Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)
- Thread starter RJC
- Start date
- Status
But that doesn't say they buy more from us, that says we buy more from them
Someone has a reading comprehension fail, not 100% sure it's not me though
My fail. I will have to find the page I was reading when posted. And yes specsavers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...deficit-shrinkage-set-to-boost-UK-growth.html
This is one of them I as reading.
I'm still correct in saying
"Also the United Kingdom cannot sign a commercial trade accord with China. Nor, for that matter, with any other country.
We surrendered that power on 1 January 1973, the day we joined the EEC"
Other than this forum. I don't know anyone that want's to stay in.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Had to snip, otherwise we would fill two pages again. 
I see this repeated often enough to warrant a few points:
It would be nice if the Leave camps would finally agree on how they want to see the UK outside the EU. Models were offered anywhere from Malaysia to Norway; their leaders do not agree on the key objective between us leaving to supposedly boost the economy vs less immigration; wild visions of magnificent prosperity are offered on national television by people who have no power (here or in Europe) to put them into action; and just general mess, some of which no doubt is a carry on from the previous battle on the subject (going way back to EEC days).
The announcement of the formal date for the referendum will force them into action, I hope. Not long to wait now.
I see this repeated often enough to warrant a few points:
- It's hardly 'forced'; if you have a relatively stronger economy and there's unfilled demand for labour, people will come; in the global migration sweepstakes we are behind the US, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, and about on par with France, Canada and Australia (which interestingly enough has a dynamic migrant share of the population at 27.7% to our ~12%, according to the Migration Policy Institute data going back to the 60's); our media headlines are however fuelled by a) high numbers of students b) less people leaving in recent years due to ease of doing business with the EU, decent job growth and (at the lower end of the skills distribution) fewer unemployed having both the skills and the means to punt abroad; our outflow is steady, at about ~2m; don't forget also that after the crisis of 2008, the animal spirits were dampened further still, which also affects migration patterns
- Refugee resettlement plans do not come under economic migration or the standard of free movement since it's a humanitarian crisis; the money we pay to asylum seekers awaiting their claims' resolution is under International Law, and isn't forced on us by Brussels; if we leave, we would still take on refugees under UN conventions, having to treat them like human beings (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx), which of course costs some money (we house, feed and otherwise maintain people in our prisons under the same core of human rights, for reference)
- Large numbers of students and academics coming here is a feather in our cap, with a healthy education, sciences and high-tech sector; and people who contribute -- the wast majority of migrants -- deserve services, just as our wanderers deserve them in Europe; disparities in welfare systems are now on the agenda, but again, I feel that here proportionality is in order too; let's see what Cams actually gets, and whether it will lead to further reform should we stay (if we don't, the point becomes moot)
- I suspect the real reason the Leave supporters have not costed their claims in any sensible manner yet is likely to be that stating a figure won't stand up to scrutiny, like it didn't during the last EU debates; hence the vague 'billions';
what we do know is that, comparatively, the costs of us trading with and through the EU versus us trading with the world at large are less, that is: it's actually cheaper for the UK to use the EU as a conduit to world trade as things stand; it makes sense because our business networks, risks and costs of trade are spread out throughout the bloc of 28 countries
- And on a related note: Costs for us trading within the EU are lower than trading with the rest of the world; The Out campaign only claims that after an exit we can bring the latter down to an even keel; but not how, when or who will do it, so more hypotheticals based on negotiations they have no power over that haven't yet taken place
- If you transfer back powers you also need to allocate funding for them to be effective here; then you have to build up bureaucracies for both managing trade deals and assisting our exporters to comply with whatever regulations our partners set out; so you still won't really get to 'make your own rules' and play by them, if you want to trade, you'll just inflate your homeward administrative burden; and we all know how great the Civil Service is at effective project management under short time constraints (yes Universal Credit, I'm looking at you)
It would be nice if the Leave camps would finally agree on how they want to see the UK outside the EU. Models were offered anywhere from Malaysia to Norway; their leaders do not agree on the key objective between us leaving to supposedly boost the economy vs less immigration; wild visions of magnificent prosperity are offered on national television by people who have no power (here or in Europe) to put them into action; and just general mess, some of which no doubt is a carry on from the previous battle on the subject (going way back to EEC days).
The announcement of the formal date for the referendum will force them into action, I hope. Not long to wait now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
TL;DR version: The Leave campaigns lump too many things together to artificially inflate the perceived EU drain on our resources beyond our official contribution minus rebate.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
We can get migration from anywhere though, we can take it from educated people in other regions that don't require us to teach them a new language before they get started, it kind of is forced when we see the british public and british government themselves have seemingly tried to avoid the unskilled potentially none english speaking warzone migrants. Not getting into a huge debate on the matter but there are more selective ways to migrate those skills, mass migration of some unskilled workers against our will kind of is forced.
I don't disagree with your points on UN convention and us taking in refugees still as well but I think we've seen enough people dodge and weave away from what the UN says they must do before. It's not the most iron clad agreemants I have ever seen and feel that we'd pull in less if we was out of the EU because there's less of the constant pressure from the powers above to obey there chosen number of migrants. I feel the benefits issue isn't really a huge one anyway as as I've regularly stated I don't mind people using the system but the lack of control on it is one thing that does cause issues like when cameron wanted to shut down child benefits for migrants. If we're talking about highly skilled doctors and other trades I doubt they'd be on benefits so that is a different demographic unless we're pulling them in with no job to go to regardless of there skillset.
You have no argument from me in regards to economic benefit of staying in EU as despite the links I gave showing some think tanks and organisations believe we could gain outside the EU I do believe we will be worse off anyway, I don't believe it'll be as bad as we are all stating though so we need to wait for more real world figures. If as you say the out campaign continuously refuse to put a figure then that will harm there campaign for not having done real research. I've made the point to keep it measured that the overwhelming amount of researchers do seem to say we'll be worse off, I feel it won't be as big as we suspect though.
Yep, not long to wait, I'm really not going to go so heavy on think tank vs think tank until they've debunked the wrong information but yeah I still feel convinced there are (regardless of your reassurances which I do feel are accurate but not in themselves going to remove all costs) hidden costs within the staying in EU. No single economic measure takes into account all things and as much as we know, our governments are brilliant at underestimating costs. Still, EU in is the campaign for those concerned solely with economy in my mind, there's just more to this debate than that though. We're in a position where the in campaign can't guarantee any of the things cameron is negotiating since it will be debated in EU after the referendum anyway and the out campaign aren't giving solid figures but oh well. It's a messy campaign and a lot of it is being taken on faith at this point with various institutions and think tanks giving differing views.
Last edited:
Hahahaha, oh boy, Cameron is the most pointless PM ever.
And once out of EU he will have free hand in running this country....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/16/david-cameron-suffers-setback-over-proposed-eu-deal
So more humiliation for our Prime Minister as the President of the European Parliament says he can't guarantee that his thin gruel deal will be approved by MEPs. What a shambles.
Its all theatre.
A deal was always going to be found, Cameron just needs to make it look "hard won". Then he can spin it to try to say that the concessions are actually significant, when they're not.
EU migrants are, on average, more skilled, have more qualifications and pay more in taxes than non-EU migrants. I've been stating this fact on this forum like a parrot for years but all of you dodge it. If we can easily get skilled migrants from everywhere, where are they NOW? Why aren't the non-EU migrats better than the EU ones, they represent 50% of all migrants?
You're worried about benefits? Guess what, EU migrants contribute 34% more in taxes than they take in benefits, unlike non-EU migrants and even natives.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24813467
The problem isn't that it will be somewhat bad or very bad, the problem is the uncertainty. It could be anything from a small recession in the UK to a total EU meltdown. I know some of you have wet dreams about the latter but consider this: the previous financial crash, the biggest one in ~100 years, started because of the US housing market which represents just 5% of that country's economy. The EU economy is bigger than that of the US and if it falls apart the effects will be much, much worse than anything that has happened since 2007.
The whole point of the 'negotiations' is to calm down the xenophobes, nationalists and the ignorant. He is throwing them a bone and he hopes their influence will fade but he understands the consequences of an exit better than anyone.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/644330/Bosnia-Herzegovina-formally-applies-EU-membership
Bosnia latest country for us to subsidise.
Bosnia latest country for us to subsidise.
What price is a peaceful Europe worth?
Not a forced political and economic union.
Disagree actually.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
I wasn't talking about the EU migrants in relation to forced migration as I know freedom of movement kind of implicates us in forced migration in the sense we can't control our border to EU migrants but as you said, they are far more likely to be skilled and understand our language anyway but the forced migration of other groups can be a bit more harmful. EU migrants are good but not all EU migrants, don't fancy those romanians
When we haveI agree about EU migrants contributing well, have no qualms in that regard and agree, they're culturally, politically and religiously very similar to us so they are bound to have good cohesion. Like I said, I was more on about the forced migration from elsewhere.
I do agree with you on one point there, I'm more concerned about the fact that our exit doesn't only effect us but with it effecting the europe zone or in other words the economic environment we'll have to start renegotiating with. We are also in somewhat of an economic decline and recession at the moment already anyway so it is bad timing to start throwing the economy of all euro zones afray. Still, it's not just about the short term but the long term viability of the euro zone project and while financially it sounds okay I'm wary of them being cannon fodder for TTIP and what I've seen of the EU so far is that it is often idealogy before sense, economic tie down to poor countries that could and are likely to buckle under the migration shortly anyway. As others have said they've practically killed greece but any bailouts are going to be tied to us again and I wouldn't be surprised if a few more need it down the road. Not to mention the Euro zone has a propensity for being very slow to resolve many issues which is creating a lot of friction and slowdown in navigating away from economic issues. Trade is one thing but when it takes them months to even work on borders you can tell there not really that clued up. I feel we could end up with other economic issues even staying in the union (like the taxes we've had to pay back, lack of control on our own laws to make realistic domestic measures is quite a hindrance).
It's a bit much to call everyone who recognises that there were several hundred rapes / molestations, vandalism cases, regular riots, gang activity etc. from the current migrations to be xenophobes. After all I pointed out myself we have a tradition of this ourselves with the rape scandals in rotherham and sheffield so whereas it can be brushed off easily to mark some people as racist it's obvious we have institutional failures that create a very scary situation when it's managed so poorly. Not many people want a repeat of what's going on in sweden, france and germany and that's not necessarily racist. If he understands it better then they need to do a better job of outlining the actual costs. For me it's real simple, all they have to do is create some simple factoid piece for each side and publish it. It should all be readily available info for governments as we surely track our accounts and businesses profits for taxation so all they need to do is actually level with us and give us the real figures. The problem for me is that the EU is so undemocractic and even when at risk of the entire union breaking up they are so inflexible and intolerable to deal with that you can barely get a scrap of bread off them. That doesn't sound like an ideal group for us to be politically and economically tied to for centuries. They're really poor at managing economic and domestic affairs on a local level, it's all just top down slap down. I agree it's a danger to leave but it's potentially a danger to stay as well but we'll see how the 'negotiations' go.
Last edited:
I missed where that was said? As for a peaceful Europe it hasn't all been roses in the last 20 or so years.
Bosnians might argue that NATO hasn't led to a peaceful Europe.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
And he is forgetting the EU states that are not part of NATO...
Then there's the caveat of trying to deploy a large strategic alliance, primarily designed to counter nuclear and ground assault by the former Soviet Union and its allies, to police internal defence and security matters in Europe. Furthermore, having a joint European defence voice balances the American influence on the global stage (diminished and not omnipotent, as G.W. discovered, but still the greatest military power on the planet); after the Iraq debacle, I welcome more joined-up European thinking on such matters, not less. The obvious strategic rivals embodied by China and Russia are also worth mentioning.
On the ideological side: the tenets of free trade, free movement and decision making by consensus were laid down as the corner stones of the European Union precisely to prevent another full scale war from ever taking place on the continent, and for disputes to be solved peacefully. In this regard it has succeeded. Our standards of living are higher, we're safer (tabloid media panics aside) and we don't need to kill our nearest neighbours for a few lumps of coal and hegemonic trading rights every few decades. We went from World Wars to Cod Wars, and now the worst thing that happens in the EU is a few politicians throwing a tantrum over the negotiating table.
Last but not least, NATO acknowledges the importance of the EU as a robust strategic partner in its own right, and the sort of grouping that allows its members to meet its defence obligations under the terms of the treaty. From the source:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49217.htm
Then there's the caveat of trying to deploy a large strategic alliance, primarily designed to counter nuclear and ground assault by the former Soviet Union and its allies, to police internal defence and security matters in Europe. Furthermore, having a joint European defence voice balances the American influence on the global stage (diminished and not omnipotent, as G.W. discovered, but still the greatest military power on the planet); after the Iraq debacle, I welcome more joined-up European thinking on such matters, not less. The obvious strategic rivals embodied by China and Russia are also worth mentioning.
On the ideological side: the tenets of free trade, free movement and decision making by consensus were laid down as the corner stones of the European Union precisely to prevent another full scale war from ever taking place on the continent, and for disputes to be solved peacefully. In this regard it has succeeded. Our standards of living are higher, we're safer (tabloid media panics aside) and we don't need to kill our nearest neighbours for a few lumps of coal and hegemonic trading rights every few decades. We went from World Wars to Cod Wars, and now the worst thing that happens in the EU is a few politicians throwing a tantrum over the negotiating table.
Last but not least, NATO acknowledges the importance of the EU as a robust strategic partner in its own right, and the sort of grouping that allows its members to meet its defence obligations under the terms of the treaty. From the source:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49217.htm
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
My question is though, why would it not be possible to create a standardised trading system without the EU? It is entirely doable without the complete sacrifice of your own domestic policy making in areas where it makes sense. I understand having a more overarching organisation in order to create standardised trading, human rights laws that span the entire region and free movement etc. but all of this does sound entirely possible without giving up what we do. Its just sad that despite the entire potential for what the EU can do good wise it also represents what could go entirely wrong in the region. Any decision made by the EU has been ridculously difficult for nations to get them to change there mind on, it's like a battering ram with no brakes. I'm not trying to be alarmist there as it's a general example but never in there history have they represented a flexible approach or willingness to listen (short of right now when they are potentially going to lose a major hitter and even then the feet dragging is evident).
The EU for all it's talk of relying on democracy has little to no accountability, no one the member nations chose to elect and no flexible approach to allowing us to put on breaks or restrict them. In this regard any decision they make has the potential to be harmful and have no course for resistance or helpful and no need for it but still a risky move when you can't choose to even change a single thing about them no matter how harmful it could be. Just a side thought really but I don't like how inflexible it is. Ideologies can be a very dangerous thing when people refuse to back away and rationalise them and they hold everyone to the same forced standard.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Because trade on its own proved insufficient to avoid total European and worldwide disaster before; and the world is far more global and interconnected than it was, where coherent federations hold an intrinsic advantage. Unless you enjoy totalitarian state capitalism, a regional bloc with economic and political ties and shared rule of law is your safest bet.
If so, then why is the Out crowd having such a difficulty putting it in words, let alone in writing, and agreeing on what it is they want to achieve? Surely if it is staring everyone in the face, they can bash it out over a few pints and have it done by Friday?
Protectionism doesn't make any sense in the 21st century as a general principle of trade and movement of goods and people; 'common sense' areas, such as supply of items essential to national security and sensitive staffing within the depth of our state machine, are already covered by existing EU treaties as special exemptions. The rest is driven by supply and demand to the extent which significantly reduces our trading costs and helps us make money.
We aren't applying any rules we didn't sign up to and ratify beforehand. You can't agree to the rules of the club, and then play by your own set. Having your cake and eating it didn't go down well in the days of Empire, why would it be cricket in a democratic common market? You make it sound like the Commission writes the Queen's speech.
Honestly, it's beyond me how anyone thinks we can create a world where we unilaterally dictate terms of engagement, whilst benefiting from everything that's good about free common markets.
Name some examples of your potential catastrophes.
EU's level of democracy, accountability and reporting to citizenry is comparable to that of its most developed member states. It's not perfect, but much preferable to war or the ever-shifting web-work of state-to-state alliances that was par for the course in the Modern era.
EU's security and crime intelligence sharing arrangements are in place and firing on all cylinders; helping us tackle extremism, spies, market rigging and networks of organised crime.
It has a working parliament elected on a fairer, more proportional system than Westminster's FPTP (giving even small and radical parties a voice); a stable cabinet government -- the Commission (proportionately drawn from all member states) -- which is balanced by the European Council (an institution comprised of our elected heads of state); a functioning judiciary; central bank; independent courts; stability mechanisms; and an executive branch with a low corruption index.
Looks like a decent enough democratic organisation to me; keeping the region stable for once. If that's your example of what can go horribly wrong in international politics, I dread to think what kind of state you envisage as ideal.
Just because you don't approve of the EU, doesn't mean it is a vision of hell on earth. Far from it actually.
And what is the use of an international organisation that is a token gesture only, especially when its remit is ensuring the most fundamental personal and market freedoms? Why should we leave, sabotaging what has been built up and hard-won over many years, and then attempt to re-invent the wheel to serve exactly the same function... only with less powers and safeguards for all concerned?
It's plenty accountable though, as cases brought at the ECJ and your MEP can attest to (it does of course depend on him doing the job he was elected to do). All EU citizens have high quality access to the proceedings of the organisation, its policy reports and laws and treaties. Anything you cannot locate you can query via an FOI request or your MEP; a digital platform exists for this also:
http://www.asktheeu.org/
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/index.cfm?fuseaction=fmb&language=en
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/index_en.htm
Like our own cabinet government, the Commission has a level of discretion and can be difficult on sensitive matters. Which is why we should stop our tradition of sending idiots to Brussels, and get more proactive on European matters.
After all, democracy requires participation. If you don't engage, you'll have to rely on your fellow citizens making your choices for you; same goes for apathy towards Westminster elections.
And you would rather have no enforceable common rational standards?
All politics is based on some ideological framework. You can't stop the world just because your ideas about it aren't perfect and outcomes have a degree of uncertainty. Fully independent and isolated countries can swing between precarity and stability just the same. Don't know about you, but I would take an imperfect democratic bloc over an independent country running amok in a tempest of arbitrary rules of its own making and total uncertainty.
As the recent German judicial check on TTIP illustrates, of course you can challenge European decisions, resist implementation of certain measures and send the Commission and EU Parliament back to the drawing board. Naturally, things are tough going when you bang on the door at the eleventh hour with a list of demands to slam on the table; you do need a working majority consensus and time to get things rolling on EU-wide reform, but it has never been, is or will be impossible with, you know, actual diplomacy.
You don't turn up at No. 10 to hand a petition over and say, 'Oi, you, PM-boss-man! People are angry! Take this list of demands and make it so... I'm off!' do you? But that's how we treat the EU atm, and then wonder why our results are mediocre in negotiations at best!
The style will go down a treat in trade negotiations, no doubt.- Status