Fed up with the hyperbole of the referendum?

[woodpig]

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

K

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

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

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

 

[MIGNAL]

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

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

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

K

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

 

[MIGNAL]

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

K

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

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

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

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

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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

 

[No skills]

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

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

 

[MIGNAL]

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

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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

 

[BearTricks]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MIGNAL]

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

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

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Droogs]

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

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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

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

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

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

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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

 

[MIGNAL]

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

/quote]

Not as free or as independent as some might claim. Norway implements EU rules and legislation. In fact there hasn't been one single solitary example where it hasn't! So much for it's independence.
BTW the figures for contributions are (roughly) Norway: £85 per capita, UK: £105 per capita.
Norway also has more immigrants, in relation to it's population, than the UK.

 

[MIGNAL]

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

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

 

[mind_the_goat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mind_the_goat]

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

Immigrants in Norway make up 16% of the population

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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

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

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

 

[MIGNAL]

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

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