.


----------



## Jake

Three people we know locally have experienced abuse of the f off home you fing foreigners variety (no violence) so 30 is reports of attacks is misrepresenting the scale of the issue. That's in separate instances each of which included many others being abused in public places not just them.


----------



## clk230

Jake":jr3cssgn said:


> Three people we know locally have experienced abuse of the f off home you fing foreigners variety (no violence) so 30 is misrepresenting the scale of the issue. That's in separate instances each of which included many others being abused in public places not just them.



Sorry 30 is NOT misrepresenting the scale at all the official figure is a 57 % increase which equates to around 30 .


----------



## Wuffles

Jake":p7q1mwog said:


> Three people we know locally have experienced abuse of the f off home you fing foreigners variety (no violence) so 30 is misrepresenting the scale of the issue. That's in separate instances each of which included many others being abused in public places not just them.


Yes, and this was only "reported" incidents. I think we have (I say we as it's our problem now) somehow legitimised attacks, verbal, whatever with the vote to leave.

There are a great many people who it still hasn't dawned on that we won't be kicking out foreigners, ever. When the penny drops, that's going to be interesting.

Expect UKIP to do well at the next election.


----------



## Jake

Was just editing it to make it clearer that I meant that the number of violent attacks misrepresents the scale of the issue, not that you were misrepresenting the figures.


----------



## cedarwood

It's not just the immigrants that are being abused by a minority, quite a lot of abuse is being hurled at those that voted to leave.


----------



## clk230

Jake":2loc5vtg said:


> Was just editing it to make it clearer that I meant that the number of violent attacks misrepresents the scale of the issue, not that you were misrepresenting the figures.



the thing is we can only go by official figures otherwise we are in danger of making the problem seem much bigger than it really is .


----------



## heimlaga

Jacob":3hkrawq8 said:


> heimlaga":3hkrawq8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... The longer the establishment holds down all forms of critisism against the EU oligarchy and even in many cases actively directs agressions away from themselves and towards innocent foreigners or ethnical minorities the more people will flock to the facists and the more destructive the eventual turnover will be.
> We need to stop that toxic development very quickly before we find our selves caught up in a new world war.
> 
> 
> 
> The thin end of the wedge is objection to free movement. At the other end is movement by force. This leads to Auschwitz.
Click to expand...


No......I don't think so.......

When lots of workers have lost their jobs to underpaid Bulgarians and been robbed by Romanians they are very easy prey for facist propagandists. We have a steadily rising 13% unemployment in Finland and I see that happen all around.
Your former prime minister mr Churchill once said that the Entente won the first world war and lost the peace. He refered to the fact that the very hard peace treaty caused poverty and hopelessness and consequent politic volatility in Germany. That volatile climate helped Hitler to power. 
Now the EU is creating a similar volatile Molotoff-cocktail by free mobility of underpaid labour and free dumping of wages and no taxes for the rich..... plus a multitude of licence fees and regulations that kills off small and mid sized busenesses by the hundred.

I am perfectly aware that the Romanian pickpocket and his wife and 12 kids come here simply because the times are so hard in Romania that there are no pockets left to pick. All pockets are empty except those of the almighty maffia bosses...... and getting a honest job for a reasonable pay is utterly impossible if you are born a Romanian Gypsie.
I am perfectly aware that the underpaid Bulgarian comes here because they believe they can get a better future than in their own destitute country ruled by the maffia. Often the Bulgarians are fooled to take on jobs in Finland for wages too low to put food on the table without additional stealing. Very often the money gets lost and never reaches the employee. 

Bringing those poor Bulgarians and Romanians here to work for nothing or to steal only breeds even more poverty and consequent hatred both in Finland and in Britain and in their homelands while the cheap migrant workers produces fortunes for the new nobility. All while the maffia becomes almightier than ever in their ever poorer homelands. A rotten system.

Just my thoughts.......


----------



## Jacob

heimlaga":ujxkaysp said:


> Jacob":ujxkaysp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heimlaga":ujxkaysp said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... The longer the establishment holds down all forms of critisism against the EU oligarchy and even in many cases actively directs agressions away from themselves and towards innocent foreigners or ethnical minorities the more people will flock to the facists and the more destructive the eventual turnover will be.
> We need to stop that toxic development very quickly before we find our selves caught up in a new world war.
> 
> 
> 
> The thin end of the wedge is objection to free movement. At the other end is movement by force. This leads to Auschwitz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No......I don't think so.......
> 
> When lots of workers have lost their jobs to underpaid Bulgarians and been robbed by Romanians they are very easy prey for facist propagandists. We have a steadily rising 13% unemployment in Finland and I see that happen all around.
> Your former prime minister mr Churchill once said that the Entente won the first world war and lost the peace. He refered to the fact that the very hard peace treaty caused poverty and hopelessness and consequent politic volatility in Germany. That volatile climate helped Hitler to power.
> Now the EU is creating a similar volatile Molotoff-cocktail by free mobility of underpaid labour and free dumping of wages and no taxes for the rich..... plus a multitude of licence fees and regulations that kills off small and mid sized busenesses by the hundred.
> 
> I am perfectly aware that the Romanian pickpocket and his wife and 12 kids come here simply because the times are so hard in Romania that there are no pockets left to pick. All pockets are empty except those of the almighty maffia bosses...... and getting a honest job for a reasonable pay is utterly impossible if you are born a Romanian Gypsie.
> I am perfectly aware that the underpaid Bulgarian comes here because they believe they can get a better future than in their own destitute country ruled by the maffia. Often the Bulgarians are fooled to take on jobs in Finland for wages too low to put food on the table without additional stealing. Very often the money gets lost and never reaches the employee.
> 
> Bringing those poor Bulgarians and Romanians here to work for nothing or to steal only breeds even more poverty and consequent hatred both in Finland and in Britain and in their homelands while the cheap migrant workers produces fortunes for the new nobility. All while the maffia becomes almightier than ever in their ever poorer homelands. A rotten system.
> 
> Just my thoughts.......
Click to expand...

People don't choose to work for low wages, it's the employers' choice. We should have strictly enforced minimum wages and conditions of work to create a level playing field for all.
NB these Romanian pickpockets with 12 children are a bit mythical. Nobody has seen them except phil.p in Cornwall, but I think he _sees_ things :roll: . We've got a Romanian family in the village here. He works in catering (proper UK wages etc) she does craft work and runs a market stall. A very nice couple. Their kids go to the local school. I don't think there are twelve of them.


----------



## n0legs

97 bottles of beer on the wall, 97 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around, 96 bottles of beer on the wall.


----------



## heimlaga

Yep. A level paying field for all would be a great way of solving that problem. The migrant workers would be fewer but those who arrive would be able to send home money to build up their home countries and lift themselves out of poverty and maffia rule. If we could make EU work like that it would still be healthy and the facists would be nothing but a chapter in the history books and there would be little opposition against EU......but reality is quite the opposite.

EU has on many occasions decreed that they are opposed to a level paying field for all. The construction workers union of Sweden had to pay enormous fines because they had blockaded a construction site in Sweden where none of the Lithuanian workers got anywhere near Swedish minimum wage. EU declared this blockade which was allowed by Swedish officials was a breach of the principle of free movement of labour. 
In Finland we have had lots of squabbles of the same sort. Nowadays even lots of natives are forced to work below legal minimum wage just to get a job in competition with the migrant workers.


----------



## RogerS

Cheshirechappie":yaym7cst said:


> custard":yaym7cst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry - Somerset":yaym7cst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Brexit campaign Phase 1 to Birmingham at £55bn would pay for around 180 new hospitals!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here are some of the skilful, wonderful, dedicated people who might work in those hospitals,
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does raise some interesting questions. For example, why are we incapable of training enough of our own medical staff? What gives us the right to go about other countries poaching their trained (presumably at great expense) best people? Do Spain, Ireland and Greece have a surplus of good medics they don't need, or are we taking staff their populations really could do with? If they have trained a surplus, how come they're so much better at training enough people than we are?
Click to expand...


They haven't trained a surplus. Simply that their economy is so dire that the nurses and doctors can't get any jobs.


----------



## Jacob

heimlaga":5j09yrt1 said:


> ....
> In Finland we have had lots of squabbles of the same sort. Nowadays even lots of natives are forced to work below legal minimum wage just to get a job in competition with the migrant workers.


OK you need unions and other agencies to oppose and fight illegal working conditions. They have more power in the EU rather than out.
There's been a lot of anti union legislation in the UK - the EU could change that and enforce proper wages and conditions of work.


----------



## RogerS

clk230":fpf0wg4m said:


> the 57% equates to about an extra 30 reports , I'm in no way condoning the attacks .



Well researched. It's this sloppy bigoted use of English that messes up these threads. Words like "a large number" ...no .... define 'large'..."a number" is sufficient.."a large number" is emotive and bigoted.


----------



## Jake

This case suggests that the ECJ was very protective of the Finnish minimum wage (as it generally is,given that such matters are for member states).

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... Dg&cad=rja


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":gl6a8ilg said:


> People don't choose to work for low wages, it's the employers' choice. We should have strictly enforced minimum wages and conditions of work to create a level playing field for all.
> NB these Romanian pickpockets with 12 children are a bit mythical. Nobody has seen them except phil.p in Cornwall, but I think he _sees_ things :roll: . We've got a Romanian family in the village here. He works in catering (proper UK wages etc) she does craft work and runs a market stall. A very nice couple. Their kids go to the local school. I don't think there are twelve of them.



Absolute myth, Jacob. You are spot on. The British Transport Police are fudging their numbers. Must be. Stands to reason. You've implied as much.

_Figures released by British Transport Police show half of all convictions for pickpocketing on the London Underground are handed out to Romanians. 

Information revealed through a Freedom of Information request shows out of the 5,280 reported pickpocketing incidents on the London Underground between November 1, 2012 and October 31, 2013, there were just 170 convictions. 

Of those convictions, 52 per cent were Romanian. _

I'm not saying that all Romanians are pickpockets.....merely pointing out the results from those on the ground who are directly involved.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":1yzgdq9u said:


> heimlaga":1yzgdq9u said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> In Finland we have had lots of squabbles of the same sort. Nowadays even lots of natives are forced to work below legal minimum wage just to get a job in competition with the migrant workers.
> 
> 
> 
> OK you need unions and other agencies to oppose and fight illegal working conditions. They have more power in the EU rather than out.
> There's been a lot of anti union legislation in the UK - the EU could change that and enforce proper wages and conditions of work.
Click to expand...


You really need to get out more. Have you not heard of the 'minimum wage' ? The UK is leading the way with respect to other countries. Or is it too convenient to ignore ?

I agree that zero-hours contracts are totally wrong. But anti-union legislation ? Really ? What do you mean by that?


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":2tb97km9 said:


> [Simply that their economy is so dire that the nurses and doctors can't get any jobs.


A huge number of medical staff come to work in the UK, not because the money is better, but to increase their experience and expertise. They'll often then return back to their home countries to practice what they've learnt. 
In same way a lot of English doctors spend time working overseas to learn specialist techniques and return here with added knowledge.


----------



## heimlaga

Jake":1lk6jl8h said:


> This case suggests that the ECJ was very protective of the Finnish minimum wage (as it generally is,given that such matters are for member states).
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... Dg&cad=rja



That is just one part of a very long story. When I was unemployed in 2011 or thereabout most employers wanted me to pay them money for getting a job or they demanded one year unpaid work before I could get any pay. All that was driven by EU. Then EU found they couldn't stay their course and we got that very positive decision you refer to but lots of damage was already done.
Now the unions are struggling. Juridically all is well though reality is different. Few younger people dare to join the unions because unions are again able to enforce minimum pay for their members. Migrant workers rarely dare to join the unions. 
It is very easy to end up on the black list. I am on the black list and largely unemployable because I recieved help from a union lawyer when I sued an employer to court. He had withdrawn two and a half months pay as punishment because I didn't pay him his mandatory bribes. That is why I turned selfemployed before my health broke down and will turn selfemployed again when I recover. 
Last year our conservative government planned some radical anti union legislation "to make us competitive". The unions threatened with a grand strike that would paralyze the entire country. Government withdrew. Now there is an uneasy stalemate.

If Britain has anti union legislation you neded to get that changed. Anti union legislation is just as bad as anti-enterprise legislation. I think that a sound ballance between employers and unions is a good starting point for a stable and non-violent non-facist and non-communist society. If either side over exploits the other something is bound to explode.


----------



## Jake

RogerS":cewm0qqc said:


> Absolute myth, Jacob. You are spot on. The British Transport Police are fudging their numbers. Must be. Stands to reason. You've implied as much.
> 
> [Figures released by British Transport Police show half of all convictions for pickpocketing on the London Underground are handed out to Romanians.
> 
> Information revealed through a Freedom of Information request shows out of the 5,280 reported pickpocketing incidents on the London Underground between November 1, 2012 and October 31, 2013, there were just 170 convictions.
> 
> Of those convictions, 52 per cent were Romanian.



I tried to find the source of that, lots of hits on the first sentence including the Daily Mail in 2014 and the Daily Express in 2014. But the only data access request it throws up from the BTP is a refusal of data from 2012. 

http://www.btp.police.uk/about_us/your_ ... stics.aspx

The second sentence throws up only the result from Daily Mail in 2014.

What is really interesting is the Daily Mail article



Daily Mail":cewm0qqc said:


> Freedom of information legislation data showed 5,280 reported pickpocketing incidents between November 1, 2012 and October 31, 2013 – but just 170 convictions.
> 
> Pickpockets on The Tube included Britons, Jamaicans, Slovakians, Algerians, Latvians, Somalians, Bulgarians and Mexicans. Separate Ministry of Justice data showed the number of Romanians jailed in England and Wales has jumped almost 60 per cent in three years. The number in 2010 was 1,508 but leapt to 1,990 in 2012 and 2,530 in 2013.



So let's take that lying toe rag paragraph one sentence at a time. First sentence: presumably actual FoI data although I don't trust them given the rest. Second sentence: new paragraph, no explicit link to the FoI data, just an assertion by the Mail. Third sentence, implies nearly 50% were Romanian, but dumb Daily Mail reader has to be stupid enough not to parse that these cannot have been for pickpocketing on the tube as there were only 170 convictions for that (but they know their readership and that that is a safe assumption they will get away with).

Vile spit rag.


----------



## Jake

heimlaga":1p5bih14 said:


> Jake":1p5bih14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This case suggests that the ECJ was very protective of the Finnish minimum wage (as it generally is,given that such matters are for member states).
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... Dg&cad=rja
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just one part of a very long story. When I was unemployed in 2011 or thereabout most employers wanted me to pay them money for getting a job or they demanded one year unpaid work before I could get any pay. All that was driven by EU. Then EU found they couldn't stay their course and we got that very positive decision you refer to but lots of damage was already done.
> Now the unions are struggling. Juridically all is well though reality is different. Few younger people dare to join the unions because unions are again able to enforce minimum pay for their members. Migrant workers rarely dare to join the unions.
> It is very easy to end up on the black list. I am on the black list and largely unemployable because I recieved help from a union lawyer when I sued an employer to court. He had withdrawn two and a half months pay as punishment because I didn't pay him his mandatory bribes. That is why I turned selfemployed before my health broke down and will turn selfemployed again when I recover.
> Last year our conservative government planned some radical anti union legislation "to make us competitive". The unions threatened with a grand strike that would paralyze the entire country. Government withdrew. Now there is an uneasy stalemate.
> 
> If Britain has anti union legislation you neded to get that changed. Anti union legislation is just as bad as anti-enterprise legislation. I think that a sound ballance between employers and unions is a good starting point for a stable and non-violent non-facist and non-communist society. If either side over exploits the other something is bound to explode.
Click to expand...


I agree with your conclusion, but that post generally sounds like you have issues with your civil society in Finland and your minimum wage legislation - does it only apply to union members or do employers just evade it if the unions are not involved?

In general, I think that EU law strikes a balance between workers rights and enterprise which is to the left of what we will end up with here in the UK outside of it. I have no idea of the relative balance in Finland, but it sounds to me like it is not dissimilar, perhaps with different causes and nuances etc.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Benchwayze":ibkp22aa said:


> Wuffles.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but I would be obliged if you would stop accusing ALL BREXIT voters of racism. I voted 'leave' because I don't like being considered as 'nothing but a dog cowpat' by smug, arrogant toads like Junker & Co.
> 
> Immigration didn't enter into my reckoning, because :
> 
> a) I have enough sense to realise the value of most of the immigrants who come to this country:
> 
> b) I have a great deal of admiration for the immigrants who so devotedly help me and others like me, care for my invalid spouse. These sentiments extend to many others of their kind who keep our hospitals and care homes above water.
> and
> 
> c) I empathise with them, knowing their reasons for coming here.
> 
> All racists might be Brexiters, but definitely not all Brexiters are racist.
> 
> John




I am really pleased when I hear people like yourself and Cheshire Chappie give your reasons for voting leave and they have nothing to do with racism and xenophobia or even immigration at all. While I think leaving the EU is a mistake in loads of ways I do actually have mixed feelings about it. The recent forcing of Ireland to sell off it's water utilities against the wishes of 90% or so of the populations or the terrible trade deal the EU is making with the US really worry me. The EU is in many ways an organisation that has come to represent corporate interests not those of it's citizens, unfortunately so have successive UK governments. Indeed if this was the early 80s and Micheal Foot and Tony Benn were running the leave camp I might well have followed them, I'm not sure but i might have. 
What has me terrified however is the rise of every day racism that I thought we had left in the 70s. Only this morning I heard someone call a radio 4 reporter a paki (he'd apparently voted leave because he didn't like pakis). He followed by "I'm not being racist". Nigel Farage and UKIP have reopened a ridiculous fallacy, where rich people convince poor people that the reason they are poor is because even poorer people have took all the money, these are usually easily identifiable because they are foreign or not white. At least the openly racist BNP and NF were honest, UKIP lead with "I'm not racist but.....". The Brexit campaign (certainly the Farage wing) was really racist and xenophobic and they have won a great victory and will continue to try and steer this normally tolerant country down a dark path of bigotry emboldened by this victory.
Just to be clear I am not saying that all Brexiters are bigots, but it has certainly made them much stronger.



cedarwood":ibkp22aa said:


> It's not just the immigrants that are being abused by a minority, quite a lot of abuse is being hurled at those that voted to leave.


Nobody has told brexiters that they are not welcome in their home where they raise their family. As soon as I have said that Brexit is racist and xenephobic on this forum people get outraged "are you accusing 17 million voters of being racist? Are you saying I'm a bigot?" Nobody is saying that. It is the movement that is xenophobic. I have always considered myself as anti fascist and anti racist, my granddad marched against Mosley, my parents against Enoch Powell and myself against the BNP and EDL, however sometimes I make racist assumptions and am the first to admit it. My daughters teacher wears a full on head scarf covering not just a head but her chin and neck (not her face), I made all sorts of assumptions based on this, that turned out to be entirely wrong. They completely celebrate Xmas, also Hanukkah (jewish), Ramadan (muslim) and Diwali (Hindu). My daughter and I are atheists and her teacher also completely respects this. All of you who are worried about immigration and multiculturalism should see my daughters school in Tottenham there are kids from everywhere and all shades of skin tone, many from East Europe but also from around the globe and they all get on fine and respect each other for their differences and for what unites them as people. For some reason the head gear of Charlotte's teacher made me think she wouldn't respect this and I was so so wrong. I had got caught up in a racist zeitgeist. Does that make me a bigot, no, but the thoughts I had were bigoted. 
Paddy


----------



## thetyreman

we've replaced one elite with another elite


----------



## Benchwayze

For Pete's sake Jacob. You live and work all day in a dusty little hamlet, soaking up the peace and quiet. When you're not doing that you are escaping the 'lunacy' in your allotment. Just like the hundreds of other country dwellers in the 1940s, out of touch with reality, reading some grease-stained newsrag, after they finished their 'poached' salmon and chips. They didn't know there was a war in progress either; hardly! 

I don't know first hand what Phil and Heimlaga experience, but I accept they are closer to it than I. Why not ask if you can stay with them for a month or two and then decide whether or not they are seeing things.


John


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Jake":33s4whwg said:


> Pickpockets on The Tube included Britons, Jamaicans, Slovakians, Algerians, Latvians, Somalians, Bulgarians and Mexicans. Separate Ministry of Justice data showed the number of Romanians jailed in England and Wales has jumped almost 60 per cent in three years. The number in 2010 was 1,508 but leapt to 1,990 in 2012 and 2,530 in 2013.


.[/quote]

According to this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -year.html the number of Romanians in the UK trebled in one year but the number in prison rose by 60% in three years. We must have got the majority of dodgy Romanians early followed by more law abiding ones


----------



## Noel

Paddy Roxburgh":2sxdwtby said:


> Benchwayze":2sxdwtby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wuffles.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but I would be obliged if you would stop accusing ALL BREXIT voters of racism. I voted 'leave' because I don't like being considered as 'nothing but a dog cowpat' by smug, arrogant toads like Junker & Co.
> 
> Immigration didn't enter into my reckoning, because :
> 
> a) I have enough sense to realise the value of most of the immigrants who come to this country:
> 
> b) I have a great deal of admiration for the immigrants who so devotedly help me and others like me, care for my invalid spouse. These sentiments extend to many others of their kind who keep our hospitals and care homes above water.
> and
> 
> c) I empathise with them, knowing their reasons for coming here.
> 
> All racists might be Brexiters, but definitely not all Brexiters are racist.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am really pleased when I hear people like yourself and Cheshire Chappie give your reasons for voting leave and they have nothing to do with racism and xenophobia or even immigration at all. While I think leaving the EU is a mistake in loads of ways I do actually have mixed feelings about it. The recent forcing of Ireland to sell off it's water utilities against the wishes of 90% or so of the populations or the terrible trade deal the EU is making with the US really worry me. The EU is in many ways an organisation that has come to represent corporate interests not those of it's citizens, unfortunately so have successive UK governments. Indeed if this was the early 80s and Micheal Foot and Tony Benn were running the leave camp I might well have followed them, I'm not sure but i might have.
> What has me terrified however is the rise of every day racism that I thought we had left in the 70s. Only this morning I heard someone call a radio 4 reporter a paki (he'd apparently voted leave because he didn't like pakis). He followed by "I'm not being racist". Nigel Farage and UKIP have reopened a ridiculous fallacy, where rich people convince poor people that the reason they are poor is because even poorer people have took all the money, these are usually easily identifiable because they are foreign or not white. At least the openly racist BNP and NF were honest, UKIP lead with "I'm not racist but.....". The Brexit campaign (certainly the Farage wing) was really racist and xenophobic and they have won a great victory and will continue to try and steer this normally tolerant country down a dark path of bigotry emboldened by this victory.
> Just to be clear I am not saying that all Brexiters are bigots, but it has certainly made them much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> cedarwood":2sxdwtby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just the immigrants that are being abused by a minority, quite a lot of abuse is being hurled at those that voted to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has told brexiters that they are not welcome in their home where they raise their family. As soon as I have said that Brexit is racist and xenephobic on this forum people get outraged "are you accusing 17 million voters of being racist? Are you saying I'm a bigot?" Nobody is saying that. It is the movement that is xenophobic. I have always considered myself as anti fascist and anti racist, my granddad marched against Mosley, my parents against Enoch Powell and myself against the BNP and EDL, however sometimes I make racist assumptions and am the first to admit it. My daughters teacher wears a full on head scarf covering not just a head but her chin and neck (not her face), I made all sorts of assumptions based on this, that turned out to be entirely wrong. They completely celebrate Xmas, also Hanukkah (jewish), Ramadan (muslim) and Diwali (Hindu). My daughter and I are atheists and her teacher also completely respects this. All of you who are worried about immigration and multiculturalism should see my daughters school in Tottenham there are kids from everywhere and all shades of skin tone, many from East Europe but also from around the globe and they all get on fine and respect each other for their differences and for what unites them as people. For some reason the head gear of Charlotte's teacher made me think she wouldn't respect this and I was so so wrong. I had got caught up in a racist zeitgeist. Does that make me a bigot, no, but the thoughts I had were bigoted.
> Paddy
Click to expand...


Probably the post of the thread, reasoned and, most importantly, honest.

Children are our future.

I see the Dáil has plans to suspend water charges for 9 months while a commission investigates the whole mess. And Enda and company have as usual been so incompetent in introducing the charges (Ireland had to sign up to charges as part of the 2010 bail out). The water system does need major investment with 50% or so lost in leaks etc and, as an example, the town of Boyle still unable to use tap water for the past 2 years or so. The charges are unfair in my opinion, lack of investment and mismanagement should not be paid for by the public.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":uczekdxn said:


> RogerS":uczekdxn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Simply that their economy is so dire that the nurses and doctors can't get any jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> A huge number of medical staff come to work in the UK, not because the money is better, but to increase their experience and expertise. They'll often then return back to their home countries to practice what they've learnt.
> In same way a lot of English doctors spend time working overseas to learn specialist techniques and return here with added knowledge.
Click to expand...


When you say 'huge' do you have any numbers ?


----------



## DennisCA

Jacob":30gqqi5o said:


> heimlaga":30gqqi5o said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> In Finland we have had lots of squabbles of the same sort. Nowadays even lots of natives are forced to work below legal minimum wage just to get a job in competition with the migrant workers.
> 
> 
> 
> OK you need unions and other agencies to oppose and fight illegal working conditions. They have more power in the EU rather than out.
> There's been a lot of anti union legislation in the UK - the EU could change that and enforce proper wages and conditions of work.
Click to expand...


Like I've said before, the UK is so rightwards compared to the continent that for it the EU is a leftist force. But from a scandinavian perspective it's a neoliberal market fundamentalist experiment run by the ghosts of Thatcher and Reagan.

This is why we want out of the EU, or reform it at least. A process made a lot easier without the UK to be honest. So I am glad of brexit. It was the shakeup needed to make the market fundamentalist elites in the EU to wake up.


----------



## heimlaga

Jake":11ypx1lv said:


> heimlaga":11ypx1lv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake":11ypx1lv said:
> 
> 
> 
> This case suggests that the ECJ was very protective of the Finnish minimum wage (as it generally is,given that such matters are for member states).
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... Dg&cad=rja
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just one part of a very long story. When I was unemployed in 2011 or thereabout most employers wanted me to pay them money for getting a job or they demanded one year unpaid work before I could get any pay. All that was driven by EU. Then EU found they couldn't stay their course and we got that very positive decision you refer to but lots of damage was already done.
> Now the unions are struggling. Juridically all is well though reality is different. Few younger people dare to join the unions because unions are again able to enforce minimum pay for their members. Migrant workers rarely dare to join the unions.
> It is very easy to end up on the black list. I am on the black list and largely unemployable because I recieved help from a union lawyer when I sued an employer to court. He had withdrawn two and a half months pay as punishment because I didn't pay him his mandatory bribes. That is why I turned selfemployed before my health broke down and will turn selfemployed again when I recover.
> Last year our conservative government planned some radical anti union legislation "to make us competitive". The unions threatened with a grand strike that would paralyze the entire country. Government withdrew. Now there is an uneasy stalemate.
> 
> If Britain has anti union legislation you neded to get that changed. Anti union legislation is just as bad as anti-enterprise legislation. I think that a sound ballance between employers and unions is a good starting point for a stable and non-violent non-facist and non-communist society. If either side over exploits the other something is bound to explode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your conclusion, but that post generally sounds like you have issues with your civil society in Finland and your minimum wage legislation - does it only apply to union members or do employers just evade it if the unions are not involved?
> 
> In general, I think that EU law strikes a balance between workers rights and enterprise which is to the left of what we will end up with here in the UK outside of it. I have no idea of the relative balance in Finland, but it sounds to me like it is not dissimilar, perhaps with different causes and nuances etc.
Click to expand...

The absolute minimum wage is set in law and adjusted annually according to a living cost index. Other minimums for various professions and skill levels are decided trade by trade in separate negoriations between employer's central organisation and unions. Their make an agreement for the coming 3-5 years.
Minimum wages are not enforced by government. They are enforced by the unions by bringing employers to court and making them pay. 
EU crushed this system....... and then turned around and approved it in 2015.


Dennis CA may have a good point!


----------



## Wuffles

RogerS":2jyqwsfl said:


> Rhossydd":2jyqwsfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":2jyqwsfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Simply that their economy is so dire that the nurses and doctors can't get any jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> A huge number of medical staff come to work in the UK, not because the money is better, but to increase their experience and expertise. They'll often then return back to their home countries to practice what they've learnt.
> In same way a lot of English doctors spend time working overseas to learn specialist techniques and return here with added knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say 'huge' do you have any numbers ?
Click to expand...

Careful how you use figures of speech around Roger, might make you appear emotive and bigoted.


RogerS":2jyqwsfl said:


> ...It's this sloppy bigoted use of English that messes up these threads. Words like "a large number" ...no .... define 'large'..."a number" is sufficient.."a large number" is emotive and bigoted.


----------



## Rhossydd

RogerS":2vyvf6wy said:


> When you say 'huge' do you have any numbers ?


Obviously no absolute numbers as I don't think that data is ever collected.
I've worked in hospitals, know people who work in the NHS and been a patient; Talk to them and ask them. They'll often tell you that they're here for the better opportunities to further their careers and return home better qualified.
It's far, far more complex than they're just here for the money.


----------



## morfa

Cheshirechappie":2lzw9xkr said:


> That does raise some interesting questions. For example, why are we incapable of training enough of our own medical staff? What gives us the right to go about other countries poaching their trained (presumably at great expense) best people? Do Spain, Ireland and Greece have a surplus of good medics they don't need, or are we taking staff their populations really could do with? If they have trained a surplus, how come they're so much better at training enough people than we are?



1 - Complex and not easily answered properly, but in a couple of lines, it's hard just to get in to a Doctor course (excellent grades and work experience needed) and expensive (5 years degree) at a cost of £9k per year plus standard uni expenses. After 2008 some training positions were cut and it takes a long time to train a nurse or doctor. The number of complex (eg heart problem and diabetic) patients needing the NHS is increasing, especially older patients, though the increase in obese people in the population in general doesn't help, so more Nurses/Doctors are needed. Then also there's a portion of Drs (not massive) who come through the training, qualify but can't cope with the workload / don't want to cope with the workload, so leave. Finally where we need doctors (and nurses) are often the places where it's hardest so people either don't go into it or don't stay there. eg A&E, Nights (especially Nights).

2 - No right, but they come here cause the money is good.

3 - They don't have a surplus. Other countries have the same problem as we do, however we pay well and the NHS is highly regarded internationally. Also the UK standard of living is high compared to other countries. Which is why there's a reasonable number of Filipino Nurses in the NHS.

4 - No surplus, we're stealing their medical staff.


----------



## Rhossydd

Benchwayze":1btnhlow said:


> I don't know first hand what Phil and Heimlaga experience, but I accept they are closer to it than I.


Really ?
Phil.p & heimlaga against jacob ?
A disabled retiree living in a deprived area at the fringe of the UK and someone living in a remote part of rural Finland who talks about the Mafia ?
As opposed to someone working in the UK who actually travels around the UK, Europe and talks to people, someone who is actually identifiable and prepared to put his real name to what he says.

I know who I trust.


----------



## Jacob

Rhossydd":1wx5dbq7 said:


> Benchwayze":1wx5dbq7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know first hand what Phil and Heimlaga experience, but I accept they are closer to it than I.
> 
> 
> 
> Really ?
> Phil.p & heimlaga against jacob ?
> A disabled retiree living in a deprived area at the fringe of the UK and someone living in a remote part of rural Finland who talks about the Mafia ?
> As opposed to someone working in the UK who actually travels around the UK, Europe and talks to people, someone who is actually identifiable and prepared to put his real name to what he says.
> 
> I know who I trust.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Rhossydd!
Actually my "dusty little hamlet" (Benchwayze) is distinctly post industrial and has a lot in common with Cornwall. It was tin there, here was lead, limestone, fluorspar and coal not far away. The industrial revolution started about a mile away with Arkwrights mill. Sheffield is just up the road. A large part of the population of Britain lives within 50 miles or so. It does seem a very central place, historically and currently.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

That's quite enough Rhossydd! No more personal stuff. Please apologise, in this thread to Phil for use of the word "disabled" in your sentence. It is NOT a derogatory term. And don't patronise me by suggesting there is no explicit insult. The insult is clearly implied. I will NOT ACCEPT misuse of the term disabled and it's got nothing to do with political correctness. Apologise or start your months ban.

To everybody else, I will appeal for the last time for reasonable, respectful behaviour, if it's beyond reach then I'll close the thread. Which would be a shame because it's actually an interesting debate.


----------



## finneyb

morfa":aqix09wa said:


> Cheshirechappie":aqix09wa said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does raise some interesting questions. For example, why are we incapable of training enough of our own medical staff? What gives us the right to go about other countries poaching their trained (presumably at great expense) best people? Do Spain, Ireland and Greece have a surplus of good medics they don't need, or are we taking staff their populations really could do with? If they have trained a surplus, how come they're so much better at training enough people than we are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 - Complex and not easily answered properly, but in a couple of lines, it's hard just to get in to a Doctor course (excellent grades and work experience needed) and expensive (5 years degree) at a cost of £9k per year plus standard uni expenses. After 2008 some training positions were cut and it takes a long time to train a nurse or doctor. The number of complex (eg heart problem and diabetic) patients needing the NHS is increasing, especially older patients, though the increase in obese people in the population in general doesn't help, so more Nurses/Doctors are needed. Then also there's a portion of Drs (not massive) who come through the training, qualify but can't cope with the workload / don't want to cope with the workload, so leave. Finally where we need doctors (and nurses) are often the places where it's hardest so people either don't go into it or don't stay there. eg A&E, Nights (especially Nights).
> 
> 2 - No right, but they come here cause the money is good.
> 
> 3 - They don't have a surplus. Other countries have the same problem as we do, however we pay well and the NHS is highly regarded internationally. Also the UK standard of living is high compared to other countries. Which is why there's a reasonable number of Filipino Nurses in the NHS.
> 
> 4 - No surplus, we're stealing their medical staff.
Click to expand...


The reason we don't have enough doctors is because the numbers of UK medical school intakes are controlled purposely to keep the numbers low to ensure that most will eventually get a Consultant/GP post. The non-UK medic filling the lower grade/training posts and then returns home, also reduces the competition for the Consultant/GP posts. You can trust the Medical profession to look after itself - they are experts at it.

There was the same control over the training of nurses, until recently. 

Brian


----------



## Rhossydd

Random Orbital Bob":27eoq9ee said:


> That's quite enough Rhossydd! No more personal stuff. Please apologise, in this thread to Phil for use of the word "disabled" in your sentence. It is NOT a derogatory term.


It's simply factual and as he describes himself.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

Phil, on behalf of the forum, please accept our apologies for misuse of the term disabled. I have no idea if any offence was intended by the poster but it's unacceptable and wont be tolerated under any circumstances and howsoever justified. The person responsible has been banned.


----------



## stuartpaul

morfa":6orw3x0n said:


> Cheshirechappie":6orw3x0n said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does raise some interesting questions. For example, why are we incapable of training enough of our own medical staff? What gives us the right to go about other countries poaching their trained (presumably at great expense) best people? Do Spain, Ireland and Greece have a surplus of good medics they don't need, or are we taking staff their populations really could do with? If they have trained a surplus, how come they're so much better at training enough people than we are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 - Complex and not easily answered properly, but in a couple of lines, it's hard just to get in to a Doctor course (excellent grades and work experience needed) and expensive (5 years degree) at a cost of £9k per year plus standard uni expenses. After 2008 some training positions were cut and it takes a long time to train a nurse or doctor. The number of complex (eg heart problem and diabetic) patients needing the NHS is increasing, especially older patients, though the increase in obese people in the population in general doesn't help, so more Nurses/Doctors are needed. Then also there's a portion of Drs (not massive) who come through the training, qualify but can't cope with the workload / don't want to cope with the workload, so leave. Finally where we need doctors (and nurses) are often the places where it's hardest so people either don't go into it or don't stay there. eg A&E, Nights (especially Nights).
> 
> 2 - No right, but they come here cause the money is good.
> 
> 3 - They don't have a surplus. Other countries have the same problem as we do, however we pay well and the NHS is highly regarded internationally. Also the UK standard of living is high compared to other countries. Which is why there's a reasonable number of Filipino Nurses in the NHS.
> 
> 4 - No surplus, we're stealing their medical staff.
Click to expand...

I think the 'we're stealing their medical staff' is a bit strong! Yes the NHS actively recruits in other countries but that's because they can't get the staff here.

UK medical training used to be regarded as some of the best in the world and the HNS was an excellent training ground before moving on.

This country can't even recruit and train nurses! Beds are closed due to a lack of staff and now they want to take bursaries away from student nurses which means they'll accumulate debt before they even start 'proper' work. I know this is no different from 'standard' students but if we need nurses we need to consider some 'perks' to ease the process.


----------



## woodpig

https://youtu.be/h2D8MB5s8Jg


----------



## MIGNAL

Random Orbital Bob":2pxew64b said:


> Phil, on behalf of the forum, please accept our apologies for misuse of the term disabled. I have no idea if any offence was intended by the poster but it's unacceptable and wont be tolerated under any circumstances and howsoever justified. The person responsible has been banned.



He has used the term 'disabled' to describe himself, although I have no idea if the post you refer to was intended as a derogatory remark.


----------



## Benchwayze

Jacob":265vtvhx said:


> Rhossydd":265vtvhx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benchwayze":265vtvhx said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know first hand what Phil and Heimlaga experience, but I accept they are closer to it than I.
> 
> 
> 
> Really ?
> Phil.p & heimlaga against jacob ?
> A disabled retiree living in a deprived area at the fringe of the UK and someone living in a remote part of rural Finland who talks about the Mafia ?
> As opposed to someone working in the UK who actually travels around the UK, Europe and talks to people, someone who is actually identifiable and prepared to put his real name to what he says.
> 
> I know who I trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for that Rhossydd!
> Actually my "dusty little hamlet" (Benchwayze) is distinctly post industrial and has a lot in common with Cornwall. It was tin there, here was lead, limestone, fluorspar and coal not far away. The industrial revolution started about a mile away with Arkwrights mill. Sheffield is just up the road. A large part of the population of Britain lives within 50 miles or so. It does seem a very central place, historically and currently.
Click to expand...


Okay Jacob. You live in a fairly large town and a civilised part of the country, so if I upset you by having a go at your corner of England I apolgise. Your area is one of the most beautiful areas of the UK of course, but topography and geology aside, you can't really know the social problems of an area unless you live there a spell. (Walk a mile in their shoes, and all that, yeah?) At least you'll be a mile further from them and you'll have their shoes! Doesn't alter what I said. There were folk in the 40s who didn't know half of what was going on just across the channel. Just as today there are those who are ignorant for the same reeasons; they were isolated from it all. 

As for Phil and Hiemlaga's posts, I am certainly not anti immigration, but there are eggs of all kinds in a basket, and when I hear things from the horse's mouth, so to speak, I tend to take things on trust, even though I was a 'cynical Copper'. If I hadn't been willing to take some things on trust, I would have been a hypocrite every time I took the oath. For that reason, I took Phil and Hiemlaga at their word.

Finally if I have something to say to you m'man, I will say it from the shoulder; just like you do. 


Pax.

Regards 
John Walker


----------



## Wuffles

MIGNAL":35me0n10 said:


> Random Orbital Bob":35me0n10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, on behalf of the forum, please accept our apologies for misuse of the term disabled. I have no idea if any offence was intended by the poster but it's unacceptable and wont be tolerated under any circumstances and howsoever justified. The person responsible has been banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has used the term 'disabled' to describe himself, although I have no idea if the post you refer to was intended as a derogatory remark.
Click to expand...

In defence of a question you asked him Mignal - about why he had so much time on his hands. So I agree, he's described himself as disabled a few times and in that particular instance as "retired and disabled".


----------



## iNewbie

MIGNAL":lbmystrl said:


> Random Orbital Bob":lbmystrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, on behalf of the forum, please accept our apologies for misuse of the term disabled. I have no idea if any offence was intended by the poster but it's unacceptable and wont be tolerated under any circumstances and howsoever justified. The person responsible has been banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has used the term 'disabled' to describe himself, although I have no idea if the post you refer to was intended as a derogatory remark.
Click to expand...


Just using the word can get you into an awful lot of trouble these days, even if the person isn't offended.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discr ... ate-crime/


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

MIGNAL":375qp5kx said:


> Random Orbital Bob":375qp5kx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, on behalf of the forum, please accept our apologies for misuse of the term disabled. I have no idea if any offence was intended by the poster but it's unacceptable and wont be tolerated under any circumstances and howsoever justified. The person responsible has been banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has used the term 'disabled' to describe himself, although I have no idea if the post you refer to was intended as a derogatory remark.
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in ANY wriggle room on this. I don't care how it's justified and even if Phil doesn't find it offensive. I find it offensive. In fact I find it incredibly offensive because of what it implies. The issue is waaaay beyond just Phil and there are no circumstances in which I will allow a comment like that to remain published. Disabled people have a difficult enough time without being stereotyped, judged or in any way commented upon in a way which draws attention to their condition.


----------



## RogerS

Rhossydd":131q8d8n said:


> RogerS":131q8d8n said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say 'huge' do you have any numbers ?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously no absolute numbers as I don't think that data is ever collected.
> I've worked in hospitals, know people who work in the NHS and been a patient; Talk to them and ask them. They'll often tell you that they're here for the better opportunities to further their careers and return home better qualified.
> It's far, far more complex than they're just here for the money.
Click to expand...


I know that as well as you do. However, my post is equally valid and based on my conversations with clinicians. Some are just here for the money because of the dire economic situations in their own countries.


----------



## Benchwayze

FOR JACOB. 

Here you are Jacob. A history link you might find interesting, unless as I imagine you already knew about it.

I heard about it on a visit to Cromford. some years ago

http://www.allaboutlean.com/industrial- ... evolution/

Arkwright wasn't the only one then!


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Rhossydd, just apologise, I don't want to lose allies.

Benchwayze, you may notice that all of us here, who are relaxed about immigration, except Jacob, actually live in the places with the most immigrants, this is also reflected in the brexit election and practically noone votes UKIP in london. Here we've got used to people coming from all over the world. Romanians are our neighbours and kids school friends, along with Africans, Jamaicans, Indians, other Europeans, Chinese etc. In these circumstances one learns to judge people by the content of their character not by Daily Mai scare stories


----------



## Jacob

Paddy Roxburgh":116igyum said:


> Rhossydd, just apologise, I don't want to lose allies.
> 
> Benchwayze, you may notice that all of us here, who are relaxed about immigration, except Jacob, actually live in the places with the most immigrants, this is also reflected in the brexit election and practically noone votes UKIP in london. Here we've got used to people coming from all over the world. Romanians are our neighbours and kids school friends, along with Africans, Jamaicans, Indians, other Europeans, Chinese etc. In these circumstances one learns to judge people by the content of their character not by Daily Mai scare stories


We have immigrants in the village and large numbers close by in surrounding towns - Derby particularly. We are relaxed about immigrants! In fact I like them. I've just come back from the dentist and he is an immigrant, probably muslim.
I cycle a lot on local trails which are popular with townies who come out and hire bikes. Sometimes large groups of "immigrants" (i.e. non white) come pedalling along, obviously having a good time. Even saw a group of women wearing hijabs and laughing like drains!
Pleased to see them.


----------



## NazNomad

Jacob":1hy4ayrk said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":1hy4ayrk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just come back from the dentist and he is an immigrant, probably muslim.
Click to expand...



Don't tell me, his AK-47 was a dead giveaway, right? :roll:


----------



## DennisCA

Sounds like Malax in Finland where I live, I dropped my kids off at daycare and I think there must be at least 5 different languages spoken there by the kids since their parents come from all over, 10% of the population have come from elsewhere to this little rural place (the common language is swedish). My own kids are not yet three years old but understand swedish, vietnamese, and english most recently after they learned to use youtube on their moms ipad. 

Daniel keeps going around naming things in english, then swedish. He knows almost all the colors now.


----------



## MIGNAL

I'd be very surprised if anyone on this forum lived in a more deprived area than I. Only myself to blame, the fault of choosing craft over being a NASA scientist. :wink: 
I had to laugh when someone recently stopped me in the street to complain about all the number of E. European shops that had sprung up on the main road. There are an awful lot. Unfortunately I had to point out to her that the shops were better open rather than boarded up with graffiti sloshed all over the shuttering. Many had not been open for decades. It now actually looks as though there is _some_ economic activity, as opposed to rather depressing neglect, despondency and hopelessness.


----------



## Benchwayze

Paddy Roxburgh

Please go to page 104 of this thread and read my post there, about immigration. 
I defended Hiemlaga and Phil.p because I am not naive, and I do appreciate bad eggs can be found in any basket. I had no reason to disbelieve those two members, so I expressed how I felt, regardless of the fact I am also 'relaxed' about immigration. 
So again, please read my post on page 104.

John


----------



## n0legs

:wink: mih tog yllaniF. !aH .tiab eht egnahc ,ni leer tuo tsac , ni leer tuo tsaC


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Benchwayze":iypdji98 said:


> Paddy Roxburgh
> 
> Please go to page 104 of this thread and read my post there, about immigration.
> I defended Hiemlaga and Phil.p because I am not naive, and I do appreciate bad eggs can be found in any basket. I had no reason to disbelieve those two members, so I expressed how I felt, regardless of the fact I am also 'relaxed' about immigration.
> So again, please read my post on page 104.
> 
> John



John, I've read that , I wrote you a long reply on the same page, I understand that you are absolutely not a racist and am greatly heartened by that fact.


----------



## Jacob

NazNomad":3mgii1s7 said:


> Jacob":3mgii1s7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paddy Roxburgh":3mgii1s7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just come back from the dentist and he is an immigrant, probably muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me, his AK-47 was a dead giveaway, right?
Click to expand...

Stupid remark.


----------



## MIGNAL

Hmmm. Why isn't that a ban?


----------



## Benchwayze

Paddy Roxburgh":1u6bxq31 said:


> Benchwayze":1u6bxq31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paddy Roxburgh
> 
> Please go to page 104 of this thread and read my post there, about immigration.
> I defended Hiemlaga and Phil.p because I am not naive, and I do appreciate bad eggs can be found in any basket. I had no reason to disbelieve those two members, so I expressed how I felt, regardless of the fact I am also 'relaxed' about immigration.
> So again, please read my post on page 104.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John, I've read that , I wrote you a long reply on the same page, I understand that you are absolutely not a racist and am greatly heartened by that fact.
Click to expand...


NP Paddy


----------



## iNewbie

I'm wondering what his faith has to do with his dentistry...


----------



## NazNomad

Jacob":pjz5lbfy said:


> Stupid remark.




I was joking, and yes, it was a stupid remark. As are all the remarks here about race and religion.#


----------



## RogerS

Listening to the news on Radio 4 yesterday, the commentator mentioned that shortly after the referendum vote two of the most popular search terms on Google UK were 'What is Brexit' and 'What is the EU'. Well, on the bright side, at least they were trying to find out some information. But even so....

This is also referenced in an article in the Evening Standard.

Assuming this to be true, rather depressing.


----------



## AJB Temple

Sitting here at my desk about 200m away from the Bank of England, I have had three conversations today with young people (25-30 ish) who are appalled by the out vote and the lack or preparation for the consequences of it. The inward looking tories and the falling out labour parties are not inspiring them with confidence.

A few minutes ago my receptionist put an expensively printed 8 page colour brochure on my desk from the City of London Corporation, called taking steps - how city organisations can help tackle youth unemployment. It is full of nonsense about job creation at a time when every financial firm I have come across in my professional dealings has put some level of freeze on hiring, and most have activated plans to move jobs out of London into mainland Europe. 

When you look as an insider into what has been going on in the trading floors over the past few days you see that investors have been taking full advantage of the massive drop in share prices and buying up stocks cheaply. Many people hedged their bets by selling in the run up to the vote, staying liquid until the market collapsed then getting back in. Financial markets like volatility. It potentially makes money but does not necessarily make UK jobs. 

These are three different points. I am not trying to draw conclusions or a common theme, just commenting. One Director who came over to chat to me today said if the British people could vote again, the outcome would probably be very different. He thinks it is reasonable after the events of the last few days for us to have an "are you sure?" second vote. Personally I think this is a good idea.


----------



## Claymore

This thread needs pulling by the Mods as its getting into a slagging off match between members with a few who certainly must make soapboxes with all the preaching they do and cannot accept that other people might disagree with their garbage......... I suggest they go and do some woodwork or better still become an MP and leave this site to what its intended Woodworking and Workshops.

1625 posts on one thread that has nothing to do with workshops is ridiculous and nothing positive will come of it.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob

yup....you're right....time has come...nothing new now, its just going down hill. Thanks for the contributions folks and for mostly keeping it civil but I'm going to lock it now.


----------

