Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)

[Insanties_birth]

Accepting schengen and the euro are two requirements for all new members.

We will have to see how that goes, I'd be surprised if we left, rejoined down the line and didn't negotiate to stay out of the schengen based on us being a member prior, not being connected by land and our supposed massive influence. Not really, but I think they might throw a stick or two if we left to try and convince us to join in again.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I think it's worse.

There's tons more cars, just from being in the real world and breathing the air, it seems pretty obvious the air is not cleaner.

Has anyone been round cleaning the air up?

The point is 'is it cleaner than it otherwise would have been'.

Imagine if we had the number of vehicles we have now but we'd had no emissions controls enforced on manufacturers? What would it be like then?

 

[SPG]

Out any other option hands the keys to gates.

Voting out is the only option for bargaining a better deal.

 

[Randomface74]

The point is 'is it cleaner than it otherwise would have been'.

Imagine if we had the number of vehicles we have now but we'd had no emissions controls enforced on manufacturers? What would it be like then?

The same.
Because companies don't meet the emissions standards anyway.

edit: and we would have made our own regulations and maybe actually enforced them, so there's a chance we could have done a better job ourselves.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The same.
Because companies don't meet the emissions standards anyway.

Sigh, I knew this would be a waste of time.

Companies do meet the emissions standards, however they are lab based and not replicated in the real world. That doesn't mean that a 2016 Ford Focus TDCi has the same emissions as a 1998 Ford Focus TDDi. It still has significantly reduced emissions through various technical innovations brought on directly by the requirement to comply with legislation.

Brand new cars rolling off the line today release far lower emissions than the equivalent vehicles from 10 years ago let alone 20 years ago! It is utter nonsense to suggest otherwise and shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject.

edit: and we would have made our own regulations and maybe actually enforced them, so there's a chance we could have done a better job ourselves.

A common set of standards is always better and more achievable. The regulations *are* enforced. If you can't be bothered to understand the issues behind emissions testing and instead wish to interpret headlines as fact then there is little point discussing this really, is there?

This discussion is a classic example of Brexit half-truths and assumption being interpreted as fact. Suddenly all progress in emissions standards has been decided to be 'MEANINGLESS', just lol

 

[Randomface74]

I understand the issues just fine, I just don't agree with you.

 

[[TW]Fox]

How can you possibly understand it and come to the conclusion that cars of today have emissions that are exactly the same as the equivalent cars 20 years ago?

It makes absolutely no sense

 

[datalol-jack]

Snip

Yes, I'm aware of what the IEA equates the CAP to. Though it's rather disingenuous, as far as that selective quote goes, in not stating that the regulation pillar and cost of CAP does contribute to both animal welfare, environmental standards, safety and high food standards EU-wide. The absence of these provisos is the premise of primary opposition to simply sourcing the lot from the developing world, and buying more from the US (an actual, non-tinfoil critique of TTIP).

At least you're catching on to the rebate figures, a miracle in itself.

We can opt out (though again, the regulatory burden remains if we want to then interact via our industries with the common market) of the regional funding programmes, the CAP, the CFP, etc, but then we would lose a major fraction of our rebate and single-handedly destroy both industries. Which, without subsidies, won't survive long. You won't like the prices then either. Nor do I need to inform of the political implications of shedding loads of rural jobs, likewise for linked processing sectors. Further, you again assume that 'something has been done to us', we're fully signed up to the CAP, and have been for a while.

As for where the CAP is heading: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05_en.pdf.
And from the NFU: http://www.nfuonline.com/nfu-online/news/nfu-reports/uk-farmings-relationship-with-the-eu/.

This was in response to, amongst other calls for reform: http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/...al-subsidies-to-hold-down-the-price-of-food-–.

Now, the EU reform plan strikes a balance between the free market dogma and the social and labour implications of streamlining the CAP. What does Brexit have to offer?

Funding? -- It's already promised to plug holes in: R&D, house building, jobs for everyone in the Midlands, points based immigrations service, the NHS, manufacturing, higher education, financial services; helicopter money basically. Funny, since the fee we pay in, our deficit and the projected dropped tax takes on Brexit mean none of it's even close to feasible with the money we are talking about.

Cheap imports? -- From where, under what terms and at what prices.

Reallocation of labour? -- To where, who will pay for their welfare bill and how quickly can they be reallocated from unsubsidised agriculture.

Again, I'm drawn to the conclusion that you don't know how the EU works or what you are criticising using other peoples' analysis; whilst still being pretty gung-ho about leaving regardless of the costs. This is not going down well on the doorstep as it sounds both detached and careless.

 

[Randomface74]

How can you possibly understand it and come to the conclusion that cars of today have emissions that are exactly the same as the equivalent cars 20 years ago?

It makes absolutely no sense

I'm not really arguing that an individual car is cleaner or not.
I'm saying there are more cars and I don't think the improvements are enough to mean that the air is cleaner.

edit: I don't really care about this btw. I think all cars should be zero emissions from now onwards. Your point about the air being cleaner just didn't hold up so I had to call you on it. <3

 

[Skunkworks]

How can you possibly understand it and come to the conclusion that cars of today have emissions that are exactly the same as the equivalent cars 20 years ago?

It makes absolutely no sense

Has the overall numbers of cars on the road remained the same over the last 20 years?

Stop playing dumb.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I'm not really arguing that an individual car is cleaner or not.
I'm saying there are more cars and I don't think the improvements are enough to mean that the air is cleaner.

So therefore if you concede that on an individual car basis, cars are cleaner than they were 20 years ago as a result of tightening standards forcing manufacturers to develop cleaner technology, you therefore have to agree that had none of that happened we'd be in an even worse situation now with the number of cars we now have, if nobody had bothered?

edit: I don't really care about this btw. I think all cars should be zero emissions from now onwards. Your point about the air being cleaner just didn't hold up so I had to call you on it. <3

The air is cleaner than it would have been. That's the point. That we've managed to significantly increase the volume of vehicles WITHOUT a proportional increase in the amount of emissions from those vehicles is the achievement!

 

[Randomface74]

That we've managed to significantly increase the volume of vehicles WITHOUT a proportional increase in the amount of emissions from those vehicles is the achievement!

o rly?...

 

[Danthus]

How on earth are cars going to have zero emissions from now!

 

[Kenai]

o rly?...

Of course it's an achievement

 

[Randomface74]

How on earth are cars going to have zero emissions from now!

instead of buying a poison wagon, you buy one that isn't, simples.

 

[Randomface74]

Of course it's an achievement

but is it true...

 

[[TW]Fox]

but is it true...

How can it not be?!

We both agree that on an individual car basis, emissions now are lower than they were 20 years ago. A 2016 Mondeo TDCI emits less harmful stuff than a 1996 Mondeo TD. We agree that, right?

So now lets look at the increase in cars. Let's keep it simple.

Let's say cars increased by 100%. Emissions however would not increase by 100%, because as we've agreed above, the newer cars emit less than the older cars...

The bottom line is that without regulation, emissions now would have been higher than they are currently. I can't see how this can be disputed? There would have been natural improvements driven by a desire for fuel efficiency but not at the scale we've seen as a result of legally mandated pan European standards.

 

[helpimcrap]

Since last time I've just heard more reasons to vote out.

Right or wrong - we stay in, it's still broken, nothing changes, no reform (even though much 'reform' has allegedly taken place). We leave everything changes - and the only ones who decide are Great Britain. Obviously excepting world events.

 

[helpimcrap]

snip

Do you not think that maybe we are intelligent enough to work that out without the EU? Sometimes it's really not rocket science...

 

[[TW]Fox]

Do you not think that maybe we are intelligent enough to work that out without the EU? Sometimes it's really not rocket science...

What has the biggest influence on the R&D priorities of manufacturers?

a) Legislation pertaining to a market of potentially 500 million people
b) Legislation pertaining to a market of potentially 60 million people

Frankly we'd probably have just coat-tailed off the back of what the EU did anyway had we not been members so we'd arguably have still benefited. but then we are back to allowing laws and regulations to influence us yet have no say in them.