Who is in and who is out?

[paulm]

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.

Really ? :lol:

Get a grip for goodness sake ! :roll:

 

[Rhossydd]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[...]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.

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.

 

[thetyreman]

it's very worrying that we may stay in the EU to me, the propaganda is working

:roll:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

it's very worrying that we may leave the EU to me, the propaganda is working

Oh, dear. what did you expect?

 

[RogerS]

....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.

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]

.....

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.

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]

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]

'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."

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]

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 !

So, no studies conducted by non-partisan institutions like reputable universities and such?

 

[RogerS]

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 !

So, no studies conducted by non-partisan institutions like reputable universities and such?

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]

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]

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]

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.