Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Elections and Council Matters => Topic started by: hatter76 on February 28, 2016, 07:51:06 PM
-
Just wondered what the general feeling was in Marple?
-
There is an interesting YouGov Interative Eurosceptic map. It shows that Stockport ranks 134 out of 576 regions in leaning towards being Europhile. That means a slightly higher percentage of people prefer in to out. The region doesn't get any smaller than Stockport.
http://yougov.co.uk/yougov-8545/?preview=1&draft=1&language=en
-
The inclusion of the EU referendum under 'Local Issues' in this forum gives a whole new meaning to the word 'local'! :D
-
I did hear (it has to be said from a most unreliable source) that Marple Civic Society has put forward a European Plan and that this plan if accepted by the EU will become enshrined in legislation and will have to be taken into consideration by every elector when casting their vote in June to stay/leave the EU.
-
Very nice of the Prime Minister to choose my birthday for the referendum!
-
No option is risk free, we are being asked to choose between two unknowns. The deal to keep us in is very weak as it still leaves the EU being run by people that think political union is the reason for having the EU.
However I question how much real freedom we will have if we left, as all the trade agreement with the EU may be as bad as membership is.
I expect the outcome will be decided as much by who bothers to votes, as by what most people believe.
-
I did hear (it has to be said from a most unreliable source) that Marple Civic Society has put forward a European Plan and that this plan if accepted by the EU will become enshrined in legislation and will have to be taken into consideration by every elector when casting their vote in June to stay/leave the EU.
:D :D :D
I'm with Simone - this section of the forum is called 'Local Issues', and I think we should decide to cast our votes depending on how the outcome will affect Marple. The burning question is, will Brexit mean a reprieve for the 394 bus?
-
Tweet from local MP:
William Wragg MP ?@William_Wragg ·
Great to have @BorisJohnson on board the Leave campaign. He's a real asset to make the positive case why we're better off out of the EU.
-
Humour and irony alive and well in this thread already! Good to see.
Re Hatter's question, I've been asking the question out there and "Don't know" has it at the moment. Of those that do know, "In" is marginally ahead.
-
Agreed, Geoff. I love our MP's ironic suggestion that Boris Johnson is an asset to the 'leave' campaign! ;)
-
It is IN for me. Several reasons inc with this right wing government we need EU protection from things like scrapping the Human Rights Act.
-
Me too. The EU is a frustratingly ineffective organisation, but what we need to do is stay with it and make it better. Leaving will only make things worse. And Cameron's 'renegotiations' are a trivial irrelevance. The thing that matters most in Europe at the moment is dealing decently and humanely with the refugees from Syria and Iraq. I am ashamed and embarrassed at the way we are treating these people. This is an opportunity for the EU to prove why it is important for European countries to work together. But Brexit is hardly going to improve that situation.
-
This referendum is about one issue. Do we want to be a member of a political, ever closer European Union or do we want to be a peaceful, free trading sovereign independent state?
I believe that this is the last chance we will get as a nation to leave. look at how far the EU has progressed in the past decades. Its only a matter of time before we get an EU army and elected president.
Let's get out whilst we can.
-
One aspect of the EU referendum that is a local issue is the activity of our MP in that respect
It is hypocritical of him to imply on his website that his attitude towards the referendum is influenced by the outcome of Cameron’s negotiations regarding our future relationship with the EU. He was appearing on platforms with the likes of Farage and Heffer, the same platform as that graced by Galloway on other occasions, before the outcome of the renegotiations was known. He appears on that platform in his capacity as an MP, not as a private citizen. He is our MP. Does he have a mandate from the people he represents? As far as I am aware he does not.
Mr Wragg’s website is headlined with a picture showing him getting chummy with Cameron. To a significant extent it is the work carried out by Cameron over the past ten years that has enabled people like Mr Wragg to achieve their political ambitions. Should I ever meet Mr Wragg I would be careful to avoid standing with my back to him.
The Brexit campaign is in some difficulty as all they can do is speculate but it is very unlikely to be the utopian land they seek to portray mainly because our future will be largely outside our control and will depend on the attitude of others, in particular the EU, but also the US, Commonwealth, etc, etc, etc.. One of the quickest developments is quite likely to be the end of the UK. The Scots will react with fury if they face being forced out of the EU by English votes. Sooner or later they will get the referendum that they will demand and they will vote for independence. They will probably be able to persuade the EU to maintain their membership and we will have a land border with the EU. No problem, Boris will post centurions on Hadrian’s Wall.
We would eventually lose our only nuclear base and probably send the rented weapons back to their owners. Would the UN want a non nuclear England as a permanent member of the Security Council? Probably not. Perhaps our seat would go to the USE, the United States of Europe.
Increased trade with Commonwealth countries will be difficult to achieve. Our closest friends, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada are all in the process of joining the Trans Pacific Partnership. China is the most important trading partner for New Zealand in several categories, second after Australia in others. UK does not even register and is presumably included in the figures for the EU which is well down the list. The UK on its own would be even further down.
It is likely that our most important trading partner would continue to be the EU and, presumably, EU regulations would apply (but we would have no say in the formulation of those regulations).
On the other hand we would, of course, be free to treat migrants as badly as we wanted to.
The Brexit campaign is stifled by the problem that it cannot present facts as to the nature of Britain after exit. There aren’t any, which is perhaps why they seem to be resorting to abuse and whingeing about the Yes campaign.
A couple of months ago I would have argued for a “free trading sovereign independent state”. But not now. It is time to get real and ditch the idealism.
-
One aspect of the EU referendum that is a local issue is the activity of our MP in that respect
It is hypocritical of him to imply on his website that his attitude towards the referendum is influenced by the outcome of Cameron’s negotiations regarding our future relationship with the EU. He was appearing on platforms with the likes of Farage and Heffer, the same platform as that graced by Galloway on other occasions, before the outcome of the renegotiations was known. He appears on that platform in his capacity as an MP, not as a private citizen. He is our MP. Does he have a mandate from the people he represents? As far as I am aware he does not.
The implication of this is that MPs should consult their electorate through a constituency referendum before they cast their vote on any issue in Parliament. Can't see that working somehow, unless we abandon our representative democracy and switch to something more like what they do in Switzerland, where they seem to hold a referendum almost every weekend!
-
Dave - I agree with a lot of what you've said here. One good thing about representative democracy is that those in power do need to look over their collective shoulders and be aware foolish decisions could remove them from their position.
I do like the use of judicious referenda. In California you get to vote on policy as well as people at elections. However, Switzerland only allowed women the vote in 1971.
So back to the EU. This is what Franz said:
This referendum is about one issue. Do we want to be a member of a political, ever closer European Union or do we want to be a peaceful, free trading sovereign independent state?
I believe that this is the last chance we will get as a nation to leave. look at how far the EU has progressed in the past decades. Its only a matter of time before we get an EU army and elected president.
Sadly, that's not the question. Surely the army would have happened already? Who is spreading fear now?
The EU is an association of 28 countries that find it difficult to agree on most things. Born out of the terrible conflict of WW2, the idea was that "nation should speak unto nation". It's one of the few associations born out of peaceful co-operation that humankind has devised.
It is democratic (though could be more so, but that would mean an elected executive - and that would mean giving up national sovereignty), it's inexpensive (the UK spends 8 times as much on defence) and it's a force for good.
What do the Outies want? A return to LSD? Empire?
Churchill himself said in the middle of the war, ‘Hard as it is to say now... I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible.’
At this stage, it's fundamentally about "Do we want to get on with the other European nations?" Or do we want conflict?
So I am for In.
But either way, there will probably be another referendum in 41 years time. We do live in a democracy after all.
-
At this stage, it's fundamentally about "Do we want to get on with the other European nations?" Or do we want conflict?
I really don't think that's the issue at all. I want to leave the EU and like so many other people I know who want to leave, I very much want to get on with other European nations (and I do consider the UK very much as a European nation and very much part of the future of Europe). To imply that people who support leaving the EU want conflict is I believe misleading. Like a vast number of those who will vote to leave, I consider myself pro-European. Europe is not the EU and the EU is not the true Europe and there is no contradiction between being pro-European and being anti-EU.
-
Hmm @Condate, I can accept what you say. But how do you demonstrate you are pro-European?
-
I really don't think that's the issue at all. I want to leave the EU and like so many other people I know who want to leave, I very much want to get on with other European nations (and I do consider the UK very much as a European nation and very much part of the future of Europe). To imply that people who support leaving the EU want conflict is I believe misleading. Like a vast number of those who will vote to leave, I consider myself pro-European. Europe is not the EU and the EU is not the true Europe and there is no contradiction between being pro-European and being anti-EU.
Couldn't agree more.
-
What do the Outies want? A return to LSD? Empire?
Churchill himself said in the middle of the war, ‘Hard as it is to say now... I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible.’
At this stage, it's fundamentally about "Do we want to get on with the other European nations?" Or do we want conflict?
So I am for In.
But either way, there will probably be another referendum in 41 years time. We do live in a democracy after all.
To say that people who want out want a return to empire and conflict is a shocking and untrue statement. The only empire in Europe is the EU with its never ending expansionist plans, Ukraine, Turkey etc. This has humiliated Russia, strengthened Putin and is leading us back into another cold war. It also brings the EU land border up to Iraq and Syria, not the most stable places at the moment.
I would argue that the best way to reduce conflict is through trade and mutual respect not by creating a superstate with an expansionist agenda. The Treaty of Rome and subsequent ones such as Maastricht and Lisbon commit us to an ever closer union and YES an EU army in the future.
As has already been well pointed out Europe and the EU are two different things. We will get on with other European countries after independence and be a peaceful nation within NATO.
Vote out
-
Do we want to be the No.1 dumping ground for not only Europe's problems but all of the third Worlds problems as well. The buck stops here in the UK.
Do we want to be ruled by laws decided in Brussels by a huge vastly expensive organisation trying to justify their enormous cost by imposing laws on us that are making our lives ever worse.
The human rights bill we suffer has become nothing less than a licence to print money for our unscrupulous legal profession.
How long can our infrastructure continue with all the current freedom of movement & the benefits that go with it, before it collapses or we are all taxed to the hilt in a vain attempt to support it.
The huge influx of people wanting out of their own countries instead of staying & fighting for their rights, their country, their homes & their families, need housing, monetary support, education & NHS care. I see them all being placed in areas that are already under so much strain they have become ghetto's & no-go areas.
I see none of these problems in places like the Cotswolds where the people live who impose these issues on the already overcrowded problem areas. The places where the decision makers have their holiday homes don't appear to be affected either. Very strange.
Being in or out, it isn't that simple, we need extensive planning & thinking about how we can move forward from the mess we have been forced into by uninspiring bureaucrats.
I am all for a united Europe in many ways but I would like to think we ruled our own country & our laws were decided by our own people. At present we are ruled from Brussels with just a few puppets on show here.
Just my opinion, each to their own.
-
I really don't think that's the issue at all. I want to leave the EU and like so many other people I know who want to leave, I very much want to get on with other European nations (and I do consider the UK very much as a European nation and very much part of the future of Europe). To imply that people who support leaving the EU want conflict is I believe misleading. Like a vast number of those who will vote to leave, I consider myself pro-European. Europe is not the EU and the EU is not the true Europe and there is no contradiction between being pro-European and being anti-EU.
Very much agree with this. Anti EU is not anti Europe. The UK needs to be facing out to the whole world (including europe), not inwards just to Europe.
-
The huge influx of people wanting out of their own countries instead of staying & fighting for their rights, their country, their homes & their families, need housing, monetary support, education & NHS care. I see them all being placed in areas that are already under so much strain they have become ghetto's & no-go areas.
I see none of these problems in places like the Cotswolds where the people live who impose these issues on the already overcrowded problem areas. The places where the decision makers have their holiday homes don't appear to be affected either. Very strange.
I don't see too many of the above problems in Marple - the main problem i.e. ensuring the future of the NHS has a very simple solution - vote any party but Conservative!
-
Two reasons for staying in.
1. We have had seventy years of peace between the member states of the EU (and its predecessor organisations) since it was founded after the devastation of the 20th century's two world wars. That is the longest period of peace between these countries for two thousand years. This has not happened by accident, and it certainly cannot be guaranteed to continue unless we all strive to stay together. That means working within the EU to make it better and more accountable, not storming out and slamming the door.
2. Brexit would be irrevocable. If we leave we will stay out for ever. If we are in we can always decide to leave.
For me these reasons override everything else which is being said and written on this issue - especially all the economic and financial stuff, which is pure speculation.
-
The EU, 28 countries are in & 22 countries are out, wonder why, if it's such a grand place to be, why aren't wealthy countries like Norway, Jersey, IOM, Monaco & Switzerland clamouring to join. Then Russia not allowed?
Non-members of EU
Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Gibraltar (UK territory), Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man (UK territory), Jersey (UK territory), Liechtenstein, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Vatican City.
-
Interesting questions. I can't pretend to have all the answers, though I guess in the case of Switzerland it's down to the country's long history of independence and neutrality.
Norway has twice voted (narrowly) in referendums to stay out. It's probably got something to do with fishing, and also with oil, coupled with a feeling that as they are already so prosperous outside the EU, why change anything.
As for the Channel Islands, IOM, Monaco etc, I think tax may just have something to do with it.........
And as for Russia, and some of the others listed at the end of Russ's post, one of the so-called Copenhagen criteria for membership is that member states must have 'stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities'................... Hmmmm.
-
How many of us can remember growing up in '60s with virtually full employment, the only people out of work were those that chose that lifestyle.
The country was very prosperous & we were all happy bunnies back then. What went wrong?
We joined the EU in '73, by '79 it had all gone down the pan & we had massive unemployment like we'd never known. Work was never the same again, it went from happiness to bitching & backstabbing as people fought to keep their jobs in the next wave of redundancies.
We don't know if this had anything to do with joining the EU, or not, but life has certainly changed since.
Did a lot of our manufacturing industries disappear, only to reappear in other EU countries?
Millions of our highly skilled people on the scrapheap or earning low wages doing menial work. Leaves very little opportunity for the unskilled of us.
As many as 3 - 4 million people at its worst all scrapping for work, all capable of the menial jobs, so who suffered. The figures were, & probably still are far worse than published. A lot of the non-working are hidden in education & courses where they are removed from the count along with people out of work but not allowed job seekers. The figures being very much statistically manipulated by our leaders.
How much of all this is due to losing our industry to other EU countries? Will we ever know?
-
Two reasons for staying in.
1. We have had seventy years of peace between the member states of the EU (and its predecessor organisations) since it was founded after the devastation of the 20th century's two world wars. That is the longest period of peace between these countries for two thousand years. This has not happened by accident, and it certainly cannot be guaranteed to continue unless we all strive to stay together. That means working within the EU to make it better and more accountable, not storming out and slamming the door.
2. Brexit would be irrevocable. If we leave we will stay out for ever. If we are in we can always decide to leave.
For me these reasons override everything else which is being said and written on this issue - especially all the economic and financial stuff, which is pure speculation.
Absolute nailhead hitting post which makes THE CARDINAL POINT. The deunification of federal Europe would undoubtedly result in our sons and grandsons stepping blindly into the same devastating warring conflicts that our fathers and grandfathers stepped blindly into. Arguments about trade, economics, democracy et al, are all peripheral to Dave's fundamental point. These conflicts devastate economic structures, cultures, nations in an eyeblink. Surely our children and grandchildren who are much more sophisticated and intelligent than we are, will not be led blindly by foolish angry old men and women who are nursing a reactionary grievance, into thinking there is any other progressive course of action that to stay European.
-
Absolute nailhead hitting post which makes THE CARDINAL POINT. The deunification of federal Europe would undoubtedly result in our sons and grandsons stepping blindly into the same devastating warring conflicts that our fathers and grandfathers stepped blindly into. Arguments about trade, economics, democracy et al, are all peripheral to Dave's fundamental point. These conflicts devastate economic structures, cultures, nations in an eyeblink. Surely our children and grandchildren who are much more sophisticated and intelligent than we are, will not be led blindly by foolish angry old men and women who are nursing a reactionary grievance, into thinking there is any other progressive course of action that to stay European.
I actually think the opposite is the case. The existence of the EU is more of a danger to peace than a proper Europe of states which while recognising their common history and culture and to a large extent interdependence, also recognises the dangers of trying to create a unified EU based not on what brings us together, but rather on ideas and practices which are not in real interests of any of the states.
What is certainly true is that both in and out supporters want a peaceful and prosperous Europe (and of course Europe is bigger than the EU) and both sides see peace and cooperation as vital. They differ about whether the EU is the right way to do it, but both sides see peace and cooperation as essential and both sides see conflict and hostility as extremely bad.
Both sides see the wars and conflicts of the past as something which must never happen again and there is no reason why Britain leaving the EU (which I hope will be just the first exit of many) should lead to such conflicts.
-
I actually agree with K.C. and Dave.
The only point I agree with Condate in your very eloquent post, is that if U.K. exits it will be the first of many
-
The only reason I am replying is that I met a woman today who said she is not voting in the referendum. Why? I'm old, she said, and the future should be decided by those younger than me. It's their inheritance. Not heard that before. But it echoes what Kevin said.
So spot on both Kevin and Dave.
Russ - unemployment, economy and taxation is really under the remit of national governments, and sometimes not even them. In the 60s and 70s wildcat strikes (it was known as the "English Disease") did cause economic problems. Remember the 3-day working week? But at the same time the difference between rich and poor was at its lowest, whereas now it's getting worse. The 80s recession and more recently the banking crisis were the reasons for unemployment crossing 10% of the labour force. In a free economy, you will never get 0% unemployment. At least it's not a criminal office as it was hundreds of years ago. OK I am going off -topic and "philosophical" as someone said in another post.
Everything can be made better - EU, UK, Stockport and Marple. I only have a (small) influence on the latter two. But I have a bigger influence as part with others, whether it's buses, potholes or parks whether officers or political allies.
History, Condate, history. Unfettered nation states can be selfish and greedy. And that leads to conflict. What would you replace the EU with to keep your peace?
-
Ridiculous to say that the EU has brought about peace. The real reason for peace in Europe is NATO and the nuclear deterrent.
In pre world war history if you were a ruler and wanted territory or wealth all you needed to do was raise an army of men and send them into battle. If you lost, all it cost you was several thousand men and a few horses. Today due to technology this option isn't open to you. If you start a war the consequence are massive with threat of nuclear wipe out. This greatly reduces the prospect of wars.
Other countries outside of the EU that are similar to the UK such as Canada and Australia haven't started wars. I like Russ believe that being in the EU greatly increases the likelihood of us getting involved in a conflict that has nothing to with us.
The EU would be replaced by free trade treaties and a sort of confederation similar to the commonwealth.
-
Condate, we've had the EU (or it's forerunners) since 1946, and as I said in a previous post, as a result we have had the longest period of peace among the main nations of Western Europe since the Roman Empire. As they say in America, 'go figure'!
And as for this:
The real reason for peace in Europe is NATO and the nuclear deterrent.
As only two of the 28 countries in the EU have nuclear weapons, it's hard to see how that could be the reason for seventy years of peace!
If you start a war the consequence are massive with threat of nuclear wipe out. This greatly reduces the prospect of wars.
An extraordinary observation! So what's that happening in Syria? And Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Yemen? And Pakistan? And Libya? And too many more blood-soaked war zones to mention!
As for Russ's theory that the EU has caused the decline in UK manufacturing, there's no evidence for that. What there is all too much evidence for is that much European manufacturing has gone to China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia etc, where labour costs are a fraction of those in developed countries. The problem is globalisation, but it's not going to be easy to put that genie back in the bottle!
-
And as for this:
An extraordinary observation! So what's that happening in Syria? And Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Yemen? And Pakistan? And Libya? And too many more blood-soaked war zones to mention!
What's your point Dave, the above are not in NATO and do not have nuclear weapons which is what I was referring to in my previous post. They are able to have conflicts based on the old rules of engagement. I am specifically talking about advanced European nations.
To turn your point around what has the EU done to stop these conflicts that you mention?
-
Russ - In the 60s and 70s wildcat strikes (it was known as the "English Disease") did cause economic problems. Remember the 3-day working week?
Geoff, you obviously weren't in work if ever back then. I was involved in the Engineering apprentice strike in '65, we were paid £2/19s/6d per week at Craven Bro's in Reddish, which just about covered our bus fares & canteen dinners. I was better off at school with a saturday job getting 15s/0d for delivering groceries.
Wildcat strikes! most were initiated by the factory bosses to slow down production due to their own inadequacy.
The 3 day week was the result of Maggie Thatcher wanting to play strong arm with Scargill, which resulted in the beginning of the end of the mining industry for her very arrogant & foolish attitude. You might remember all our young men she got killed & maimed sending them off to a futile war with Argentina, another strong arm foolish move instead of negotiation.
Get the facts right & in perspective. Haven't we had enough of puppet rulers who are only in it for their own ends. i was hoping Blair would be the last of that warmongering ilk.
-
Geoff, you obviously weren't in industry if ever back then. I was involved in the Engineering apprentice strike in '65, we were paid £2/19s/6d per week at Craven Bro's in Reddish, which just about covered our bus fares & canteen dinners. I was better off at school with a saturday job getting 15s/0d for delivering groceries.
Wildcat strikes! most were initiated by the factory bosses to slow down production due to their own inadequacy.
The 3 day week was the result of the Government wanting to play strong arm with Scargill, which resulted in the beginning of the end of the mining industry for their very arrogant & foolish attitude. You might remember all our young men Maggie got killed & maimed sending them off to a futile war with Argentina, another strong arm foolish move instead of negotiation.
Get the facts right & in perspective. Haven't we had enough of puppet rulers who are only in it for their own ends. i was hoping Blair would be the last of that warmongering ilk.
Excuse my deliberate errors in previous post just checking to see if anybody was paying attention. ;)
-
I too remember the 60s and apart from my youth, I wouldn't want any of it back.
The choice is perhaps a simple one although this is not the same as an easy one. We are either vote for being governed by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or by the Conservative party in Westminster.
Word such as rock, hard and place come to mind.
-
I too remember the 60s and apart from my youth, I wouldn't want any of it back.
Never thought I'd ever hear anyone say that, we had a fantastic time as youngsters in the '60s, never before or since has life been so good imo, we all had jobs, motorbikes, cars, out the dance halls every w/e, pubs, clubs were all buzzing. We didn't need multi-point locking on all our doors & windows, very little burglary 'cos everyone was working. And, a bobby on every street corner to make us feel safe/behave.
Marple is at present cocooned from the problems being suffered in other parts of the country, some of them too close for comfort eg Rotherham, Bradford, Oldham, Ashton & Hyde.
Now all we have to look forward to is this, coming to a place near you soon if we stay in the EU & not a bobby to be seen:
The video referred to has been removed as I do not wish it to be embedded in The Marple Website - Admin.
-
What a truly depressing post. Click the 'youtube' link on that video clip, and prepare to be taken to more very unpleasant and openly racist propaganda. Nasty company our Russ is keeping! :(
-
What a truly depressing post. Click the 'youtube' link on that video clip, and prepare to be taken to more very unpleasant and openly racist propaganda. Nasty company our Russ is keeping! :(
Dave, I am not in any way racist, where did that come from? I grew up in a mining town with school chums of every nationality some of whom are still chums to this day.
I have no issues with immigration just the lack of integration that results in the ghetto & no-go areas that are now prevalent in many towns & cities in our country. maybe you should go visit a few, on your own.
The point I was making is this goes on daily in some areas & the police keep well away, scared of the PC brigade calling them racist. Turning it to try & suit your argument for "IN" & looking at other vids totally different to the one I posted does not help your cause.
-
I too remember the 60s and apart from my youth, I wouldn't want any of it back.
The choice is perhaps a simple one although this is not the same as an easy one. We are either vote for being governed by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or by the Conservative party in Westminster.
Word such as rock, hard and place come to mind.
You make a good point there Simon. Indeed I often wonder why people think laws made in London are in some way better than laws made in Brussels.
What in my view the European Parliament needs is the ability to directly tax us. Once a parliament can tax it's electors it becomes much more accountable.
-
I have not suggested Russ is a racist, but that Youtube channel is full of truly nasty racist propaganda, and if anyone doubts that, have a look at the comments below the videos. It's like picking up a stone and seeing something really unpleasant crawling around underneath it.
But let's just take the clip that Russ actually posted. There is a scuffle going on. Someone has got a rifle. There are people from different ethnic groups. We don't know if any are Muslims, and if so, how many. We don't know if any are immigrants, and if so, how many (most Muslims in the UK are British). We don't know how it started, and we don't know how it ended. If some of the people we see are immigrants, did they come to the UK this year, last year, or 20 years ago? We know nothing. All we know is that whoever made the video and posted it on Youtube was trying to stir up racial hatred. It's contemptible, and it's completely irrelevant to the EU referendum!
I think I need to go and have a shower now!
-
I too remember the 60s and apart from my youth, I wouldn't want any of it back.
The choice is perhaps a simple one although this is not the same as an easy one. We are either vote for being governed by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or by the Conservative party in Westminster.
Word such as rock, hard and place come to mind.
You make a good point there Simon. Indeed I often wonder why people think laws made in London are in some way better than laws made in Brussels.
What in my view the European Parliament needs is the ability to directly tax us. Once a parliament can tax it's electors it becomes much more accountable.
-
I have not suggested Russ is a racist, but that Youtube channel is full of truly nasty racist propaganda, and if anyone doubts that, have a look at the comments below the videos. It's like picking up a stone and seeing something really unpleasant crawling around underneath it.
But let's just take the clip that Russ actually posted. There is a scuffle going on. Someone has got a rifle. There are people from different ethnic groups. We don't know if any are Muslims, and if so, how many. We don't know if any are immigrants, and if so, how many (most Muslims in the UK are British). We don't know how it started, and we don't know how it ended. If some of the people we see are immigrants, did they come to the UK this year, last year, or 20 years ago? We know nothing. All we know is that whoever made the video and posted it on Youtube was trying to stir up racial hatred. It's contemptible, and it's completely irrelevant to the EU referendum!
I think I need to go and have a shower now!
You are still missing the point Dave. The lack of Police presence is the point, but you persist in trying to turn it.
We have enough Police no-go areas already. Staying in the EU with its freedom of movement is not going to help our already over stretched infrastructure. We do not have the resources to control these situations even if they were allowed to go into these places.
BTW Dave, I mustn't take offence, you do seem to sit in permanently disagreeing with almost everything posted on this forum. ::)
-
That's completely untrue Russ,
Dave disagrees with no more than 85% posted on this website.
My dad was a 'bobby on the beat' in the 1960s.He regularly came home with injuries after one or even s few of Russ's happy citizens had attacked him. Once he was attacked with a scythe another time he was hospitalized when a happy citizen of the 60s drove a garden fork through his leg, happy times eh, and all pre Europe.
You are going of the subject Russ with your racist video posts and the mantra about stretched infrastructure and a sinking island has been done to death. If you Brexiteers want to win the debate you'll need to do better.
-
Well well - Russ is now attempting to cover his tracks. First he posts this introduction to the notorious video clip:
Marple is at present cocooned from the problems being suffered in other parts of the country, some of them too close for comfort eg Rotherham, Bradford, Oldham, Ashton & Hyde.
Then he says it wasn't about race at all: You are still missing the point Dave. The lack of Police presence is the point
So 'the problems being suffered in other parts of the country' illustrated by that video were of course shortages of police officers! Of course - silly us, why didn't we realise it was nothing to do with people of different ethnic backgrounds throwing things at each other!
You know what they say, Russ - when you're in a hole, stop digging! ;)
-
That's enough talk about racism on here.
I've removed the embedded video because I don't want it to be viewed via The Marple Website.
Further posts with references to race and racism will be removed.
-
The choice is perhaps a simple one although this is not the same as an easy one. We are either vote for being governed by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or by the Conservative party in Westminster.
Word such as rock, hard and place come to mind.
The difference is one is a democracy the other is a form of bureaucratic rule. The EU parliament is an upper chamber similar to the Lords, it doesn't drive the agenda or make the laws, this is done by the Council of Ministers that is unelected.
Most of our countries laws now come from the unelected nightmare. It time to put our own county and democracy first.
-
We don't have to believe all that David Cameron spouts, he must think he's onto a loser to spend £9,000,000 of taxpayers money sending leaflets to every single home in the country in an attempt to manipulate people who can't think for themselves. Or are browbeaten & brainwashed by others.
Our politicians are just puppets bought and paid for by the big companies (Bankers, Pharmaceuticals, oil, insurers, etc.) and will do what their masters tell them to do. They don't work for our benefit, only who pays them the most to advance the agendas that make the big companies more profit. Here in the UK, they couldn't care less what we the ordinary people want or need.
It matters little what the few of us think or are speculating one way or the other but it keeps idle hands occupied on keyboards eh.
-
The difference is one is a democracy the other is a form of bureaucratic rule. The EU parliament is an upper chamber similar to the Lords, it doesn't drive the agenda or make the laws, this is done by the Council of Ministers that is unelected.
Most of our countries laws now come from the unelected nightmare. It time to put our own county and democracy first.
I don't understand why anyone would want to stop laws, regulations and harmonisation that BENEFITS us, our business and protects our employees.
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to stop laws, regulations and harmonisation that BENEFITS us, our business and protects our employees.
Firstly, many would question whether these laws do in fact benefit us. However, it is up to the electorate of this and the other nations to choose a parliament to decide what laws we have. If laws and regulations introduced by the EU are indeed beneficial (and I don't think even the most fanatical out campaigner would deny that some are), there is no reason why our own legislature cannot keep them. Such laws would not be reversed following an exit from the EU unless a parliament elected by the voters of this country decides to do so.
-
But do not most of us, irrespective of the EU, think of ourselves as europeans thus the concept of the nation state is now a thing of the past that is surley why we should be working towards a fully federal europe. That after all is what we voted for in 1975 it's just been too slow coming.
-
Some of us undoubtedly regard ourselves as Europeans, wheels, but I suspect some of the Brexit campaigners don't. As for a federal Europe, dream on! Since the near-collapse of the euro, and the possible break up of the Schengen zone, that's less likely than ever.
But despite all that, there is little doubt that the UK leaving the EU would be a complete disaster for this country and the rest of Europe.
-
But do not most of us, irrespective of the EU, think of ourselves as europeans thus the concept of the nation state is now a thing of the past that is surley why we should be working towards a fully federal europe. That after all is what we voted for in 1975 it's just been too slow coming.
Wrong! We voted to join the Common Market. Basically it was a trade agreement. We were not voting to say that we wanted to be ruled by Brussels and lose our sovereignty. If that is what we were voting for, then we were lied to.
As for thinking of myself as European, no, I'm British. When asked where I'm from I say 'The U.K.' I don't say Europe, even when I'm on the opposite side of the planet. I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe themselves as European.
There are huge cultural differences between a number of European nations. It's nothing to do with race, just culture and behaviour.
-
But do not most of us, irrespective of the EU, think of ourselves as europeans thus the concept of the nation state is now a thing of the past that is surley why we should be working towards a fully federal europe. That after all is what we voted for in 1975 it's just been too slow coming.
Yes, I most definitely think of myself as European. British first, but European certainly. I could hardly do otherwise, considering the historical and cultural links with other European nations. Our culture is thoroughly European. That doesn't mean I want a federal Europe by any means. Close cooperation, friendship and mutual support certainly. A federal Europe certainly not. Neither do I want a Britain which ignores our common European history and culture. I just do not believe the EU is the way forward for Europe. I don't see the in - out argument as being about the future of the UK. It's about the future of Europe and about building a peaceful and prosperous Europe, which is not based on the structure of the EU. I expect Britain's future to involve the rest of Europe and also the rest of the world.
-
Yes, I most definitely think of myself as European. British first, but European certainly. I could hardly do otherwise, considering the historical and cultural links with other European nations. Our culture is thoroughly European. That doesn't mean I want a federal Europe by any means. Close cooperation, friendship and mutual support certainly. A federal Europe certainly not. Neither do I want a Britain which ignores our common European history and culture. I just do not believe the EU is the way forward for Europe. I don't see the in - out argument as being about the future of the UK. It's about the future of Europe and about building a peaceful and prosperous Europe, which is not based on the structure of the EU. I expect Britain's future to involve the rest of Europe and also the rest of the world.
What he said. Well put @Condate
-
Yes, I most definitely think of myself as European. British first, but European certainly. I could hardly do otherwise, considering the historical and cultural links with other European nations. Our culture is thoroughly European. That doesn't mean I want a federal Europe by any means. Close cooperation, friendship and mutual support certainly. A federal Europe certainly not. Neither do I want a Britain which ignores our common European history and culture.
So far so good - I go along with every word of that! So how does Condate get from there to here?
I just do not believe the EU is the way forward for Europe. I don't see the in - out argument as being about the future of the UK. It's about the future of Europe and about building a peaceful and prosperous Europe, which is not based on the structure of the EU [my italics]
Why not? If not based on the structure of the EU, what will it be based on? We are not looking at a blank sheet of paper - the EU is a well-established organisation which has existed in one form or another for almost seventy years. It has already achieved the 'peaceful and prosperous Europe' which Condate wants to build. There's a lot wrong with it, but there is widespread awareness of that throughout Europe, and changes are undoubtedly going to take place - albeit slowly, because that's the way it always is with such huge organisations. The euro has been a disaster - that will have to change. The migrant crisis has been threatening the existence of the Schengen zone - that will have to change. The EU has always changed, and it will continue to do so. But surely we have nothing to gain and an awful lot to lose by tearing up the EU and starting again with some kind of new organisation?
-
Wrong! We voted to join the Common Market. Basically it was a trade agreement. We were not voting to say that we wanted to be ruled by Brussels and lose our sovereignty. If that is what we were voting for, then we were lied to.
We were not lied to there was certainly an element of what was called the Common Market but there was absolutely not doubt whatsoever that we were voting to join what would in the long term would be a federal Europe. We were very clear about that at the time and that's what we voted for. Those who try to pretend it was all about a trade agreement are either misleading us now or didn't understand at the time.
-
The result of being in the EU & being governed by Brussels bureaucrats:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36094575
I'm sure Dave aka Mark W. / admin/moderator/site owner will manage to turn this into a racist/homophobic post using one of his many user-names.
Or just delete it because it disagrees his blinkered thinking?
-
The problem here, Russ, is not racism - it's sheer confusion!
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty which has been signed by 47 countries, including quite a few (e.g. Russia) which are unlikely ever to be members of the EU.
Above all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. If we were to leave the EU, it would not affect our membership of the ECHR in any way, and it is inconceivable, IMHO, that we would cease to be members for any other reason.
So it's just irrelevant.
As I said before, Russ - you're in a hole, so stop digging!
-
The problem here, Russ, is not racism - it's sheer confusion!
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty which has been signed by 47 countries, including quite a few (e.g. Russia) which are unlikely ever to be members of the EU.
Above all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. If we were to leave the EU, it would not affect our membership of the ECHR in any way, and it is inconceivable, IMHO, that we would cease to be members for any other reason.
So it's just irrelevant.
As I said before, Russ - you're in a hole, so stop digging!
In 1215 the then king of England, King John signed the Magna Carta. It guarantees the right of a fair trial to all citizens. We also had trade agreements with most of the then developed world.
We really have no need for this rubbish from European courts or the EU.
-
The result of being in the EU & being governed by Brussels bureaucrats:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36094575
@Russ This ruling is NOTHING to do with "Brussels bureaucrats". It's down to Norway being signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)) which has been signed up to by all members of the Council of Europe. This includes 47 member states (including Russia), 5 Council observers and 3 Assembly Observers.
I'm sure Dave aka Mark W. / admin/moderator/site owner will manage to turn this into a racist/homophobic post using one of his many user-names.
Or just delete it because it disagrees his blinkered thinking?
FYI Dave is a long-standing member of the forum and is not the same person as Mark, admin, moderator etc.
-
I'm sure Dave aka Mark W. / admin/moderator/site owner will manage to turn this into a racist/homophobic post using one of his many user-names.
Or just delete it because it disagrees his blinkered thinking?
Oh dear! How to answer this? Do I have to answer it? I guess I have to give it a go!
I suppose I could come clean and admit that I'm also @Dave, and @simonesaffron, and @Phil and @wheels and all the other people who sometimes say things that I wish I'd thought of on here (well not wheels actually) but it wouldn't be true. I only have one account and that's enough for me. Of course some of what you say is true, as my name is Mark Whittaker, I'm the owner of the site, the “Admin” and one of the moderators but it's all done against the same account (or do you think I'm @Howard and @Lisa Oldham too?)
I have removed a video you embedded in this thread because I didn't like it – and I did agree with what Dave said about it too actually. I didn't want people to be able to view it through my site and I said so when I removed it. I make no apologies for that and if you don''t like it you are welcome not to post on here any more.
I haven't deleted or moderated anything else you have written on this forum but I have moved your silly “Chubby Checker” comments and video to the “Trolling, Trivia and off topic posts” section as that's where I think it belongs.
So, if you can't contribute to the discussions on here without continuing to have a pop at Dave, or at me or anyone else who disagrees with you, then please don't post on here any more.
-
Check the history. In 1950 there was an attempt at integration. Beginning with iron and steel. Ironic given what's with Tata steel and China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community)
And @Dave and @admin are most definitely not one and the same. Although they could be Batman and Superman.
-
We were not lied to there was certainly an element of what was called the Common Market but there was absolutely not doubt whatsoever that we were voting to join what would in the long term would be a federal Europe. We were very clear about that at the time and that's what we voted for. Those who try to pretend it was all about a trade agreement are either misleading us now or didn't understand at the time.
I was only 22 at the time, slightly older than you wheels, with no interest at all in politics, but I remember very well what it was called and what it was about. We were told that membership would reduce prices in our shops to the level of those in France and Spain. That is why we, the public, voted the way we did.
Ask people older than us, with no political interests, and I think you'll find they will remember similarly.
-
We really have no need for this rubbish from European courts or the EU.
So what are you suggesting, hatter? That the UK should step down from the Council of Europe, and join Belarus and Kazakhstan as the only European countries which are not members, because of their poor human rights records - torture, execution, religious oppression etc etc. What delightful company!
-
@Russ This ruling is NOTHING to do with "Brussels bureaucrats". It's down to Norway being signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)) which has been signed up to by all members of the Council of Europe. This includes 47 member states (including Russia), 5 Council observers and 3 Assembly Observers.
FYI Dave is a long-standing member of the forum and is not the same person as Mark, admin, moderator etc.
Re the Brussells bureucrats, nothing to do with them? What's this all about then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32692758/human-rights-act-versus-a-british-bill-of-rights
Now tell the good people of this forum why one person is allowed to hurl his insults at anybody & everybody who disagrees with him? Most on here have been subjected to his poison & twisting of a few chosen words at one time or another.
And why, when somebody dare have a pop back, even in jest, gets their posts deleted?
I came to an obvious conclusion.
-
So far so good - I go along with every word of that! So how does Condate get from there to here?
Why not? If not based on the structure of the EU, what will it be based on? We are not looking at a blank sheet of paper - the EU is a well-established organisation which has existed in one form or another for almost seventy years. It has already achieved the 'peaceful and prosperous Europe' which Condate wants to build. There's a lot wrong with it, but there is widespread awareness of that throughout Europe, and changes are undoubtedly going to take place - albeit slowly, because that's the way it always is with such huge organisations. The euro has been a disaster - that will have to change. The migrant crisis has been threatening the existence of the Schengen zone - that will have to change. The EU has always changed, and it will continue to do so. But surely we have nothing to gain and an awful lot to lose by tearing up the EU and starting again with some kind of new organisation?
The problem is that the EU is so far from the sort of Europe which would benefit Britain, or indeed the other member nations, that starting again is the only option left. If we reform the EU in such a way as to remove the problems, we end up with something barely recognisable as the EU. For a start, the notion of "ever closer union" would have to go. A federal Europe, or anything like it is bad for Britain and for all the nations of Europe. We need a much looser organisation which looks outward to the rest of the world and accepts the rights of all the nations to determine their own laws and customs. Of course while giving Britain full control of its laws and practices, we need to accept that other nations are perfectly entitled to do the same. We may not like what other nations decide to do in some cases and they may not like what we decide to do, but mutual respect and the advantages of cooperation can cope with this.
-
We were not lied to there was certainly an element of what was called the Common Market but there was absolutely not doubt whatsoever that we were voting to join what would in the long term would be a federal Europe. We were very clear about that at the time and that's what we voted for. Those who try to pretend it was all about a trade agreement are either misleading us now or didn't understand at the time.
Most people were not at all clear about this. If you ask people who voted yes, you will find a very large number indeed who did not realise that a federal Europe was a possibility. I was just short of 18 at the time, but if I had been able to vote, I would have voted yes, having been reassured by many statements from the yes campaign that this was not going to lead to loss of British sovereignty. This is why so many people consider they were lied to. It's not just a few; it's a very large proportion of the electorate.
-
We were not lied to there was certainly an element of what was called the Common Market but there was absolutely not doubt whatsoever that we were voting to join what would in the long term would be a federal Europe. We were very clear about that at the time and that's what we voted for. Those who try to pretend it was all about a trade agreement are either misleading us now or didn't understand at the time.
Here is the Government pamphlet of the time.
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm (http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm)
I don't read anything there about a federal Europe.
-
Oh dear! How to answer this? Do I have to answer it? I guess I have to give it a go!
I suppose I could come clean and admit that I'm also @Dave, and @simonesaffron, and @Phil and @wheels and all the other people who sometimes say things that I wish I'd thought of on here (well not wheels actually)
So, if you can't contribute to the discussions on here without continuing to have a pop at Dave, or at me or anyone else who disagrees with you, then please don't post on here any more.
So do I take it that Russ can't have a pop at people but you can?...... all handed down to us in the same message.
-
The problem is that the EU is so far from the sort of Europe which would benefit Britain, or indeed the other member nations, that starting again is the only option left. If we reform the EU in such a way as to remove the problems, we end up with something barely recognisable as the EU. For a start, the notion of "ever closer union" would have to go.
It's gone, certainly as far as the UK is concerned, and we are not alone.
A federal Europe, or anything like it is bad for Britain and for all the nations of Europe.
Agreed - it ain't gonna happen.
We need a much looser organisation which looks outward to the rest of the world and accepts the rights of all the nations to determine their own laws and customs. Of course while giving Britain full control of its laws and practices, we need to accept that other nations are perfectly entitled to do the same. We may not like what other nations decide to do in some cases and they may not like what we decide to do, but mutual respect and the advantages of cooperation can cope with this.
That's the way the EU is heading, IMHO. But slowly, because it's such a huge cumbersome and diverse organisation. And obviously the problem with 'giving Britain [or any other EU country] full control of its laws and practices' is that the harmonisation of labour laws is a necessary condition for the much prized 'single market'. You can't have one without the other. If we left the EU but wished to remain in the single market (like Norway and Switzerland), we would still have to accept much of the pan-European regulations - banning of restrictive practices, health and safety regulations etc etc.
Or we can completely pull up the drawbridge and go it alone - but only the hardcore Brexit headbangers seriously want that!
-
So do I take it that Russ can't have a pop at people but you can?...... all handed down to us in the same message.
I'm sorry wheels, I thought you'd find it amusing too as we rarely see eye-to-eye but if you don't then I apologise.
Now tell the good people of this forum why one person is allowed to hurl his insults at anybody & everybody who disagrees with him? Most on here have been subjected to his poison & twisting of a few chosen words at one time or another.
And why, when somebody dare have a pop back, even in jest, gets their posts deleted?
I came to an obvious conclusion.
As I've said already Russ, your posts haven't been deleted, they've been moved to a more appropriate place.
-
Admin........ I did find it amusing and didn't take offence so no apologies required.
You might find it hard to believe but I've had much worse said about me on line. 😆
-
Admin........ I did find it amusing and didn't take offence so no apologies required.
You might find it hard to believe but I've had much worse said about me on line. 😆
No, now you've gone too far Wheels, knowing you as we do, you really can't expect anybody on this site to believe such exaggeration
-
Or we can completely pull up the drawbridge and go it alone - but only the hardcore Brexit headbangers seriously want that!
I've just stumbled across an example of just such a headbanger. http://www.theweek.co.uk/71732/vladimir-putin-should-be-running-europe-says-bernie-ecclestone
That's the sort of company Brexit campaigners are keeping......... :o
Now we know that guy's a joke, but actually it's not funny. In fact, nothing about this referendum is funny - I honestly believe it's potentially the most serious decision we will have to take in most of our lifetimes, and the consequences of getting it wrong are unknown, and could be catastrophic. What is known is that Putin would be delighted to see the UK leave the EU, because it could very well be the start of a partial or even complete break up. And of course, ISIS would be delighted as well. You know what the Romans used to say, 2,000 years ago: Divide and Conquer.
And then there's the Scots, who are expected to vote 'remain' by a sizeable majority. That would probably lead to another independence referendum, and the result could very well be different this time. That leaves England, Wales and Northern Ireland out in the cold - and how long would Northern Ireland stick with us, once it is policing a land border with the EU?
Scary times.
-
I've just stumbled across an example of just such a headbanger. http://www.theweek.co.uk/71732/vladimir-putin-should-be-running-europe-says-bernie-ecclestone
That's the sort of company Brexit campaigners are keeping......... :o
Now we know that guy's a joke, but actually it's not funny. In fact, nothing about this referendum is funny - I honestly believe it's potentially the most serious decision we will have to take in most of our lifetimes, and the consequences of getting it wrong are unknown, and could be catastrophic. What is known is that Putin would be delighted to see the UK leave the EU, because it could very well be the start of a partial or even complete break up. And of course, ISIS would be delighted as well. You know what the Romans used to say, 2,000 years ago: Divide and Conquer.
And then there's the Scots, who are expected to vote 'remain' by a sizeable majority. That would probably lead to another independence referendum, and the result could very well be different this time. That leaves England, Wales and Northern Ireland out in the cold - and how long would Northern Ireland stick with us, once it is policing a land border with the EU?
Scary times.
Quite funny Dave to see you quoting yourself
We need to make friends with Russia and form closer links with them, the potential for increased trade is massive. The problem is that the EU has got involved with the likes of Ukraine and other Baltic states and put them on the path of membership. Its a clear example of how we would be better without the EU interference, an independent UK would be free from this baggage enabling closer links.
As for the other UK countries it is a matter for them. I think that Britain will boom outside the UK, funding sent away could be redirected to UK regions, increasing productivity and growth. We currently only get half of our funding back that we put into the EU.
-
I've just stumbled across an example of just such a headbanger. http://www.theweek.co.uk/71732/vladimir-putin-should-be-running-europe-says-bernie-ecclestone
That's the sort of company Brexit campaigners are keeping......... :o
Now we know that guy's a joke, but actually it's not funny. In fact, nothing about this referendum is funny - I honestly believe it's potentially the most serious decision we will have to take in most of our lifetimes, and the consequences of getting it wrong are unknown, and could be catastrophic. What is known is that Putin would be delighted to see the UK leave the EU, because it could very well be the start of a partial or even complete break up. And of course, ISIS would be delighted as well. You know what the Romans used to say, 2,000 years ago: Divide and Conquer.
And then there's the Scots, who are expected to vote 'remain' by a sizeable majority. That would probably lead to another independence referendum, and the result could very well be different this time. That leaves England, Wales and Northern Ireland out in the cold - and how long would Northern Ireland stick with us, once it is policing a land border with the EU?
Scary times.
Dave, you forgot to mention the plague of locusts that will affect us if we leave.
-
Your right Harry Dave did forget to mention that plague of locusts that will affect us if we vote to leave. So thank for pointing it out and let's vote IN to avoid that and worse. Sod the sovereignty eh.
-
I've just stumbled across an example of just such a headbanger. http://www.theweek.co.uk/71732/vladimir-putin-should-be-running-europe-says-bernie-ecclestone
That's the sort of company Brexit campaigners are keeping......... :o
Now we know that guy's a joke, but actually it's not funny. In fact, nothing about this referendum is funny - I honestly believe it's potentially the most serious decision we will have to take in most of our lifetimes, and the consequences of getting it wrong are unknown, and could be catastrophic. What is known is that Putin would be delighted to see the UK leave the EU, because it could very well be the start of a partial or even complete break up. And of course, ISIS would be delighted as well. You know what the Romans used to say, 2,000 years ago: Divide and Conquer.
And then there's the Scots, who are expected to vote 'remain' by a sizeable majority. That would probably lead to another independence referendum, and the result could very well be different this time. That leaves England, Wales and Northern Ireland out in the cold - and how long would Northern Ireland stick with us, once it is policing a land border with the EU?
Scary times.
I am in favour of staying in but these arguments and language such as 'headbanger' and for that matter 'swivel eyed loons' does the argument no favours and to be honest, it's no surprise Dave has adopted this tactic.
Will we trade with the EU? Of course we will. Will we trade with anyone else? Of course. The free market is extending, not contracting.
There is a lot wrong with the EU and we should use this referendum to get reform.
My problem with the EU is that it creates a micro economy of high wages, false currencies and protectionism. That will inevitable blow and whilst it's argued we are better prepared outside the European Union we will still after the fallout.
My argument is that we are better placed to affect change within than from outside.
-
Welcome back again Duke - it's not the same when you go away!
If wanting Vladimir Putin to run Europe doesn't make you a headbanger, what does?
Can't say I fully understand all of Duke's post, but I get the general drift, and I especially agree with this bitMy argument is that we are better placed to affect change within than from outside.
If we leave (God forbid!) the EU will not go away. It will still be there on our doorstep, and what happens within it will have a huge effect on us. Much better to stay with it and have a say in what happens, than just suffer the consequences.
-
Much better to stay with it and have a say in what happens, than just suffer the consequences.
What say do we really have with majority voting on most issues and the German French alliance controlling the direction and agenda?
Like the Euro the EU is heading for disaster, we need to get off the bus .
-
A lot could change in the next two months, but for what it's worth, this is slightly reassuring: http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result
-
I'd be fascinated to know what's in this post but it's being blocked by my parental filter - is BT broadband taking a stand on the EU poll, is this actually a link to a rather risque site? I'm intrigued!
-
I'd be fascinated to know what's in this post but it's being blocked by my parental filter - is BT broadband taking a stand on the EU poll, is this actually a link to a rather risque site? I'm intrigued!
Nothing that exiting corium, just a list of odds that show the leave side is losing the debate.
-
I'd be fascinated to know what's in this post but it's being blocked by my parental filter - is BT broadband taking a stand on the EU poll, is this actually a link to a rather risque site? I'm intrigued!
No such fun Corium, its a summary of all the major bookmakers odds on staying or leaving. They are all offering various odds on how the electorate will vote. In the main they are offering odds on, for staying and odds against for leaving.
It is interesting as the old saying in betting circles goes ..." You never see a poor bookie." Are the bookies always right?
-
Famously, they and the opinion pollsters got it wrong at last year's General Election!
-
Famously, they and the opinion pollsters got it wrong at last year's General Election!
They did Dave, but how many times prior to that have they got it right.
-
More often that not, and for all of our sakes I hope they have this time too! :o
-
3 weeks to go
When the arguments and statistics are peeled away, this referendum is really about one thing for me personally.
Do we want to befriend our fellow European nations, or do we want them at a distance?
Do we want our leaders to talk to the other neighbouring leaders to tackle issues like terrorism, financial crises or the environment? Exchange ideas, not threats.
Of course we have the capacity to go it alone, but why throw away 50 years when 28 strong, democratic nations freely came together after one of the most bloody conflicts the world has seen?
We have a United Kingdom, so why not a consensus-building, solid EU, where you can only get a result, not by ordering people, but by persuading them of your argument?
Share a strong link, but not a strong government, with peoples that share a common economy, history and way of life.
For me, as you’ve guessed, the answer is that we are Stronger In and I will vote positively and choose to remain in one of the most unique organisations in the world.
And I shall do it partly so that my children will inherit a better, safer and more thriving world.
Cllr Geoff Abell
-
Clearly another potential candidate for the EU gravy train. We could do all of those things without actually being in the EU. The corruption and waste and restrictions imposed make the EU a busted flush.
-
3 weeks to go
When the arguments and statistics are peeled away, this referendum is really about one thing for me personally.
Do we want to befriend our fellow European nations, or do we want them at a distance?
Do we want our leaders to talk to the other neighbouring leaders to tackle issues like terrorism, financial crises or the environment? Exchange ideas, not threats.
Well, for me the answer to those question is a very definite yes I want to befriend our European neighbours and a very definite yes, I want our leaders to talk to the other neighbouring leaders to tackle issues like terrorism, financial crises or the environment? Exchange ideas, not threats.
I will of course be voting to leave the EU. The idea that leaving the EU means not doing those things is far from the minds of those of us who want to leave. If being in the EU simply means doing those things then I think few people would want to leave, but that isn't what the EU is about and I do not think it is possible to change the EU into a group of nations who need to talk and cooperate when they can and realise their common and interlinked history and culture. I want such a grouping, which realises that in many areas, cooperation is a good thing and where each nation realises that it has much to learn from the others. Such a grouping is what I expect to arise after the breakup of the EU and I would be happy for all the current members of the EU and others to join such a grouping and of course I would be happy to see the United Kingdom a member. It would be very different from the EU.
-
I was trying to analyse why I personally want In. And perhaps get a response from others. (Although I realise that this debate and the internal wranglings of the Conservative Party has seemed to last a very long time indeed.)
So far, 2 different replies - one I suspect wants Out at all costs, and the other more nuanced.
To @mikes I say we could do these things but don't. An example was the Reach initiative that investigated all known chemicals to assess their environmental impact and risk. (Much resisted by German pharma companies, by the way). So trivial, why bother? Tell that to the worker how inhaled asbestos in the 50s, or the car companies that promoted Diesel engines as better for the environment.
Or the recent reduction in EU mobile roaming tariffs.
Generally the EU costs us relatively small amounts - we pay 8 times the amount on defence, but I've not heard anyone ask us to get rid of the army yet! And the MoD had some serious efficiency problems brought to light in the last decade.
@Condate I understand where you are intellectually coming from, but I would ask, how would you get your pan-nation consensus forum? And in what way would it be radically different from the present? It's a pretty unique situation where 28 nations come together through peaceful means. You just have to llok back through the last 400 years of European history.
More generality I would also ask, after the birth-pains of getting through the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht or Lisbon, how has your life got worse?
As for the gravy train, it's the UKIP members who are worst, with a terrible attendance record (turning up for just 63% of the votes), but they still take the money. Including office expenses for a free office. ("It's a grey area" the leader was reported as saying in a BBC documentary a few years back.)
Got to get on. Potholes don't fix themselves.
-
@Condate I understand where you are intellectually coming from, but I would ask, how would you get your pan-nation consensus forum? And in what way would it be radically different from the present? It's a pretty unique situation where 28 nations come together through peaceful means. You just have to look back through the last 400 years of European history.
The last 400 (and a lot more) years certainly show the problems of rivalries between nations. In particular, the rivalry between France and the Empire (and one of its successors, Germany). That rivalry has had very serious consequences for all of Europe, even leaving aside the wars of the last century. I think (and certainly hope) that we all know better than to carry on on that way. I do not think any current member of the EU wants to return to the old days of conflict. If the EU breaks down, as I expect it will, all the nations will be terrified of a return to the old days and will be very pleased to participate in the looser, more flexible association which is possible.
More generality I would also ask, after the birth-pains of getting through the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht or Lisbon, how has your life got worse?
Economically, it is more a question of how much better it would have been without those treaties. I also have much less influence in what happens in this country. I can no longer choose a government which will participate in discussions with other European nations and come to agreement where possible and reject what is not acceptable. There are many things we cannot stop if the other member states insist. Of course this works both ways and we can now, in agreement with a majority of other nations, force things on reluctant members. This is just as wrong.
International agreements and standardisations in various fields between European nations have gone on for over a century. Certainly well before the EEC, never mind EU existed. Such things are sensible, but only when all participants agree. I see a much looser Europe, where not all countries need enter all agreements and there is much more room for flexibility. Certainly there can be no European parliament, as I want a Europe where nations meet and their governments make the agreements.
-
I got sent this image earlier. Illustrates the polarized communities quite well.
(http://i.imgur.com/qg3J0yi.png)
-
I see a much looser Europe, where not all countries need enter all agreements and there is much more room for flexibility.
So do I - indeed, we are already heading that way. The euro cannot survive in its present form, IMO, and the Schengen area is also being seriously undermined by the migrant crisis. And we Brits are not alone in wanting to roll back the undemocratic European Commission - far from it!
That is why I have voted 'remain' (I happen to have a postal vote). The EU is far from perfect - what is? - but it has kept the peace in Western Europe for the longest continuous period in 2,000 years, and we must never take that for granted.
If we leave the EU the remaining countries will still be on our doorstep, and will still be working closely together without us in whatever evolves from the present EU. And everything they do will affect us profoundly. That's why for the sake of our children and grandchildren we need to stay with it and work closely with our EU partners to make it work better and more democratically. Walking out and slamming the door is never the way to solve any problem!
-
I am concerned that Turkey will be allowed to join the EU sooner than is being predicted due to their taking in of a lot of Syrian refugees. Apparently up to 500,000 polish were entitled to vote in the recent London mayor election. Is that an accurate figure?
Maybe I'm being too simplistic but Australia is an island and appears to be reasonably self sufficient why can't we go down that route?
So at the moment I am voting out as I believe we could be swamped with millions of Turkish people in as little as the next decade and sorry but we don't have the room and need to reclaim control of our borders.
-
Maybe I'm being too simplistic but Australia is an island and appears to be reasonably self sufficient why can't we go down that route?
Because the UK is an island 20 miles from the French coast, whilst Australia is a continent 10,000 miles away. There is no comparison.
-
When everything is boiled down, it is probably a straight choice between, being governed for the for see able, by faceless, grey lawmakers from Brussels who have no vested interest in this country one way or another, OR the Conservative Party in Westminster, who have a massive vested interest in this country.
The faceless, grey lawmakers, just shade it.
-
A slight correction - most European law starts with the Council of Ministers, who represent the national governments. So you are probably talking about the same thing - the grey, faceless crats from Tory Brussels-Westminster. Only different is, the Conservative government cannot force through EU legislation. Come to think of it, they are not very united in Westminster at the moment either...
-
A slight correction - most European law starts with the Council of Ministers, who represent the national governments. So you are probably talking about the same thing - the grey, faceless crats from Tory Brussels-Westminster. Only different is, the Conservative government cannot force through EU legislation. Come to think of it, they are not very united in Westminster at the moment either...
Most EU laws begin with the unelected commission who are self appointed officials. They they are run past the Council of Ministers who again are unelected and report back to nation government. After the bills have been finalised the elected parliament get to rubber stamp it following deals and negotiations. The bulk of our laws comes from this unelected system.
It completely amazes me that politicians that come from a party with the word democrats in its title can support this shower of a system. How many people gave there lives for our democracy throughout history.
We are about to throw this away!
-
Most EU laws begin with the unelected commission who are self appointed officials.
No, the 28 EU commissioners are each nominated by the democratically elected governments of the member states, one from each. They do not appoint themselves.
the Council of Ministers who again are unelected
Here again, the Council of Ministers consists of democratically elected ministers from each member state, 28 of them.
Let's get the facts straight!
-
No, the 28 EU commissioners are each nominated by the democratically elected governments of the member states, one from each. They do not appoint themselves.
Here again, the Council of Ministers consists of democratically elected ministers from each member state, 28 of them.
Let's get the facts straight!
Yes Dave, its good to get facts straight
The Commissioners are the executive of the EU not the parliament, they are therefore responsible for all decisions, direction and leadership. It is the equivalent of a senior civil servant being Prime Minister.
Once they take office they have to take an oath of elegance to the EU, its beliefs and agree to put its needs above national government.
It is completely undemocratic. It is rule by the elite who don't want ordinary people getting in the way of their ideas and philosophy. This is what you have voted for.
-
Well, we're making a bit of progress - I'm pleased we can now agree that the EU commissioners are not 'self-appointed'.
The Commissioners are the executive of the EU
Agreed.
they are therefore responsible for all decisions, direction and leadership.
No they aren't. The Commission proposes and drafts legislation, which then has to be passed by the directly elected Parliament and the Council of Ministers representing the 28 democratically elected governments. If it is passed, it's the Commission's job to implement it.
It is the equivalent of a senior civil servant being Prime Minister.
Not really. A better analogy would be with government ministers, as the 28 commissioners all have a specific area of responsibility.
Once they take office they have to take an oath of elegance to the EU, its beliefs and agree to put its needs above national government.
The oath is that the commissioners will be completely independent in carrying out their duties, acting in the widest interests of the EU and not in the interests of the country which nominated them. In other words, they are not national representatives. Would anyone want it any other way?
It is completely undemocratic.
That simply isn't true, as explained above. It is undoubtedly a democratic system. But it's not perfect, and many people across Europe would like the Commission to be more accountable on a day-to-day basis than it currently is. The question is, how to achieve that. The sheer size of the EU population (half a billion people) is part of the problem. As Winston Churchill once said, ''Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
On the subject of the referendum itself, I've got a creeping feeling that we may be heading for Brexit. Hatter and I can argue about democracy, but I doubt whether most people care much about that. The issue which seems to be prevailing is immigration, and I think we could be heading for a gigantic and historic leap in the dark, with who knows what consequences. Scary..........
-
Well, we're making a bit of progress - I'm pleased we can now agree that the EU commissioners are not 'self-appointed'.
Agreed.
No they aren't. The Commission proposes and drafts legislation, which then has to be passed by the directly elected Parliament and the Council of Ministers representing the 28 democratically elected governments. If it is passed, it's the Commission's job to implement it.
Not really. A better analogy would be with government ministers, as the 28 commissioners all have a specific area of responsibility.
The oath is that the commissioners will be completely independent in carrying out their duties, acting in the widest interests of the EU and not in the interests of the country which nominated them. In other words, they are not national representatives. Would anyone want it any other way?
That simply isn't true, as explained above. It is undoubtedly a democratic system. But it's not perfect, and many people across Europe would like the Commission to be more accountable on a day-to-day basis than it currently is. The question is, how to achieve that. The sheer size of the EU population (half a billion people) is part of the problem. As Winston Churchill once said, ''Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
On the subject of the referendum itself, I've got a creeping feeling that we may be heading for Brexit. Hatter and I can argue about democracy, but I doubt whether most people care much about that. The issue which seems to be prevailing is immigration, and I think we could be heading for a gigantic and historic leap in the dark, with who knows what consequences. Scary..........
Quite simply we did not elect the executive, we can not influence the executive and we can not vote out the executive. If you think this is democratic then so be it.
The Council of Ministers are there to pave things other with the funders (national governments), the upper chamber the parliament is a smoke screen to give the illusion of accountability, ask a few questions and claim the expenses.
Who is really behind the EU?
I agree that most people don't give a .... about this issue but it should be important.
-
We can argue about the democratic/undemocratic process of the EU all day long.Most
Unfortunately most people are just concerned about it. Their issues AR about immigration, sovereignty and little else. The newspapers are bombarding people with both these issues. The result though tilting towards Brexit It is still a hard one to call and it depends who you talk to.
I've been involved in a project this week with 18/24 year olds (not a political project) we casually discussed the EU and 90% of them were in favour of staying. What surprised me most was when I asked them about being influenced by the newspapers they said that they didn't buy nor read them. W
-
Continued:
Well of course they don't, all their news/info is via social media. Whereas ours because of our age is via the media.
-
We can argue about the democratic/undemocratic process of the EU all day long.Most
Unfortunately most people are just concerned about it. Their issues AR about immigration, sovereignty and little else. The newspapers are bombarding people with both these issues. The result though tilting towards Brexit It is still a hard one to call and it depends who you talk to.
I've been involved in a project this week with 18/24 year olds (not a political project) we casually discussed the EU and 90% of them were in favour of staying. What surprised me most was when I asked them about being influenced by the newspapers they said that they didn't buy nor read them. W
Unfortunately the EU has a specific funding pot set aside to sell the EU project to young people, which includes social media campaigns and videos. Hopefully when they start thinking themselves at some point.
Another issue that is hardly ever discussed is the transatlantic trade investment partnership TTIP. There are some real concerns around this which is being led by the US and the EU. If successful it will open up competition to public sector contracts to private companies potentially privatising the NHS and provide the lowest common welfare standards in food production. I'm not an expert on it but there is plenty about this on google but it is hardly ever mentioned in the press or TV. No doubt large firms have been lobbying the unelected EU Commissioners wanting this deal to go through. This is another example of how decisions are being imposed upon us.
-
Quite simply we did not elect the executive, we can not influence the executive and we can not vote out the executive.
Just like the UK government. We did not elect the ministers to their positions - the Prime Minister appointed them. And neither can we vote them all out - only Parliament can do that.
Thanks to the House of Lords, the UK has one of the least democratic parliaments in Europe. So until we put our own house (of Lords) in order, we should not be lecturing anyone else on democracy.
I agree with hatter's concerns about TTIP, but there is widespread opposition to it throughout Europe. It is not a done deal yet - far from it.
-
Unfortunately the EU has a specific funding pot set aside to sell the EU project to young people, which includes social media campaigns and videos. Hopefully when they start thinking themselves at some point.
It's got noting to do with an EU propaganda, and is much more to do with the newspapers being full of anti EU stuff, and social media, depending on who you follow, either ignores the subject or offers a more balanced view - in the sense that there are plenty of people offering opinions on both sides.
If you largely get your news from one source (and let's be honest not many people buy more than one newspaper a day), then that news will be biased towards their agenda.
-
I agree that there has been a drip-feed of anti-EU poison from many (undemocratic) papers for decades. Now I, like many of my fellow countrymen, have a healthy scepticism about authority, but some of the stories are frankly laughable. And get in the way of good, serious debate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388)
http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/media/euromyths.html (http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/media/euromyths.html)
Some of the best, most-passionate arguments this week have come from former PM, John Major and the green MP, Caroline Lucas. And passion is important, rather than just a passive acceptance.
And I ask another question: if you want to leave the EU, would you leave the UK too? There are parallels with that 300-year-old union, and in the past there were financial and immigration questions there too, not to mention cross-border squabbles, all hopefully things of the past.
And even the Greeks, with their myriad problems and political turmoil, have no big Leave movement. But then they don't have the British press.
-
I agree with every word you say, Dave. Now the latest poll , if they're believable, gives Brexit a four-point lead. If younger people dont bother to vote in this referendum, and many young people aren't even registered, we are at risk of becoming a sad, inwardly-looking country run by an elite that will destroy our free at the point of use NHS (all three of the Brexit leaders have registered their desire to do so), and set us on a course dominated by the right-wing of the Tory party.
-
I agree with every word you say, Dave. Now the latest poll , if they're believable, gives Brexit a four-point lead. If younger people dont bother to vote in this referendum, and many young people aren't even registered, we are at risk of becoming a sad, inwardly-looking country run by an elite that will destroy our free at the point of use NHS (all three of the Brexit leaders have registered their desire to do so), and set us on a course dominated by the right-wing of the Tory party.
https://data.oecd.org/unemp/youth-unemployment-rate.htm
The table shows that youth unemployment in countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy are between 30-50%, this is a whole generation failed by the EU!
The youth of this country should be very grateful that we didn't do what the unelected EU masters wanted us to do and join the Euro. It has beyond any doubt been a huge failure leading to mass youth unemployment, a massive debt crisis and low economic growth. The same people who are advocating disaster for the UK now if we leave the EU were 15 years ago saying the same if we didn't adopt the Euro.
As for Greece, there is several nasty parties out there wanting out. The crisis is far from over and requires billions of further austerity cuts and loans principally from Germany. It is predicted that there could be further pressures on the banking system in the coming weeks. This will probably spread across the weaker parts of the Eurozone.
This is not an economic project, it is a political project. We need to leave!
-
Perhaps we should have an EU referendum every ten years or so until we leave. That way if we vote in now we see if it changes and if not we can leave in ten years. That will put pressure on EU bureaucrats to change the massively incompetent and wasteful system we have now. Or is that just wishful thinking - that they will change anything? As I've said before if you are on the gravy train one is hardly likely to want to change at the next station.
-
we are at risk of becoming a sad, inwardly-looking country run by an elite that will destroy our free at the point of use NHS (all three of the Brexit leaders have registered their desire to do so), and set us on a course dominated by the right-wing of the Tory party.
That is a key point.
In case you missed it, like me, here is Sir John Major on the Andrew Marr programme earlier today, speaking with a rare passion - I didn't know he had it in him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSin-dA3PGc
As Major rightly points out, what we are hearing from some of the leave side is outright deceit. And we the public are being treated by them like imbeciles. For example, only a complete half-wit would believe Michael Gove, the man who ten years ago called for the NHS to be dismantled and replaced with personal health accounts, when he now tries to suggest that he would spend on the NHS the money saved by leaving the EU!
-
It is good to see politicians displaying passion, but not in such a base cause as John Major did. A cause which is bad for Britain and very bad for Europe. What is true though is that a lot of nonsense has been spouted during this campaign and by both sides. I hope people ignore this and consider not just what it best for Britain, but what is best for the whole of Europe. This whole debate needs to consider the larger picture and not just Britain and realise that the good of Europe, not just that of the individual nations, but of the continent as a whole demands an end to the European Union. The EU is becoming a threat to the future of Europe and is beyond reform. A new start is essential if we are to build a stable and prosperous Europe and Britain leaving the EU is an important first step.
-
That is a key point.
In case you missed it, like me, here is Sir John Major on the Andrew Marr programme earlier today, speaking with a rare passion - I didn't know he had it in him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSin-dA3PGc
As Major rightly points out, what we are hearing from some of the leave side is outright deceit. And we the public are being treated by them like imbeciles. For example, only a complete half-wit would believe Michael Gove, the man who ten years ago called for the NHS to be dismantled and replaced with personal health accounts, when he now tries to suggest that he would spend on the NHS the money saved by leaving the EU!
Remind me again how much do he lose in a single day with the ERM disaster when the pound was humiliated?
His reign ended in fiasco and complete disorder and the government run by the 1922 committee
This is the man responsible for the Maastricht treaty another disaster
A failure both yesterday and today
-
He was still spot on!
The idea that M Gove would use spare money to fund the NHS is quite strange! After his failed reforms in eduction too.
https://data.oecd.org/unemp/youth-unemployment-rate.htm
The youth of this country should be very grateful that we didn't do what the unelected EU masters wanted us to do and join the Euro. It has beyond any doubt been a huge failure leading to mass youth unemployment, a massive debt crisis and low economic growth.
No, I think that was admirably achieved by the 2008 banking crisis.
Perhaps we should have an EU referendum every ten years or so until we leave.
We will do - UK legislation asks for one for every new treaty.
As Major said, this vote is more important than a General Election. The population can chose. But if they chose on the basis of lies, that would be a disaster.
-
Please Admin,
Take that picture of "Sir" John, (the classless society) Major off this website. Why anybody would want to use him as a representative of any argument is a complete mystery to me.
Messrs Give and Johnson must be hoping that he appears regularly on TV between now and the vote.
-
I hope people ..... consider not just what it best for Britain, but what is best for the whole of Europe..... The EU is becoming a threat to the future of Europe and is beyond reform. A new start is essential if we are to build a stable and prosperous Europe and Britain leaving the EU is an important first step.
I agree that we need to consider what is best for Europe, because even if we leave, the EU will still be 20 miles way, and everything that happens in it will impact profoundly upon us. Why are other countries all over the world so afraid of Brexit? Because it could be the start of the break up of the EU, with unknown and potentially serious effects on the world's economic stability, peace and prosperity. It really is as serious as that. And of course the EU is capable of reform - it's an organisation, so it's organic: it has always changed, and will continue to do so, especially now, because of the ongoing crises of the euro and migrants from the Middle East. If we leave it won't solve any problems, it will just make things worse.
Re John Major, I really can't agree with Simone. I think he's an asset to the 'Remainers', in the same way that Gordon Brown swung it for the 'no' side in the Scottish independence referendum. Elder statesman, fundamentally decent, likes cricket, impeccable working class background - that sort of thing.
Whereas a lot of people are really turned off by the smooth posh boys Cameron and Osborne - I fear that every time one of them pops up on the telly arguing for Remain, a few more people decide to vote 'Leave'!
As hatter says, John Major wasn't a successful Prime Minster - he has that in common with Gordon Brown too: they both led their parties to defeat at General Elections. But time is a great healer, and I think Major and Brown both get a respectful hearing nowadays.
There's only one other former Prime Minister still alive, and he, wisely, is keeping his head well down!
-
https://data.oecd.org/unemp/youth-unemployment-rate.htm
The table shows that youth unemployment in countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy are between 30-50%, this is a whole generation failed by the EU!
The youth of this country should be very grateful that we didn't do what the unelected EU masters wanted us to do and join the Euro. It has beyond any doubt been a huge failure leading to mass youth unemployment, a massive debt crisis and low economic growth. The same people who are advocating disaster for the UK now if we leave the EU were 15 years ago saying the same if we didn't adopt the Euro.
As for Greece, there is several nasty parties out there wanting out. The crisis is far from over and requires billions of further austerity cuts and loans principally from Germany. It is predicted that there could be further pressures on the banking system in the coming weeks. This will probably spread across the weaker parts of the Eurozone.
This is not an economic project, it is a political project. We need to leave!
I do not see how leaving helps Europe or indeed, ourselves. We cannot insulate ourselves from Europe, but we can be at the top table debating and working towards solutions. Withdrawing will start to unravel Europe and that is not in our national interest.
-
I do not see how leaving helps Europe or indeed, ourselves. We cannot insulate ourselves from Europe, but we can be at the top table debating and working towards solutions. Withdrawing will start to unravel Europe and that is not in our national interest.
The point is that the single market and the Euro is not working for the weaker countries. By scrapping their individual currencies they have passed control of macroeconomic policy over to the European Central Bank. The is means that they have no been able to devalue their currency, lower interest rates or embark on quantative easing. Countries like Greece badly need this to take place but Germany in particular blocks it as it is not in their interest. The result is mass unemployment, severe austerity and massive loans.
There is no solution to this issue, its an artificial union and sadly its going bust. If we stay we could also get saddled with debt from other countries taking more funding from our vital services. A brexit will be the catalyst for other countries to leave, the sooner the better. Let's stop sending millions to the EU to waste and squander let's help the poor and sick at home instead.
-
A brexit will be the catalyst for other countries to leave, the sooner the better. Let's stop sending millions to the EU to waste and squander let's help the poor and sick at home instead.
The tabloids love to run the "waste and squander" line too, but the EU has positive policies for the environment, which is one of many concerns that only co-ordinated action by a bloc the size of Europe can deal with. The overwhelming view of economists and market experts is that we will be a poorer country after Brexit so certainly not more resources for the "poor and sick". I haven't seen much evidence from the Brexiteers that their main concern is for the poor. It is more about personal political ambition for the likes of Boris, Farage, Gove , etc.
-
For me the Brexit argument is an argument about political right wing thinking, which I don't support at all, as it is directly responsible for division, conflict and in the extreme - war.
Unfortunately, many people (particularly the younger ones) see it as an argument between factions of the Conservative party and NOT OUR COUNTRY ITSELF, they are turned off by it, as they see the Conservative party as being a bunch of old fogeys in ties and suits who they don't care about and who in turn don't care about them, because they don't vote anyway.
Unless young people take an interest, the result is very easy to predict - BREXIT.
-
I'm afraid I agree. The more young people see Tories in suits lying and slagging one another off, the less likely they are to vote, and the UK ends up taking the Great Leap in the Dark.
What we need is to involve more people whom the young relate to. Where's that Russell Brand when you need him!
I'm even starting to feel sorry for David Cameron. He called the referendum as a way of holding his party together (ha ha). It is, of course, spectacularly failing to do that. As a result, his legacy could be the ignominious exit of the UK from the EU, followed shortly by the break up of the 300-year-old UK, when the Scots hold another referendum and vote to leave the UK and stay in the EU.
-
I do not see how leaving helps Europe or indeed, ourselves. We cannot insulate ourselves from Europe, but we can be at the top table debating and working towards solutions. Withdrawing will start to unravel Europe and that is not in our national interest.
Who wants to insulate us from Europe? Certainly not a large percentage of those of us voting to leave the EU. Leaving will not unravel Europe, although I hope it will unravel the EU. The EU is not Europe. The two are completely different. The end of the EU is the beginning of a better, more stable, more prosperous Europe in which Britain should and will play an important role.
-
The end of the EU is the beginning of a better, more stable, more prosperous Europe in which Britain should and will play an important role.
Dream on, Condate! Although Brexit would (will?) send huge political and economic shock waves through the EU and around the world, it won't lead to the complete disappearance without trace of the EU - the political will for it to survive is much too strong for that.
What I think we will see is the remaining EU counties closing ranks against us - they will be angry and upset, so that's hardly surprising. We won't be more prosperous, certainly not in the short term, after the collapse in the value of sterling. Neither will Europe be more stable. On the contrary, apart from pleasing Nigel Farage, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and ISIS, our exit will also give succour to the newly ascendant ultra right wing parties such as AfD in Germany and the Law and Justice Party in Poland.
-
What I think we will see is the remaining EU counties closing ranks against us - they will be angry and upset, so that's hardly surprising. We won't be more prosperous, certainly not in the short term, after the collapse in the value of sterling.
That's the thing, the analogy of it being a divorce is accurate. The Leave campaign are trying to make out that it will be a cordial divorce, with both sides coming out happy with the settlement - they are wrong, the rest of the EU will want to screw us over (like an abusive Ex), if for no other reason than so they have an example to hold up to any other member states who think about leaving, to show what happens if you dare to leave.
The stay campaign are definitely scaremongering, but the problem is, I don't think they are wrong.
-
That's the thing, the analogy of it being a divorce is accurate. The Leave campaign are trying to make out that it will be a cordial divorce, with both sides coming out happy with the settlement - they are wrong, the rest of the EU will want to screw us over (like an abusive Ex), if for no other reason than so they have an example to hold up to any other member states who think about leaving, to show what happens if you dare to leave.
The stay campaign are definitely scaremongering, but the problem is, I don't think they are wrong.
Let's just get a few things straight. The vast majority of SMEs in The UK do not trade in the single market but they are burdened by the excessive red tape that is demanded by the EU. Leaving would free them up to operate more freely and productively.
In terms of the EUs own figures, the single market only adds 2.4% to national GDP across the EU. Although significant it only represents a small amount that can easily be compensated with freer terms of trade as described above.
I am completely unconvinced by Dave's point that they would be unwilling to trade with us. Believe me the pressure on Germany's Chancellor from BMW, VW etc. to establish a free trade agreement with us will be tremendous, we are still the 5th richest nation on earth. The same goes for pressure from French car manufacturers and wine growers or holiday businesses in Spain. We run huge trade deficits with France and Germany so it is very much in their interest for trade to continue.
Let's not forget we spend £16bn a year on EU membership and only get a small fraction back. Spending 100% of this figure at home will also generate further growth to the UK economy by reducing leakage from the economy.
-
I am completely unconvinced by Dave's point that they would be unwilling to trade with us. Believe me the pressure on Germany's Chancellor from BMW, VW etc. to establish a free trade agreement with us will be tremendous, we are still the 5th richest nation on earth. The same goes for pressure from French car manufacturers and wine growers or holiday businesses in Spain. We run huge trade deficits with France and Germany so it is very much in their interest for trade to continue.
I think hatter is dead right here. And for the same reasons, big business in the UK will be equally forceful in insisting that we remain part of the European Economic Area, like Norway and Iceland. So Prime Minister Johnson will be forced to take the UK into the EEA, meaning we will continue to make a significant contribution to the EU budget, as Norway and Iceland do, and we will be required to allow the free movement of EU citizens in and out of the UK. In other words, the only significant difference between being in the EU and being in the EEA is that we will no longer have any say in drawing up the rules.
Let's not forget we spend £16bn a year on EU membership and only get a small fraction back.
Even the Leave campaign now accepts that this figure is a gross misrepresentation - and that's putting it politely! We get about half of that back, in the rebate which Thatcher negotiated all those years ago, and in grants and subsidies to agriculture and business. Our net contribution to the EU is about £8 billion per year.
In terms of the EUs own figures, the single market only adds 2.4% to national GDP across the EU.
Indeed. So as the UK's annual GDP is £1.7 trillion, 2.4% of GDP adds up to a cool £40 billion! So if we leave , we face losing £40 billion a year in order to save £8 billion.
I've got a horrible feeling that it could happen. But if it does, it could get extremely messy after that. Take the two year period in which the terms of our exit will be negotiated. Prime Minister Johnson will be personally committed to those, but at least two thirds of the MPs in the House of Commons are 'Remainers', so they will make it very difficult for him. And to anyone who says 'the people have spoken and Parliament must respect their wishes', every MP but one (Douglas Carswell, Clacton) will turn round to their constituents and remind them they they elected him/her on a party manifesto which stated a clear commitment to remain in the EU.
What a mess. And who got us into it? D Cameron.
-
I think hatter is dead right here. And for the same reasons, big business in the UK will be equally forceful in insisting that we remain part of the European Economic Area, like Norway and Iceland. So Prime Minister Johnson will be forced to take the UK into the EEA, meaning we will continue to make a significant contribution to the EU budget, as Norway and Iceland do, and we will be required to allow the free movement of EU citizens in and out of the UK. In other words, the only significant difference between being in the EU and being in the EEA is that we will no longer have any say in drawing up the rules.
Even the Leave campaign now accepts that this figure is a gross misrepresentation - and that's putting it politely! We get about half of that back, in the rebate which Thatcher negotiated all those years ago, and in grants and subsidies to agriculture and business. Our net contribution to the EU is about £8 billion per year.
Indeed. So as the UK's annual GDP is £1.7 trillion, 2.4% of GDP adds up to a cool £40 billion! So if we leave , we face losing £40 billion a year in order to save £8 billion.
This is the same calculation that is being made by remains economists. But it is too simplistic a model to be realistic, it does not account for the freeing effect of red tape and bureaucracy on the 97.6% of the economy that is burdened unnecessarily by EU rules. Also the 2.4% will still continue subject to new free trade agreements.
I don't necessary agree that we will have to join the European Trade Area, we will be in strong position to negotiate our own deal because of the balance of trade deficit.
If MPs don't respect the mandate of the people they will be create a constitutional crisis, let's remember this was a manifesto pledge by the Conservatives which was influential in reducing the UKIP vote and winning the election for Cameron. They also voted to set the referendum up, to go against the people would be a political disaster breaking any link of legitimacy.
In the event of a leave vote I fully expect the EU to come back with a better offer probably around the free movement of people. They have previous form of doing this with the Irish Lisbon Treaty referendum. There will then be a second referendum.
Yes I think Cameron has been so damaged by his part in the remain campaign that he will face a leadership challenge but I don't think that Johnson will be the winner, they will need a uniting figure.
-
I think hatter is dead right here. And for the same reasons, big business in the UK will be equally forceful in insisting that we remain part of the European Economic Area, like Norway and Iceland. So Prime Minister Johnson will be forced to take the UK into the EEA, meaning we will continue to make a significant contribution to the EU budget, as Norway and Iceland do, and we will be required to allow the free movement of EU citizens in and out of the UK. In other words, the only significant difference between being in the EU and being in the EEA is that we will no longer have any say in drawing up the rules.
Of course the EU will still want to trade with us, the question is on what terms.
Even the Leave campaign now accepts that this figure is a gross misrepresentation - and that's putting it politely! We get about half of that back, in the rebate which Thatcher negotiated all those years ago, and in grants and subsidies to agriculture and business. Our net contribution to the EU is about £8 billion per year.
Lets not kid ourselves, that 8 billion would not go back into the treasury pot to be spent on services, it would be used to fund tax cuts for Tory party donors and key Tory voter demographics.
-
Who wants to insulate us from Europe? Certainly not a large percentage of those of us voting to leave the EU. Leaving will not unravel Europe, although I hope it will unravel the EU. The EU is not Europe. The two are completely different. The end of the EU is the beginning of a better, more stable, more prosperous Europe in which Britain should and will play an important role.
Fanciful thinking. The EU as an organisation has kept the peace in Europe and brought forward important legislation to protect the environment and further workers' rights though it has more to do in the latter department. We should not be playing fast and loose with our children's futures.
-
This is the same calculation that is being made by remains economists. But it is too simplistic a model to be realistic, it does not account for the freeing effect of red tape and bureaucracy on the 97.6% of the economy that is burdened unnecessarily by EU rules. Also the 2.4% will still continue subject to new free trade agreements.
Sorry hatter, but given a choice between believing, on the one hand, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Oxford Economics, and the LSE, and on the other hand, hatter76, I know who I'll go for!
Yes I think Cameron has been so damaged by his part in the remain campaign that he will face a leadership challenge but I don't think that Johnson will be the winner, they will need a uniting figure.
You can say that again! Who might that be? Maybe that's why Teresa May is keeping so quiet.......
-
I hear time and again "What's in it for Britain (or England)?"
So I ask 2 questions:
1) Is Britain and the British government fundamentally superior to all other nations in all ways?
2) Do you see the world a safer place if plucky (but rich) Britain (or England) "goes it alone"?
I fundamentally still don't get why, in a more integrated world and a UK which is handing some spending power to a devolved Manchester but most power is still at number 10, why people want to cut ourselves off from our nearest neighbour. And a Tory government, may I add, that got 37% of the people bothered to vote in 2015.
US isolationism in the 30s did not work - for them or the rest of the world. And it wouldn't work for us.
-
Fanciful thinking. The EU as an organisation has kept the peace in Europe and brought forward important legislation to protect the environment and further workers' rights though it has more to do in the latter department. We should not be playing fast and loose with our children's futures.
The EU as an organisation is one of the biggest threats to peace in Europe at the present day. We should indeed not risk the future of Britain and Europe's children by perpetuating an organisation which will either break up peacefully following Britain leaving, or will tear itself apart in conflict if it tries to carry on with or without Britain.
-
Dream on, Condate! Although Brexit would (will?) send huge political and economic shock waves through the EU and around the world, it won't lead to the complete disappearance without trace of the EU - the political will for it to survive is much too strong for that.
What I think we will see is the remaining EU counties closing ranks against us - they will be angry and upset, so that's hardly surprising. We won't be more prosperous, certainly not in the short term, after the collapse in the value of sterling. Neither will Europe be more stable. On the contrary, apart from pleasing Nigel Farage, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and ISIS, our exit will also give succour to the newly ascendant ultra right wing parties such as AfD in Germany and the Law and Justice Party in Poland.
It may well be that the present governments of the other member nations will be angry and upset by Britain leaving, but the same cannot be said for the people of the rest of the EU, who see it as a sign of hope. If anything will give succour to the newly ascendant ultra right wing parties, it is the continuance of the EU. It is the EU which causes the rise of extreme nationalism and dissolving it will take away much of the reasons for the support of such parties.
-
It may well be that the present governments of the other member nations will be angry and upset by Britain leaving, but the same cannot be said for the people of the rest of the EU, who see it as a sign of hope. If anything will give succour to the newly ascendant ultra right wing parties, it is the continuance of the EU. It is the EU which causes the rise of extreme nationalism and dissolving it will take away much of the reasons for the support of such parties.
Exactly right condate, ordinary people are now turning to extreme parties in the EU, it is their only hope of escaping the disastrous economic conditions created by the Euro and getting power back from the unelected commission. This is deeply worrying and dangerous, only a break up of the EU and restoration of sovereign national governments can stop this. In Austria a far right candidate was almost elected in Austria as president last week, we have LePens national front in France leading in the opinion polls. People need to wake up.
Watched the TV debate tonight. Telling that Cameron refused to debate Farage direct.
-
The EU as an organisation is one of the biggest threats to peace in Europe at the present day.
???
That's why we've had so many wars?
Exactly right condate, ordinary people are now turning to extreme parties in the EU,.... only a break up of the EU and restoration of sovereign national governments can stop this.
Only the restoration of national borders can break up nationalistic causes?
???
Is it nice in your parallel universe?
-
???
That's why we've had so many wars?
We will have, unfortunately, if the EU persists. More internal conflicts and violent uprisings than wars between states.
Only the restoration of national borders can break up nationalistic causes?
???
Yes. By removing many of the factors which lead to support for extreme nationalistic causes. One of the main reasons (although not the only reason) extreme nationalist parties do well, is the feeling among the electorate across the EU that there is no other way to stop the process of further political integration. Once the EU no longer exists, that reason for support for extremists will disappear. Extremist parties will not go away, but their support will greatly diminish.
[/quote]
-
Only the restoration of national borders can break up nationalistic causes?
???
Is it nice in your parallel universe?
Yes, truly bizarre!
Back in the real world, it seems to me that the argument for leaving the EU can be boiled down to this:
1. People come to the UK to find jobs, because our economy is the most successful and dynamic in Europe.
2. We don't want them here.
3. So we'll trash the economy.
4. Er.....
5. That's it.
-
Yes, truly bizarre!
Back in the real world, it seems to me that the argument for leaving the EU can be boiled down to this:
1. People come to the UK to find jobs, because our economy is the most successful and dynamic in Europe.
2. We don't want them here.
3. So we'll trash the economy.
4. Er.....
5. That's it.
This is of course nothing like the actual arguments for leaving the EU. While there are some people who consider immigration from the EU to be a major issue, it is in fact a fairly minor one. If Britain leaves the EU, or the EU is dissolved, I would not expect or want much change to the current rules. The issues surrounding the question of sovereignty and what the EU thinks it is and where it is going are the real questions.
-
This is of course nothing like the actual arguments for leaving the EU. While there are some people who consider immigration from the EU to be a major issue, it is in fact a fairly minor one. If Britain leaves the EU, or the EU is dissolved, I would not expect or want much change to the current rules. The issues surrounding the question of sovereignty and what the EU thinks it is and where it is going are the real questions.
But that's the problem with leaving a decision of this magnitude to the jibbering masses via a referendum - as you say, immigration is only a minor part of a wider argument for and against remaining in the EU, but for a substantial number of people (ie a number many times greater than the winning margin will be) this is solely about immigration, and they will cast their vote based on immigration.
-
Turned on Channel 5 this evening to watch the test match highlights, and saw this:
https://youtu.be/yIYq5xMW98I
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.......
-
Turned on Channel 5 this evening to watch the test match highlights, and saw this:
https://youtu.be/yIYq5xMW98I
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.......
Her first mistake was clogging up A&E when she only had a cough - she should have gone to the pharmacy or GP.
-
Unfortunately a perfectly rational colleague who lives in Bolton is going to vote Brexit entirely on the basis of the effects of immigration on that town. If you believe that people are going to make this decision based on a detailed review of all the issues then you are totally misguided. A huge proportion are being swayed by the Union Jack (irony) waving, knee jerk, pull up the drawbridge nonsense being pedalled by London centric power cravers.
But that's the problem with leaving a decision of this magnitude to the jibbering masses via a referendum - as you say, immigration is only a minor part of a wider argument for and against remaining in the EU, but for a substantial number of people (ie a number many times greater than the winning margin will be) this is solely about immigration, and they will cast their vote based on immigration.
-
London centric power cravers.
The British people have never given politicians a mandate to remove the powers from London in the first place. The original referendum was for a common market, not a political super state with its own flag and national anthem.
All the EU is doing is replacing a democratically elected Westminster government with an unelected Brussels Commission based around power by the elite.
-
for a substantial number of people (ie a number many times greater than the winning margin will be) this is solely about immigration, and they will cast their vote based on immigration.
Unfortunately a perfectly rational colleague who lives in Bolton is going to vote Brexit entirely on the basis of the effects of immigration on that town. If you believe that people are going to make this decision based on a detailed review of all the issues then you are totally misguided. A huge proportion are being swayed by the Union Jack (irony) waving, knee jerk, pull up the drawbridge nonsense being pedalled by London centric power cravers.
I'm afraid marpleexile and Belly are absolutely right. And the shameless lie of the Leave campaign's cynical telly broadcast (see above), presenting the issue as a binary choice between the EU and the NHS, is just breathtaking.
But the fact is, some people - especially the elderly, perhaps - will believe it!
As for this: The British people have never given politicians a mandate to remove the powers from London in the first place.
.... what hatter and the other Brexiteers need to get their minds around is the near certainty that after Brexit, the UK will choose to become part of the European Economic Area, because big business (which funds the Tory party) will insist on it. We will therefore continue to be subject to all the social market regulations, anti-discrimination regulations, employment rights legislation, and freedom of movement of EU citizens, as we are at the moment. We just won't have any say in them any longer!
We've got two weeks left in which we desperately need the good folk of the UK to wake up to the fact that we are being used as pawns in a power struggle between two Old Etonians.
I'm hoping for the best, but I'm afraid I'm fearing the worst!
-
This referendum is only taking place due to a Tory attempt to outflank UKIP. Now it is looking like we're heading for the exit. The prospect of a Farage/Johnston/Gove- led Britain fills me with dread.
-
.... what hatter and the other Brexiteers need to get their minds around is the near certainty that after Brexit, the UK will choose to become part of the European Economic Area, because big business (which funds the Tory party) will insist on it. We will therefore continue to be subject to all the social market regulations, anti-discrimination regulations, employment rights legislation, and freedom of movement of EU citizens, as we are at the moment. We just won't have any say in them any longer!
If this were true, why haven't Norway and Switzerland - who are both members of the EEA - not gone ahead and signed up for the EU to have their say?
The answer is that not all of the regulations are compulsory. Switzerland have not "subjected themselves" to any of them in a domestic sense. Yes, they must adhere to EU regulations when selling to the EU, but that's different to subjecting your people to judgements from EU courts for example. Therefore they still retain a much greater self-sovereignty.
-
If this were true, why haven't Norway and Switzerland - who are both members of the EEA - not gone ahead and signed up for the EU to have their say?
It's a good question! Not 100% sure of the answer, but as far as I know the reason that the people of Norway have twice voted in referendums not to to join the EU (so Norway has never been a member) is partly to do with fishing. Also, Noway has got a lot of equality laws and a strong welfare state, and there may be a feeling that EU membership might compromise that. But they are out, and will stay out, I think, for some years.
Switzerland is different. It is not actually in the EEA, but it does have its own trade agreement with the EU, and adopts the EU laws and regulations which are necessary in order to maintain that agreement. It is not in the EU because it has a long and jealously guarded history of neutrality.
This is a useful link: https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-switzerland-eu-laws/
-
The EU Debate - in or out?
I have been thinking long and hard about the most contentious and far reaching problem of recent times, whether to vote in or out of the EU next week.
It boils down to this: do we trust our politicians to act in our country’s interests or their own.
For sure the EU is far from perfect. It is run by an unelected elite who are scamming as many perquisites from the EU system as they can get away with. The level of bureaucracy is mindboggling, sclerotic, wasteful and often to the detriment of small firms and individuals. The Euro has been a disaster for the weaker and poorer countries. But the EU has also been a force for good in many areas of economics, security, open markets and freedom of movement (within the EU). And so on – we’ve all heard the arguments from both sides, though many of them are full of hyperbole and lack clarity. It is clear that nobody knows for sure what will happen if we stay and are even less sure of what will happen if we leave.
But our own government is just as bad and often run by incompetent law makers whose morals and allegiance are questionable. Do we really trust them to act in the best interests of the UK in the event of a Brexit? If this happens we will have a badly wounded EU on our doorstep who will do everything they can to make our life difficult and we will have no say in how it is run. At the moment we have a divided Tory government who has no effective opposition run by a bunch of slippery characters who could run amok with our long held traditions and beliefs. Now is not the time to leave.
Democracy is not perfect but it is a lot better than any of the alternatives on offer at the moment. There are just too many unknowns to risk a Brexit. I think that it will affect the younger generation far more than us older people.
I’d rather be the “pebble in the shoe” or “the sand in the eye” of the EU from the inside than have things done to us that we have little or no ability to control. We need to make the EU more accountable and we should work with the other members to ensure that the EU meets the demands of its members rather than the people who run it. I am of the view that it will possible to have another referendum in ten or fifteen years. If the EU hasn’t changed radically by then that will be the time to leave, along with many other Eurosceptic countries. If we leave now we will be creating far more problems for us and the EU. Now is not the time to turn our back on the EU only 20 miles from our shores. There will not be an option to go back if we find life difficult on the outside. A close vote in the UK, which looks very likely, should give the EU cause to rethink some of their more radical ideas knowing full well that if the UK is not happy the chances are that we could leave and cause them even more problems than they have now.
-
A wise and thoughtful post, mikes. So many good points in it, but this is a key one which is not mentioned nearly enough:
we will have a badly wounded EU on our doorstep
Nearly all of the national debate revolves narrowly around what is best for the UK. Rarely does anyone mention what might be best for the EU. But if we leave, the EU will still be there, and whatever happens there will profoundly affect us, whether we are members or not.
We live in uncertain times. The rise of extremist parties in Germany, Poland, Spain and France and elsewhere, combined with the ongoing Euro crisis and the flow of refugees and other migrants from the middle East and Africa, are massive problems which will not be solved by our departure. On the contrary, if anything we will just be making them worse!
Virtually every country in the world (apart from Russia, of course, which has its own agenda) is worried about the destabilising effect on peace and security that Brexit would have. We are a force for good in the EU, and our presence is sorely needed. We should not forget that.
-
A wise and thoughtful post, mikes. So many good points in it, but this is a key one which is not mentioned nearly enough:
Nearly all of the national debate revolves narrowly around what is best for the UK. Rarely does anyone mention what might be best for the EU. But if we leave, the EU will still be there, and whatever happens there will profoundly affect us, whether we are members or not.
I have been saying for ages that it is the future of Europe which is important. I agree however that neither side has stressed this enough. If we leave, Europe will still be there, but whether the EU remains for long is another matter. There are a great many people throughout the EU who are looking with hope at the UK, with the ardent desire that our leaving will help bring about the end of the EU and allow a peaceful, stable and prosperous Europe to develop. The EU is one of the greatest threats to Europe. It is at least partially the cause of the rise of extremist parties and will become a threat to peace and security in Europe before long. I believe that anyone who consider themselves a good European (and I do), should vote to leave, not only for the good of the UK, but for the good of the whole of Europe.
I think the whole argument should not be about the UK in, or out of the EU. It needs to be a Europe wide (and it don't just mean the EU states) discussion about how to achieve a stable, peaceful, prosperous and civilised Europe and I do not believe the EU can be part of that.
-
I’d rather be the “pebble in the shoe” or “the sand in the eye” of the EU from the inside than have things done to us that we have little or no ability to control. We need to make the EU more accountable and we should work with the other members to ensure that the EU meets the demands of its members rather than the people who run it. I am of the view that it will possible to have another referendum in ten or fifteen years. If the EU hasn’t changed radically by then that will be the time to leave, along with many other Eurosceptic countries. If we leave now we will be creating far more problems for us and the EU. Now is not the time to turn our back on the EU only 20 miles from our shores. There will not be an option to go back if we find life difficult on the outside. A close vote in the UK, which looks very likely, should give the EU cause to rethink some of their more radical ideas knowing full well that if the UK is not happy the chances are that we could leave and cause them even more problems than they have now.
A thoughtful post mikes but I think it is unrealistic to assume 1 that we will get another chance to leave the EU in 10 years time and 2 that we can influence the EU from voting to remain.
In relation to point 1, the referendum process has been so damaging to the Prime Minister I doubt that a future leader would ever willingly go through this again. We now have an act that says that future treaty change must go to referendum, but this can be changed by a future government. Even if it isn't revoked we may get a future vote on a specific treaty but not an in out ballot. I firmly believe that this is our only chance to say no.
Point 2, the EU is an ever closer political union. If it encounters issues it just delays the progression until issues have been sorted and when the time is right brings forward new legislation. A remain vote even by 50.1% will be seen by the EU and receiving a clear mandate to continue its ever closer union. Cameron has and tried and failed to get concessions from them, they have shown no willingness to reform or change. They will never change, its accept it or leave.
-
the EU is an ever closer political union....... Cameron has and tried and failed to get concessions from them, they have shown no willingness to reform or change.
Wrong. This is the official EU statement at the conclusion of the UK government's negotiatons with the EU earlier this year:
"It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."
This, however, is very true: the referendum process has been so damaging to the Prime Minister
Indeed. In fact, I think that if we vote to leave, calling for the referendum will for ever be seen as the fatal mistake which brought Cameron's downfall, and for which he will always be remembered. A bit like Blair's Iraq.
-
Wrong. This is the official EU statement at the conclusion of the UK government's negotiatons with the EU earlier this year:
"It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."
The previous treaties such as Rome do commit us to this, this is a little something that will be quietly forgotten at some point when the referendum is over. Just like Ireland being given an exemption from the EU army clause of the Lisbon treaty. At best it represents a pause not a change in direction.
-
No, it means what it says - it could hardly be clearer. The Treaty of Rome was nearly 60 years ago - quite a lot has happened since then.
This sort of thing is a good example of the desperate weakness of the case for Brexit - fabricated 'project fear' threats (other classic examples are the EU army - which will never happen - and Turkey joining the EU, which might happen in a few decades time - maybe!).
-
No, it means what it says - it could hardly be clearer. The Treaty of Rome was nearly 60 years ago - quite a lot has happened since then.
This sort of thing is a good example of the desperate weakness of the case for Brexit - fabricated 'project fear' threats (other classic examples are the EU army - which will never happen - and Turkey joining the EU, which might happen in a few decades time - maybe!).
It a long term project Dave.
EU army is in the Lisbon treaty, Turkey has received funding and support and has started the process to join. Project fear is the remain side with constant doomsday predictions.
Cameron went to Brussels demanding a great deal for Britain. What did he get? A worthless bit of paper that will be discarded. Its widely regarded that he got nothing of significance.
-
I’d rather be the “pebble in the shoe” or “the sand in the eye” of the EU from the inside than have things done to us that we have little or no ability to control.
I quite like this point. Although the UK is seen as the awkward man of the EU by some, it also keeps others on their toes. We negotiated a whole load of opt-outs over the years.
With 28 nations, it's very difficult to get agreement (in Westminster, the government mostly just needs to ensure it's back-bench rebels are brought to heel). Certainly, as far as Turkey is concerned, there are too many who would veto their accession - Germany (big Turkish migrants already from when they'd accept anyone who could say "Asyl" ("asylum")) along with Greece and Cyprus.
I suspect I am going to depress everyone who's had of this referendum by saying I suspect it'll be a close result and this won't be the end of it. Even if we vote to stay friends with our EU neighbours, there will be another referendum with the next treaty change.
And if we pull out of the EU but stay in the EFTA, will it make much difference?
Lisbon Treaty
From the BBC Reality Check
Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty states that what it calls "a common defence" would require unanimity in the European Council. In other words, Britain could veto it. It goes on to say that any such decision would be taken in accordance with the constitutional requirements of member states. That would mean ratification in national parliaments and it could trigger the UK's European Union Act 2011, which would mean a referendum before any powers could be transferred.
Ironically Lisbon also provided the mechanism for leaving the EU!
I for one think the majority of EU decisions are for the good of all. But actually (apart from finance) there have not been many major decisions made that affect the average Brit in a big way.
-
We negotiated a whole load of opt-outs over the years.
So if EU good, why need the opt outs? If Opt outs are good, then surely fully indepent but negotiating individually even better.
-
So if EU good, why need the opt outs? If Opt outs are good, then surely fully indepent but negotiating individually even better.
It's called negotiation and consensus. I may not always agree with your colleagues in the council chamber, but I am not threatening to pull out of the town hall!
I was also worried about the lies Leave were peddling about Turkey and how much it all costs. There has been too much speculation, but these were just lies. I am very glad your party leader called it too in the debate last night.
As someone said this morning, "Take our country back? I'd rather move it forward!"
-
So if EU good, why need the opt outs?
No-one has said 'EU good' - it's just not that simple! It has a whole load of problems, notably with the euro, and with refugees and other migrants. But Brexit will not solve any of them, and because it will significantly weaken the EU, it is more likely to make them worse. And a weaker EU with worse problems is definitely not what we want on our doorstep! But Vladimir Putin would be delighted, of course.,..
The EU has kept the peace for 70 years, and we disregard that at our peril. Yes, it needs reform, but it will get reform, because (although we little-Englanders don't notice!) euro-scepticism is widespread throughout the EU, largely aimed at the bureaucrats of the EU Commission. Opinion polls in France show that a greater % of the French population are anti EU than the British. See http://www.thelocal.fr/20160330/france-home-to-more-eurosceptics-than-the-uk
But we need to have a say in the way the EU is reformed, because it will still be there, 20 miles away, and everything that happens in it will affect us.
I'm afraid we seem to be having a national collective Moment of Madness, and I fear for the consequences. Worrying times......
-
Since writing the above post I read this over lunch: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/brexit-make-britain-worlds-most-hated-nation
It ends like this:
"The EU’s flaws do not justify its destruction. Alliances are fragile entities. They take time to create and are always vulnerable to vicious circles of suspicion and resentment. Whatever we might think of the EU – whether we love it or loathe it – one thing is certain. If Britain pulls out and thus provokes or accelerates its disintegration, we will instantly achieve most-hated nation status, not just in Europe but far beyond. It could well turn into the worst example in history of cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Wise words from a very distinguished military historian.
-
Since writing the above post I read this over lunch: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/brexit-make-britain-worlds-most-hated-nation
It ends like this:
"The EU’s flaws do not justify its destruction. Alliances are fragile entities. They take time to create and are always vulnerable to vicious circles of suspicion and resentment. Whatever we might think of the EU – whether we love it or loathe it – one thing is certain. If Britain pulls out and thus provokes or accelerates its disintegration, we will instantly achieve most-hated nation status, not just in Europe but far beyond. It could well turn into the worst example in history of cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Wise words from a very distinguished military historian.
Or it could be seen as taking the first move that other countries have been too scared to take. I can easily see UK, Germany, Holland and the Scandanavian countries forming an informal alliance for trade. Whether France joins is anybodies guess. First mover advantage is generally the best position to be in militarily and economically.
-
So wise military historians are now predicting the future are they? Of course not. He's qualified it ever so slightly with words such as 'if' and 'could'.
Really, the notion that a brexit will somehow inevitably lead to a European war is ludicrous, and if anyone is scaremongering here it is those on the Remain side. Check NATO out! It's an organisation which was designed specifically to prevent aggression against single states by having them form an alliance. Oh and it was formed almost 70 years ago too. Funnily enough it's worked pretty well, and several previous members of the Warsaw Pact have signed up to it since the Berlin Wall came down. In fact if we're going to get historical, its articles of mutual response have only ever been triggered once and that was 9/11. Not bad.
The notion that Britain 'could' become the most hated nation also somehow implies that they are really valued inside the EU at the moment. Are we? are we really? Evidence please...
-
The notion that Britain 'could' become the most hated nation also somehow implies that they are really valued inside the EU at the moment. Are we? are we really? Evidence please...
Of course were valued, we pay the EU £16bn a year to fund the common agricultural policy, development projects and unelected commission. We also run a massive trade deficit some £70bn a year with the other EU nations. How will they cope if we stop bankrolling them!
The remain camp are left with stupid playground name calling and ever more far fetched predictions. They have nothing to offer, just more integration and the dream of the European superstate.
-
The notion that Britain 'could' become the most hated nation also somehow implies that they are really valued inside the EU at the moment. Are we? are we really? Evidence please...
Many countries want the UK to stay and said so, whilst still trying to stand clear of influencing this vote. Merkel inclused
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14533304.Merkel_intervenes_in_EU_debate__saying_she_hopes_Britain_will_stay/ (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14533304.Merkel_intervenes_in_EU_debate__saying_she_hopes_Britain_will_stay/)
The leaders of this country should still play a pivotal role in shaping the future of this continent, not stand on the sidelines and be increasingly irrelevant.
The EU is good for us and we are good for it. I can give evidence for this too.
I don't want to turn the clock back - I want a peaceful and strong land for my children for years to come.
-
I am currently in 'failing' EUrope, have been here for 3 weeks. Been in 4 different countries. Same old thing in all of them. Most drinkable wine for a couple of euro. Delicious food for the same. People treating each other with respect. Children playing outside with smiles on their faces. No dog muck on the streets, no litter,they even have helpful courteous bus drivers- boy, have they got wrong!
EUrope is about people, way of life, not politician's grievances , laws and sovereign claims.
If I didn't have family commitments, l'd move here tomorrow. Most parts of it are more agreeable GB than. We should be trying to make ourselves more like it not distancing ourselves from it.
-
The bookies seem increasingly to be expecting a Remain vote, whuch is a relief! See http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result
The notion that Britain 'could' become the most hated nation also somehow implies that they are really valued inside the EU at the moment. Are we? are we really? Evidence please...
No shortage of that, melancholy! Try this: http://www.euronews.com/2016/06/17/what-do-europeans-think-of-the-uk-s-brexit-referendum/
The majority view across Europe is that the EU is crying out for reform, and they want us to stay part of it in order to be a key partner in that. People see that if we leave it could be the beginning of EU disintegration, which nobody in their right mind would want.
-
I don't want to turn the clock back - I want a peaceful and strong land for my children for years to come.
I want a peaceful and strong land too. I also want a peaceful and strong France, Germany, Italy, Poland etc; all aware of how much we depend on each other and how much we need to work together. That's why I will be voting to leave the EU. It is essential, not only for the future of the UK, but for the future of Europe.
-
EUrope is about people, way of life, not politician's grievances , laws and sovereign claims.
Europe is about people yes, but Europe is not the EU.
If I didn't have family commitments, l'd move here tomorrow. Most parts of it are more agreeable GB than. We should be trying to make ourselves more like it not distancing ourselves from it.
I've no wish to distance the UK from the other European nations. I think there is a great deal for us to learn from them and they from us. I just don't think the EU is relevant to the future of Europe.
-
As far as I can make out, what Condate wants to see is the EU disappearing completely, and all 28 member states to simply exist in isolation from one another, with no framework for collective action or collective agreements - on trade, the environment, on climate change, on international development or global security or anything else.
Let's just take the last issue. Two years ago the EU introduced sanctions against Russia, after Russia's illegal invasion of Crimea and other military activity in Eastern Ukraine. The effect of those sanctions has been severe, and Russia's exports to the EU have since fallen by about half. So acting together, the EU, with its population of c. 500 million, (greater than Russia and the USA combined), can be really powerful. We have stood up to Putin in a way that no individual European country could ever have done. That's why Russia is so keen on Brexit, of course.
Politically the EU has been a huge force for good. For example it provided the incentive for Spain , Portugal and Greece to change from being dictatorships to being democratic. And when the Iron Curtain came down, it absorbed many of the former Soviet bloc countries and fostered democracy in them too.
If it didn't exist, we might not create it. And there is a lot wrong with it. But it does exist, and we would be mad to let it fall apart.
-
As far as I can make out, what Condate wants to see is the EU disappearing completely, and all 28 member states to simply exist in isolation from one another, with no framework for collective action or collective agreements - on trade, the environment, on climate change, on international development or global security or anything else.
I certainly do want to see the EU disappear. I do not want to see the ex member states to exist in isolation. They can't and never did. I've made it perfectly clear before that isolation is undesirable. I expect to see the disappearance of the EU to be accompanied by the emergence of a new European framework of cooperation which is more stable and prosperous and better serves both the common interests of the nations and also their own particular interests as well. If I thought the EU was capable of developing into such an association, I would not want to leave, but would want to stay and bring about that change. I don't believe the EU is capable of changing to such an extent as to make it an acceptable future for Europe.
-
I do not believe that the EU will ever change, it is impossible to reform it. Name me one occasion where the EU has given powers back to nation governments?
The momentum is always forward towards a United States of Europe.
The EU only pauses and waits for people to change, its always gradual, its aims span generations.
It is completely false to assume that we will be able to get off the EU bus at some point in the future, a remain vote will be seen as an acceptance in Brussels, this is it, one chance.
-
The momentum is always forward towards a United States of Europe.
Forget it - it's dead in the water! The failure of the euro, exemplified by the unresolved Greek financial crisis, along with rampant euro-scepticism across the continent, has finished 'ever closer union'. It now exists only in the fevered imagination of the Daily Mail!
-
Forget it - it's dead in the water! The failure of the euro, exemplified by the unresolved Greek financial crisis, along with rampant euro-scepticism across the continent, has finished 'ever closer union'. It now exists only in the fevered imagination of the Daily Mail!
A United States of Europe was never ever going to happen anyway.
Whilst Brussels bureaucrats may have been in favour, there's no way that self interested national politicians would have allowed it. UK (and German, and French, and Dutch, etc, etc) MPs don't mind Brussels making rules on how straight bananas have to be* because frankly that stuff is just boring and not "sexy", but there's no way enough of them would ever be prepared to give up their influence on the "big ticket" items.
* I know, I know, used for comedy effect.
-
On the subject of the Daily Mail, I'm currently on a Spanish island where the only choice of English newspapers is that one.
So, I've got no choice. It is a paper that up until now I have been in ignorance of.
The only thing I can think of saying after reading it, is that it is Unbelievable! How can this diatribe be the second bestselling newspaper in the U.K.?
-
Sadly, history tells us there is no limit to the depths to which the Mail will sink. Remember its support for Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, backed up with virulent opposition to admitting Jewish refugees to the UK. It's a disgusting paper, and why so many apparently respectable people read it is a mystery.
You need to find another island Hoffnung - you are keeping dodgy company! ;-)
-
There are only 3 certainties if out.
1) we will save money on EU contributions.
2) we will no longer be ruled from Brussels.
3) we will be able to control immigration.
There are no certainties with remain.
Everything else in or out is pure conjecture as no one knows.
We basically are left with what we belive is possible and desirable to happen, but nothing more definate.
-
There are only 3 certainties if out.
1) we will save money on EU contributions.
No we won't, because we will join the European Economic Area. That is a certainty because Big Business, which funds the Tory party, will insist on it. And EEA countries have to contribute to the EU budget.
2) we will no longer be ruled from Brussels.
Countries that are in the EEA are required to comply with the same regulations on employment etc that we are now. They just don't have any say in them.
3) we will be able to control immigration.
No we won't because free movement of people is required of countries that are part of the EEA.
There are no certainties with remain.
That's true. Remain or leave, these are uncertain times.
-
because we will join the European Economic Area. That is a certainty because Big Business, which funds the Tory party, will insist on it. And EEA countries have to contribute to the EU budget.
Countries that are in the EEA are required to comply with the same regulations on employment etc that we are now. They just don't have any say in them.
No we won't because free movement of people is required of countries that are part of the EEA.
That's true. Remain or leave, these are uncertain times.
You think we will join EEA, but it is not certain, it is a possibility. If we join EEA that may be a staging post and we may leave that later. No certainties
-
No shortage of that, melancholy! Try this: http://www.euronews.com/2016/06/17/what-do-europeans-think-of-the-uk-s-brexit-referendum/
The majority view across Europe is that the EU is crying out for reform, and they want us to stay part of it in order to be a key partner in that. People see that if we leave it could be the beginning of EU disintegration, which nobody in their right mind would want.
All I see on your link Dave is people saying it would be bad if the UK left. There's no mention of why, or how, we are valued within the EU which was my original point. So perhaps one could assume from this that it is because we offer more than we get out of it financially.
-
If Melancholy is referring to our 8 billion a year net contribution to the EU budget, that is trivial and irrelevant. The impact of Brexit on the UK economy is conservatively projected by most economists to be a reduction of around 2.5% in UK GDP. That's about 40 billion a year. And the negative effect is expected to spread across already weak EU economies.
The other reason that all other EU countries except France want us to remain is that we are widely seen (despite everything!) as being agents for change in the EU. There is a real appetite for reform throughout almost all EU countries. But Brexit is seen by many as the beginning of a domino effect in which other countries would follow suit, even leading to the complete collapse of the organisation that has ensured 70 years of peace and prosperity in Western Europe. Madness!
-
Come on people, why take this crazy risk for our security and economy and our children's futures by voting out?
The Brexit camp want to appeal to our reptilian brain with their immigration scare-stories. Don't let them have their way.
Vote REMAIN tomorrow.
-
Come on people, why take this crazy risk for our security and economy and our children's futures by voting out?
Come on people, why take this crazy risk for our security and economy and our children's futures by voting remain?
The Brexit camp want to appeal to our reptilian brain with their immigration scare-stories. Don't let them have their way.
The remain camp want to appeal to the credulous brain by pretending that wanting to leave is about immigration scare-stories. Don't let them have their way.
Vote REMAIN tomorrow.
Vote Leave tomorrow, for Britain's and for the whole of Europe's future.
-
Come on people, why take this crazy risk for our security and economy and our children's futures by voting remain?
The remain camp want to appeal to the credulous brain by pretending that wanting to leave is about immigration scare-stories. Don't let them have their way.
Vote Leave tomorrow, for Britain's and for the whole of Europe's future.
What is this - the school playground?
This referendum has been dominated by negative conjecture, false statistics and opinion.
But the Leave leaflet flooding Marple, along with the television political broadcast, takes the biscuit. They lie.
Lie number 1.
Britain pays £350 million per week into the EU. False.
There is a rebate (apart from the funding for regional development and various subsidies). It’s like someone saying “I have a discount on my council tax because I live alone, but I still pay the full council tax”.
The real figure is about £153 million. Still something, but dwarfed by spending on defence, which is about 8 times as much.
Lie number 2.
Turkey will join the EU by 2020. Wrong.
Although Turkey applied in 2005, they still need to get their economics and human rights in order. Even then, each of the 28 states has a veto, including Germany, Cyprus and Greece, none of whom want Turkey to join. It’s stalled.
But actually @tigerman summed it up better!
-
Being reported tonight that the EU commission has said no to any further negotiations if Britain votes to remain. Sums it up really.
-
This referendum has been dominated by negative conjecture, false statistics and opinion.
True; from both sides. However, I rather hope most voters take no notice of the rubbish coming from the remain campaign, or I regret to say the rubbish coming from the leave campaign. I would hope that voters will look at the bigger picture; the future of Europe. This is only partly about the UK. The question is about do we want a peaceful, secure and prosperous Europe, or do we want the EU. I don't believe we can have both.
In effect, many on both sides want to achieve similar things. Where the disagreement comes is whether the EU is capable of delivering it. It's a pity the two campaigns never really addressed the real issues of their alternative futures for Europe as a whole.
-
I would hope that voters will look at the bigger picture; the future of Europe. This is only partly about the UK. The question is about do we want a peaceful, secure and prosperous Europe.
Agreed. Trouble is, for me (and I hope, most people) that leads to precisely the opposite conclusion!
We'll know soon enough. A great deal hangs on this - as so many pundits have pointed out, this is not like an election, where if you don't like the crowd you've elected you can throw them out in five years time. This is for ever - once we leave, there will be no way back!
The bookies are still backing Remain - let's hope they are right!
-
I believe Remain will win by 4 percentage points. I have changed my mind in the last few days :
https://mellorview.wordpress.com/
-
The bookies are definitely backing remain. Last I checked at Ladbrokes they had 3/1 for Leave and 1/4 for Remain. Paddy Power have Remain at 1.22 and Exit at 4.20.
Here are Ladbroke's live odds: http://sports.ladbrokes.com/sports-central/uk-eu-referendum/ (http://sports.ladbrokes.com/sports-central/uk-eu-referendum/)
You don't often see the bookies getting it wrong.
-
That's just it though Geoff, it is exactly that, 'The school playground,' it has been made into that by 'our senior' politicians on both sides.
It certainly doesn't give anybody much confidence about what happens afterwards, whatever the outcome, they'll be squabbling for years . This whole campaign has been shameful and embarrassing.
I expect the outcome to be remain.
-
This whole campaign has been shameful and embarrassing.
It has - to some extent on both sides, although the Leave side has come up with the most outrageous lines, such as Michael Gove's 'experts are like Nazis', not to mention '70 million Turks are on their way', 'Vote Leave and save the NHS' (ha ha), and of course the lie to end all lies, 'EU membership costs the UK £350 million a week'.
Such people are not trustworthy, and are certainly not fit to hold public office.
I'd say thank God it's over, but I've got a horrible feeling that it isn't! Whichever way it goes today, it will be close, so I can't see the losing side conceding defeat gracefully.
-
Odds are shifting at the bookies for Remain. As of 14:20 on polling day Ladbrookes are showing the chances at 14% leave, 86% remain. The odds they are offering ar 6/1 leave and 1/10 remain.
-
Looks like the bookies were wrong again, as in last year's election. My heart bleeds for them.
As for the campaign, I agree it's been disappointingly negative.
But one can hardly argue there have been many "positive" campaigns in British politics. The Press and the system being the way it is just won't allow for sensible discussion.
-
As for the campaign, I agree it's been disappointingly negative.
But one can hardly argue there have been many "positive" campaigns in British politics. The Press and the system being the way it is just won't allow for sensible discussion.
While I like the result, I agree that the campaigns have not indulged in sensible discussion and I have to agree that one can hardly argue there have been many "positive" campaigns in British politics. I don't know what the answer is though.
-
A moment of madness which in years to come we will bitterly regret.
Stockport voted Remain, Manchester voted Remain, London and Scotland voted Remain, but we are being dragged out of the EU by a vote of just 51.9% of the population, with who-knows-what consequences.
-
These were the splits by age:
18-24: 75% Remain
25-49: 56% Remain
50-64: 44% Remain
65+: 39% Remain
Essentially London, Scotland, Nothern Ireland, Liverpool and bits of Manchester voted in. The rest voted out. It's not really a surpirise that the regions that voted leave had heavy industries (coal, steel, shipbuilding) which have been decimated over 30 years and more or less ignotred by successive Westminster-focused governments. I don't really see this as an anti-EU vote, more an anti-elite protest vote by a segment of the population which feels they have been kicked from pillar to post. I really don't buy the anti-democratic piece of the protest, it's more the longing and nostalgia for a country that doesn't exist any more and won't exist again in such a globalised economy by a segment of the population who won't have to deal with most of the fallout of the decision. I feel sorry for our youngsters.
-
These were the splits by age:
18-24: 75% Remain
25-49: 56% Remain
50-64: 44% Remain
65+: 39% Remain
Where do these figures come from @Howard ? Are they from polls or are they from the actual votes cast?
-
From YouGov data:
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/how-old-people-have-screwed-over-the-younger-generationin-three-charts--W1AA_n4nEb?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100
-
This is the worst day in my lifetime for myself, my children, and my grandchildren. I am amazed that so many people can be blinded by the rhetoric of politicians who clearly believe that truthfulness is less important than success.
When the “leave” campaigners extolled the strength and virtues of “Britain” did they tell us that their success would almost certainly lead to the end of our United Kingdom with a “porous” border to the north, the loss of our only nuclear base and our place on the UN Security Council?
They preached the value of the Commonwealth but did they tell us that Australia and New Zealand have found new markets for their trade and agricultural products, particularly with the signing earlier this year of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Trade Agreement, and their interest in trade with little England is much diminished? Did they point out that most Commonwealth countries are in it for what they can get out of it and they will increasingly look to donors like China and Russia, as they already have?
Did they explain that the US will increasingly turn to Berlin and Paris for their strategic conversations?
They tell us that we have the fifth largest economy in the world, and that achieved while we bear the millstone of the EU. They tell us that without that millstone we will be so much better off so where will our economy rank then? Second, third, fourth? I very much doubt it.
When ranting about EU red tape did they explain that most of what is said on the subject, the “bent cucumber” syndrome, is entirely mythical or introduced at the request of suppliers, consumers etc?
These politicians, or more likely their advisers, have a deep understanding of mass psychology and propaganda. They knew that, in order to be successful, they need to focus their campaign at a level which would be understood by most of the electorate. They did not debate the points raised by professionals, intellectuals, economists and experts. They merely dismissed and abused them. The leader of the most effective and successful union of states the world has ever seen was dismissed as “a hypocrite“. Others were “hysterical“, “bizarre“, and so it went on. To many people that was all they needed to know. They had no interest in giving consideration to the views of the OECD or the IMF. What are the OECD and the IMF anyway?
They found their focus, their route in to the minds of the people, in immigration and it served them well. Did they point out that we have an ageing population and need an influx of young people to generate the wealth necessary to sustain that population? Merkel understands that. Why don’t they? “…the NHS will face an unquantifiable strain…” (Michael Gove). In the past two months I have seen four NHS professionals. They were from Rajasthan, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and Eastern Europe. Anyway the NHS faces a future of intolerable strain regardless of migration.
Did they explain that many EU immigrants are young, well educated and ambitious? They come to work hard, build up a nest egg and their grasp of English, the lingua franca, and they express an intention to return home.
So, let’s hope we can sell lots and lots of vacuum cleaners, fans, backhoes and fork lift trucks to an eagerly waiting world.
-
Where do these figures come from @Howard ? Are they from polls or are they from the actual votes cast?
Follow the link above and you will see that this BS set of stats is based on an on the day poll of less than 5000 people. Probably the same ones that led the polling company to forecast a Remain win.
Or you could see the reality of over 17 million votes.
One of most memorable quote I recall over the campaign was by the novelist, Howard Jacobson , who said that in his opinion, the polarisation generated in no small part by social media has led to the belief that if you dont think the same as me then you are a moron and should die. You see this every day.
The cold fact is that the vote of an Islington, left leaning, PPE graduate is only worth the same a sthat of a shaven headed, Sun reading roofer with a Bull terrier from South Lincolnshire
-
The cold fact is that the vote of an Islington, left leaning, PPE graduate is only worth the same a sthat of a shaven headed, Sun reading roofer with a Bull terrier from South Lincolnshire
The sad thing is that either of these has a say in the running of the country, but that's democracy for you; at least they balance each other out.
-
I agree with your sentiment , Condate, but the likelihood is that the Islington leftie is more likely to make his views heard on a wider front and possibly achieve a higher level of power and influence.
-
I know I am falling foul of Godwin's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law), but here goes anyway: referendums are apparently illegal in Germany, since Hitler held four of them in the 1930s, to shore up his position as German Chancellor.
After what's happened here, maybe we should follow suit...........
-
The cold fact is that the vote of an Islington, left leaning, PPE graduate is only worth the same a sthat of a shaven headed, Sun reading roofer with a Bull terrier from South Lincolnshire
Or half-wits like these: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/i-really-regret-my-vote-now-the-brexit-voters-who-wish-theyd-voted-to-remain-a3280361.html
-
Half wits now? Democracy is great isn't it until you dont get what you want.
As your pal Tigerman told me recently: get over it!
-
Hear hear.
And yes, Dave, you have fallen foul of it!
-
Half wits now? Democracy is great isn't it until you dont get what you want
The guy on that link voted Leave, and next morning said 'I didn’t think it was going to matter too much because I thought we were just going to remain.'
That, by anyone's definition, is a half-wit!
-
OK , I agree , having watched the clip now, that is a strong candidate for half wittery. I did not watch the clip when you first posted as I am a crotchety old man and get irritated by the constant posting of links to memes as beloved by younger, more enlightened people who live in the Social Media world.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill
-
In case this wasn't reported elsewhere, Marple N voted to remain whilst Marple S voted out.
Stockport and Manchester as a whole voted to remain too.
As regards the referendum debate, this was the 3rd UK-wide and 3rd in Cameron's tenure; it is the first to go against the status quo.
And whilst I do believe in referenda, there are many arguments against: an ill-informed electorate is just one. (This may not be the fault of the electorate of course.) Many Swiss cantons did not allow female voting - the last until 1991.
So, on the cards as possibilities - the break-up of the UK, The Jungle coming to Kent and a recession. But the English are genuinely good at muddling through!
-
As your pal Tigerman told me recently: get over it!
Ha ha, sorry, didn't mean to be rude!
I think this referendum result will, for me, take quite a lot of getting over!
-
This is the worst day in my lifetime for myself, my children, and my grandchildren. I am amazed that so many people can be blinded by the rhetoric of politicians who clearly believe that truthfulness is less important than success.
I would like to echo Franz's sentiments. As a 50-something Remain voter working in a foreign-owned manufacturing company, I think many Leave voters have done an excellent job of collective shooting-in-the-feet. I really hope I'm wrong as I have several years of work left.
Anyway there now a live petition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215) :-
"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum."
Probably a waste of time, but I think the results of a second referendum would be different because
a) Many Leave voters now realise the true enormity of the changes we face (Scotland leaving, Pound falling, Ireland issues, many more non-productive pen-pushers required to sort out the mess)
b) More young people, who tend to vote Remain, would vote now they realise their vote really would count. Turnout in areas with predominantly young voters was significantly lower than those with mostly oldies.
I am feeling deeply depressed at the moment.
-
Where can one find the online data such as Councillor Abell refers to? Is it just by Ward or even lower ie by Polling station.
-
Many Leave voters have done an excellent job of collective shooting-in-the-feet........ Many Leave voters now realise the true enormity of the changes we face
Apparently this is quite widespread, and there's even a word for it: Bregret!
-
Despite being a committed remain voter, I have no sympathy for the people who decided they'd use their vote as a protest. It's the equivalent of standing over a body with a smoking gun saying "I didn't know it was loaded".
Equally I have little (some perhaps) sympathy for those under 24. I can't find the web page I was looking at but apparently the turnout from them was very low indeed. My recall is poor (so many numbers over the past few days) but it could have been around 30%. They could have changed the vote but didn't bother. There is no way young people would let their Gran choose their clothes, but they were lazy enough to let them make their political choices for them. Perhaps one benefit of this might be the wake-up call for young people to vote.
My main thought is that this referendum was really uneccessary and was caused by the old Tory party rift and Cameron being terrified of Farage's UKIP and Boris. He put party interests ahead of the country's. However, I reckon Boris has been looking very downbeat and I think that because he realises that he has lost.
With his resignation, Cameron effectively annulled his part of instigating the referendum result, and simultaneously put the kybosh on the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who caused him so much trouble and, ultimately, his premiership. How? Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear; he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but he abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
As we have seen, the enormity of the result started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list has grown and grown.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction. The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50? Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson is in a bind. If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
Therefore I think that when Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really wanted to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal declaration of implementing article 50 would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take. Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction. David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
-
Apparently this is quite widespread, and there's even a word for it: Bregret!
No regrets here, Dave!
All sorts of insults thrown at Leave voters, ageism, petitions to get another referendum because they don't like the result... Astounding hypocrisy from Remain voters who are unhappy that the majority do not agree with them.
The referendum should be celebrated for what it is - the purest form of democracy.
Accept the decision and move on.
-
No regrets here, Dave!
Give it time Melancholy - sooner or later the penny will drop! ;-)
-
I am concerned that Turkey will be allowed to join the EU sooner than is being predicted due to their taking in of a lot of Syrian refugees. Apparently up to 500,000 polish were entitled to vote in the recent London mayor election. Is that an accurate figure?
Maybe I'm being too simplistic but Australia is an island and appears to be reasonably self sufficient why can't we go down that route?
So at the moment I am voting out as I believe we could be swamped with millions of Turkish people in as little as the next decade and sorry but we don't have the room and need to reclaim control of our borders.
Door slammed shut on Turkey. Well done UK.
-
Door slammed shut on Turkey. Well done UK.
Just out of interest, can anyone explain why Turkey's possible inclusion in the EU is/was such a big deal?
Lots of Leavers were banging on about Turkey being allowed to join soon, and regardless of the truth in that assertion, no one ever really explained why that would be a bad thing.
-
Give it time Melancholy - sooner or later the penny will drop! ;-)
Agreed, giving it time is precisely what we all need to do. Likely to be short term pain for long term gain. No kneejerk reactions, and more importantly still, no obstructiveness once the decision has been made. Move forward together.
-
Nobody has mentioned the implications for the Eurovision Song Contest. 20th May 2017, that's when we will find out if anybody still likes us.
-
Our next entry should obviously be Millwall FC's 'No-one likes us, we don't care' sung to the tune of 'Sailing'..........
-
What follows is my personal view.
The EU Referendum poll has been done the result is final and those on the losing side are bound to feel aggrieved. That is democracy.
It appears that many people are conflating Europe with the EU Project. To me they are quite separate.
Europe = countries within the EU project plus the other countries outside the EU project, including the UK. All of these countries have distinctive cultures, peoples, languages, geographies, foods etc. I would have added wines & beers but as I no longer drink any alcohol they are irrelevant. Long may those unique qualities exist as it makes traveling so interesting. European countries should continue to trade and within reason allow freedom of movement between them.
EU Project = The political project (the Commission, the Parliament, the Courts etc) based in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere that has political, legal and fiscal harmonisation as its core raison d'etre.
My decision to leave the EU Project was based on 80% dislike of the EU Project telling us what we can and can't do and 20% on economics. For me, and many others, Brexit is about leaving the EU Project not about leaving Europe, which is only 20 miles away.
Immigration had nothing to do with my decision. I am in a secure well paid and very interesting job that allows me to travel extensively around the world. I love the idea of multiculturalism and have students from over 50 countries scattered across every continent (except Antarctica) on my 2nd year undergraduate Finance course with whom I have many interesting and varied discussions. For all of my friends immigration is seen as a huge benefit to the UK and many friends run large businesses that depend on immigrants for their language skills and knowledge of the business systems and networks in their countries to help open doors to trade. Though for many other people who may be poorly educated and low paid to lose their jobs to cheaper East European labour I can see that immigration would be an issue. Our generous welfare system and relatively high minimum wage and thriving "black market" all without identity papers is clearly a massive magnet to people from elsewhere. A points based system that allows freedom of movement if one has the appropriate skills seems a pretty good pragmatic solution to dealing with uncontrolled immigration. We have been prevented from implementing such by the EU Project. Maybe we should also introduce identity cards for access to all public services. Though I think that would go down like a lead balloon with many Brits having given them up after WW2.
I have visited and worked in over 120 countries including many in South America, Africa, Australasia, Middle East, Russia and the Far East as well as all but one European country (Latvia). I was toting them up during the opening ceremony of the Olympics in London in 2012, and lost count after 122. Clearly I have been to far more countries than exist in Europe. Nowhere that I have been, outside of Europe, is there any sort of project that says a dominant power can dictate laws and terms of existence to the other countries. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was set up to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with around fifteen members - its aims include accelerating economic growth, social progress and socio-cultural evolution among its members, alongside protection of regional stability as well as providing a mechanism for member countries to resolve differences peacefully. There is also a trade agreement in South America but its acronym and name escapes me at the moment. None of the countries within these organisations has abrogated their laws or fiscal systems to a dominant country or project. Would the USA abrogate its law making to Mexico? Would Australia give up the AUS$ for the Yuan? It is silly to even ask the questions. Clearly if countries want to trade they have to ensure their products meet the requirements of the country they want to trade with but they have not turned their law making over to another country. And the use of a common currency, e.g. US$, might facilitiate trade. But no other country, apart from Zimbabwe that I'm aware of, has given up their own currency. Even Zimbabwe has adopted a basket of currencies. Trade and free movement between these groups is pretty easy and long may those continue. That is what we want. All of the countries outside of Europe look at the EU Project as being one of the most bizarre aspects of Europe and can't understand why we would give up our sovereignty to Germany.
Britain has always had a tetchy relationship with the EU. We joined a Common Market in 1973. By the way de Gaulle was right - we should never have joined, but we did. Since then our relationship has been one of trying to maintain our distinctive being and not be subjected to political, legal and fiscal union. We had no say over the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties. This referendum was the first time in over 40 years that the people of the UK have had a chance to have a say in the matter and it doesn't surprise me that there was this backlash. A little history is required. Since Magna Carta in 1215 the UK has had a charter of liberty and political rights. This was supplemented by parliamentary democracy from about 1720 when Walpole became our first Prime Minister and power was removed from the Monarch. Sweden also set up a parliamentary system about the same time. This is quite unlike a presidential system shared by most of our European counterparts who, for much of the time, suffered under one form of dictatorship or another. So our histories are totally different and this largely informs the reasons why the UK has always been EU sceptic and perhaps why European countries have embraced political and fiscal union.
But the EU project has failed. It has caused massive unemployment to the youth across Europe, particularly Southern Europe. The Euro has been a disaster especially for the weaker countries. Germany, in particularly, has just shifted all of its debt to poor countries like Greece who are unable to pay it back because they don't produce anything much worthwhile. The whole project has been driven by Germany and to a lesser extent France into the ground. Even the EU commissioners are beginning to realise this but they seem totally focussed on the original goals and despite many attempts by the UK to alter course they do not want to listen. Perhaps it will take a Frexit to finally get them to change their minds. But a Brexit or a Frexit or any other country exit is not to be feared. It is an opportunity to improve a failed system.
If the young feel so aggrieved why didn't they vote? Apparently the turnout amongst the young was abysmally low compared to other demographics, though I can't find the concrete proof of this. However, amongst my own students, who are of voting age and elligible to vote, i.e. not overseas students, the level of interest in this referendum was 10% could be bothered, based on a sample of over 300. The other 90% were not interested or didn't want to understand or engage despite my many efforts to enthuse them of the arguments from both sides. This is from students at one of the top universities in Europe.
Other countries within the EU Project, who are even more sceptical than the UK, have also realised this and hence the reason EU scepticism is on the rise across Europe. So it will not surprise me if other countries don't follow the UK out of the EU Project. EU scepticism is not about racism it is about regaining control and have the ability for each country to make their own laws that suit their particular circumstances.
So to all the young people Brexit is not about removing ourselves from the global community. Far from it. It is about re-engaging with the global community, regaining our sovereignty and trading with the whole world not just the other 27 European countries. Trade will bring wealth and jobs. What is there to fear in that?
-
Very well put mikes. Has made a lot of sense. Thank you
-
Yes very well put, mikes. That's the first thing I've read that's made me feel remotely positive about this affair - the first coherent article backed by believable facts. I just hope the hit on our economy isn't so great that we are no longer worthy of partnership with these other countries. Unfortunately our manufacturing industry is now heavily reliant on European companies and I know from personal experience that they look after their own.
The reason I feel aggrieved is that I don't think the process was fair. I believe "Leave" voters were influenced by lies from the tabloid newspapers and the Leave proponents (who have now gone very quiet..). A significant number now realise this. You could say it's their own fault - but that doesn't make me feel better!
-
EU Project = The political project (the Commission, the Parliament, the Courts etc) based in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere that has political, legal and fiscal harmonisation as its core raison d'etre.
No it doesn't. Beyond a requirement that member states are democratic and subject to the rule of law, there is no political harmonisation. In fact the treaties specify the EU's obligation to respect the national identities and the fundamental political and constitutional structures of the individual Member States.
The euro is a monetary union but NOT a fiscal one, and it never will be. The fact that fiscal matters (i.e. tax and spending) have been left to indivdual member states in the euro zone is the main reason why it has failed.
None of the countries within these organisations [NAFTA, ASEAN] has abrogated their laws or fiscal systems to a dominant country or project.
Neither has the EU. There is no fiscal union between any EU member states. Most laws are down to individual countries. EU laws and directives mainly relate to cross-border issues such as agriculture, fisheries and the single market.
All of the countries outside of Europe look at the EU Project as being one of the most bizarre aspects of Europe and can't understand why we would give up our sovereignty to Germany.
I am not nearly as well travelled as mikes, but I have been to many countries, and I have always got the impression that the EU is regarded with respect and envy across the world, as a shining example of how countries which fought one another for 2,000 years can find a way of living in peace and prosperity. As for giving up our sovereignty to Germany, you could argue that the other eurozone countries have done that, but it's nonsense to suggest that we have, or ever would.
our relationship has been one of trying to maintain our distinctive being and not be subjected to political, legal and fiscal union. We had no say over the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties.
See above. There is no political, legal or fiscal union, and there never will be. We were part of the drafting of the the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties, and we willingly signed them
So it will not surprise me if other countries don't follow the UK out of the EU Project.
Me neither. That's one of the most worrying and dangerous things about our current situation - the break-up of the EU could re-awaken national rivalries and animosity the like of which we have not seen for decades. We could be entering some dark times.
I would like to think that mikes' rose-tinted view of where we are bore some relationship to reality, but I fear it doesn't. We are in the most almighty mess, and the referendum has caused damage that will take years to repair, if indeed it is ever repaired. Hold on to your hat, mikes, because we're all in for a very bumpy ride!
-
I think voters on both sides had to put up with a great deal of nonsense from both campaigns. This referendum did not show our democracy in a good light. The result was correct however. That said, it must be remembered that simply leaving the EU is not the final goal and does not automatically bring about the better Europe so many people on the leave side and indeed throughout Europe are looking for. It requires a lot of effort from the UK, but also a lot of effort from the many within Europe who want a better future than the EU could ever provide. In many ways it can be said that we in this country have done our bit and it is now for the people of the rest of Europe to complete the job.
-
Where can one find the online data such as Councillor Abell refers to? Is it just by Ward or even lower ie by Polling station.
I don't think it was publicly announced by individual ward, but it was my impression on the (rather long) night. It is fascinating watching a count; it is a transparent process at each stage.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/eu-referendum-results-stockport-leave-11518208 (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/eu-referendum-results-stockport-leave-11518208)
I am of course saddened by the result and I think we'll live to regret it, but others have already articulated my thoughts well here; I won't add to them.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-26/racist-incidents-have-u-k-worried-what-referendum-has-wrought
..... and I fear this is just the beginning.
I know many - probably most - Leave voters are not racist. But some undoubtedly are - we have all seen and heard them being interviewed in the street on radio and television news programmes.
I used to be really proud to be British. But the way things are going, I'm starting to feel ashamed. The racist genie is out of the bottle, and it could be very very hard to put it back again. It's a pity this government has inflicted so many cuts on the police - I think we are about to need them.
-
Good post mikes. Thoughtful, and positive.
You say there's no legal Union, Dave. How then would you explain the function of the European Court of Justice?
As a result of its ruling on the gender equalisation of insurance premiums in 2012, every country in the EU had to accept its decision. It was widely denounced by all sectors of the UK insurance industry, and resulted in women having to pay higher insurance premiums, even though they statistically live longer than men and are a better risk for other forms of insurance, most notably motor.
If that's not legal Union, what is?
-
A legal union would exist in the EU if all laws in every member state were drawn up and enforced by the EU, and were common to every country. That is not the case - far from it. Most law across the EU is national law, and it varies from country to country.
The jurisdiction of the ECJ relates solely to EU law, which as I pointed out in an earlier post, covers areas in the Treaties such as EU administration, social and market regulations, free movement and trade etc.
Incidentally, I gather Boris Johnson's article in today's Telegraph, though I have not yet seen it, suggests that if Johnson becomes PM he will seek to ensure that the UK joins the single market by becoming a member of the European Economic Area. If that happens, we will still be subject to EU law, and there will still be free movement of EU citizens in and out of the UK.
I wonder what some of the people who voted Leave will say when they find out that there will be no change to EU immigration.........
-
I wonder what some of the people who voted Leave will say when they find out that there will be no change to EU immigration.........
For most of us, that's fine. Immigration simply wasn't the issue.
-
I realise that Condate. I was thinking more of people like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVBLWlVI3DQ
-
set up by the TV company to make their point.
-
For most of us, that's fine. Immigration simply wasn't the issue.
Of course it was for a lot of people.
You try and live in Australia when your trade is kebab shop worker or taxi driver etc...
-
Incidentally, I gather Boris Johnson's article in today's Telegraph, though I have not yet seen it, suggests that if Johnson becomes PM he will seek to ensure that the UK joins the single market by becoming a member of the European Economic Area. If that happens, we will still be subject to EU law, and there will still be free movement of EU citizens in and out of the UK.
I wonder what some of the people who voted Leave will say when they find out that there will be no change to EU immigration.........
He implies in essence that UK citizens will be able to travel, work ,etc in Europe as now, but "the same rights would not be automatically extended to EU citizens in the UK"
What planet is that man living on? Aaargh!
-
set up by the TV company to make their point.
Really? And the England fans in France this weekend? The ones shouting 'If you all hate Muslims, clap your hands'. Were they a put-up job as well?
-
I realise that Condate. I was thinking more of people like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVBLWlVI3DQ
I don't know who you voted for in the General Election, but I can guarantee that whoever it was, some of the others who voted the same way would be a severe embarassment to the candidate. It's always the way.
-
Isn't all this discussion about the result of the vote a waste of time? Like the visitors to Hotel California, the UK was never going to be allowed to leave. All of the current arguments that are vigorously being played out on mainstream media is all a smoke screen to make us plebs think there are some incredibly detailed and fractious discussions being played out behind closed doors.
There aren't.
We're going to remain in the EU whether we like it or not.
And in the meantime people's perception of an undemocratic, mendacious, money-grabbing behemoth is being deliberately modified: from feelings of cynicism and distrust, and active dislike by some, to apoplectic rage and utter despondency at the prospect that the UK might soon be independent from it. Just read the comments in the Guardian.
And here's what they want to remain a part of. Look folks, EU democracy in action!
The irony is that this has been gleefully posted by a clearly brainwashed Remainer who's put it on Instagram to show that there's hope (yes, hope!) that the results of previous referenda show that the UK decision might yet be overturned. Bless her, she and her equally enthusiastic but myopic chums are clearly incapable of seeing the irony that posting evidence of previous results being ignored or 'made to vote again' actually showcases the EU's contempt for the democratic process.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/29wpd7a.png)
https://www.instagram.com/p/BHHRJ7-DPAT/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/BHHRJ7-DPAT/)
-
Contrary to many of the comments posted on this thread, virtually all the people I've listened too who voted leave were all against free movement in Europe. Which is an immigration issue whichever way you look at it.
The outcome of the referendum which as we all know is no more than advisory and as well as this, democracy is not just about the highest number to the exclusion of all else. That is the definition of tyranny not democracy.
There are an unprecedented amount of political distractions at the moment ; new PM, complete disarray of the Labour Party, Scottish Fury, Irish Defiance. Lib Dem silliness and so on. When all this has been resolved or at least moved on a bit, then I would expect our elected members to fully debate our situation in Europe and taking the referendum result into consideration vote with their conscience and in the best interests of UK.
-
Interesting post by barndoor, although he's quite wrong to blame the EU for that list of 'ignored' referendums. They were not held by the EU. They were all called and held by the various countries listed, and it was the Danish and Irish governments that re-ran their referendums, and the French, Dutch and Greek governments that ignored theirs.
But I suspect barndoor is on to something nevertheless. Not that we will see a straight re-run of last week's referendum - the chances of that happening here are approximately zero. But we might see a referendum on the exit terms - potential Tory leadership candidate Jeremy Hunt is already trailing that idea. Or we might get a General Election in the autumn as a kind of 'proxy referendum'.
Here's Boris Johnson's article from yesterday's Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/
A key bit is this: '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..... 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.'
Now in the real world - as opposed to on Planet Boris - we all know that the prospect of being part of the single market but not signing up to free movement of labour is for the birds - it ain't going to happen! But Boris has got to appear to be negotiating for it.
So a possible scenario is this: the new UK Prime Minister (Johnson, May, whoever) negotiates strongly for access to the single market while introducing immigration controls, but fails. Oh dear. Never mind, we've got the best deal we can, so we're putting it to the vote in a General Election, with a manifesto which includes the proposal that we leave the EU and join Norway and Iceland in the European Economic Area, thereby retaining access to the single market, but also retaining free movement of labour, and continuing to contribute to EU budgets, and continuing to be subject to the relevant areas of EU law, in social and market regulations, trade etc etc. It's not ideal, but it's the best deal we could get etc etc etc.
The trouble is, many Leavers thought they were voting for 'take back control', 'I want my country back' and (most ridiculous of all), 'more money for the NHS', so they won't like it.
A less likely twist on this would be that the Labour Party gets its act together, elects a credible leader, and fights this General Election on a Remain ticket. Maybe there could even be a pact between Labour and the LibDems (also Remainers, of course) not to stand against each other in any constituency. Although that really is getting into the realms of fantasy.....
Yes I know, this is all just idle speculation. But what else can you do? These really are the most extraordinary times.
-
Contrary to many of the comments posted on this thread, virtually all the people I've listened too who voted leave were all against free movement in Europe. Which is an immigration issue whichever way you look at it.
We must talk to different people!
-
We must talk to different people!
That's very probably true, Condate.
-
Volatile times indeed. Not only did Leave not expect to win, they haven't got a coherent line now on trade, immigration or the sovereignty of the UK.
And not only are the minnows doing well in football, but the smaller parties don't seem to be the ones shaking themselves apart in these turbulent times. Hence the fact their voice is heard less by national media. With the possible exception of the SNP.
Who would Marple want to see as Tory leader and PM? My money is on a comparative outsider.
-
Anyone but Boris! Teresa May looks like a safe pair of hands to me, and the sooner the better. Cameron is finished and needs to go ASAP. We urgently need someone to steady the ship, look as though they are in charge, and exude an air of calm reassurance. Addressing the nation would also be a good idea, if only to try to nip this sort of thing in the bud before it gets any worse: http://salfordonline.com/26927-watch-horrific-racist-abuse-teenagers-tram.html
-
Yes,
-
Yes,
The idea of Boris at first is quite amusing. That is until you stop laughing, then you realise how serious it is.
-
Anyone but Boris! Teresa May looks like a safe pair of hands to me, and the sooner the better. Cameron is finished and needs to go ASAP. We urgently need someone to steady the ship, look as though they are in charge, and exude an air of calm reassurance. Addressing the nation would also be a good idea, if only to try to nip this sort of thing in the bud before it gets any worse: http://salfordonline.com/26927-watch-horrific-racist-abuse-teenagers-tram.html
@Dave that was really worrying because it was during the day and in the middle of Manchester. I was proud of the US vet who stepped in. Sadly some of this went on before the referendum as well.
I'd also like to share with you a Marple correspondent's contribution in a national newspaper yesterday:
Failure to get the message across
"It seems we have a considerable number of people in the UK who don't know that a referendum isn't a protest vote; think that voting for the opposite of what you what will get the right outcome; don't read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the radio, so were unaware of migration concessions David Cameron had achieved or that Labour was supporting Remain; believe that Johnson, Gove and Farage aren't members of the political establishment; think that Johnson is a fit man to run the country.
"No wonder we need to import people from other countries to do the jobs the economy needs."
-
The thing about Boris is that he reportedly has far more support among Tory party grassroots members than he does among his fellow Tory MPs.
And of course, that's exactly how it is with Jeremy Corbyn as well.
So we could find the nation facing this period of dangerous uncertainty, which many are describing as the gravest political and economic crisis since World War II, with both major parliamentary parties led by men who don't command the support of their own MPs in the House of Commons.
-
So we could find the nation facing this period of dangerous uncertainty, which many are describing as the gravest political and economic crisis since World War II, with both major parliamentary parties led by men who don't command the support of their own MPs in the House of Commons.
I think you're probably right, @Dave although the early-mid 1970s resulting in us calling in the IMF in 1976 after the 3-day week, the Winter of Discontent etc is probably close.
I think economically we'll be diminished but OK in a few years. We do have a relatively strong economy, we do have a worldwide reputation as a strong trading partner and we do have a powerful scientific research reputation. All of those will be diminished by the Brexit. I'd like to think that when we have to compensate for the financial impact that we actually invest in science, technology and education. The finanicial industry is actually going to go through a huge change soon anyway related to software and technologies that automate a lot of what current bankers do so we'll have to reduce our reliance on those people. Perhaps we can use their analytical skills in ways that might benfit the whole country rather than them and their shareholders.
I think the financial impact will be easier to deal with than the social impact. The paucity of knowledge of how the world works in the areas which voted Leave is horrifying. Much of it is down to poor education although you can't discount the disgracefully biased press which informs much of its readership. Couple that with demagogues like Farage and it created a poisonous mix which lead to the Leave vote.
-
The paucity of knowledge of how the world works in the areas which voted Leave is horrifying.
Really? I could equally well say the same of the area which voted remain. Clearly there are many people who have no idea that Europe and the EU are two completely different things and that one can be pro-European and still vote leave and who therefore voted remain without understanding the issue.
The fact is that some people voted leave and some voted remain without understanding the issues. Most who voted to leave or remain did understand, but came to different conclusions. I very much doubt that the levels of stupidity, or ignorance differs much between leave and remain voters.
-
I very much doubt that the levels of stupidity, or ignorance differs much between leave and remain voters.
Really? Well here is a selection of typical reasons for Remaining, as given by countless politicians and people interviewed in the street: 'We need to work and trade closely with our European partners; leaving the EU will cause a fall in the value of sterling and a fall in UK GDP; the UK's influence in the world will fall if we leave the EU; the EU is a beacon of democracy - for example, an important bulwark against Russian aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere; EU membership brings huge benefits to jobs and the economy through inward investment by multinational companies - Nissan, Toyota, the big banks etc etc' And so on.
Which of those are stupid or ignorant? Compared with 'I want my country back'?
-
Really? Well here is a selection of typical reasons for Remaining, as given by countless politicians and people interviewed in the street: 'We need to work and trade closely with our European partners; leaving the EU will cause a fall in the value of sterling and a fall in UK GDP; the UK's influence in the world will fall if we leave the EU; the EU is a beacon of democracy - for example, an important bulwark against Russian aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere; EU membership brings huge benefits to jobs and the economy through inward investment by multinational companies - Nissan, Toyota, the big banks etc etc' And so on.
Which of those are stupid or ignorant? Compared with 'I want my country back'?
Those arguments are not stupid; unconvincing but not at all stupid or ignorant. You are of course not comparing like with like. I could of course do the same in reverse and list the sillier reasons for voting remain (if we leave, there will be a third world war; if we leave, the entire economy will collapse overnight; I have to vote remain because I can't stand Nigel Farage) and claim that this proves that remain voters are stupid and ignorant. They are not of course and most remain voters, like most leave voters have reasonable arguments for voting the way they did. Some leave voters have silly reasons for voting leave (and yes, I've certainly heard some bizarre ones) and some remain voters have silly reasons for voting remain (listen to real people and you'll hear some). Of course, the press tended to pick up only on the sillier leave supporters and never bothered in most cases to interview the majority, who were neither xenophobes, nor anti-European.
-
I could of course do the same in reverse and list the sillier reasons for voting remain (if we leave, there will be a third world war; if we leave, the entire economy will collapse overnight; I have to vote remain because I can't stand Nigel Farage)
Sorry Condate but you have made those up. Unlike 'I want my country back' no-one actually said any of those. See, for example http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/664333/We-want-our-country-back-Farage-rallies-troops-ahead-of-Independence-Day-Brexit
some remain voters have silly reasons for voting remain (listen to real people and you'll hear some).
Come on Condate, let's have some real examples, with evidence. Not quotes that you have made up.
Of course, the press tended to pick up only on the sillier leave supporters
Seeing as the majority of the press were pro-leave, why would any of them have done that?
-
There are many reasons why people voted the way they did, but I think it is reasonable to suggest that people disposed to a racist outlook would tend to vote Out rather than IN. As I say, doubtlessly most had nobler reasons to vote Leave, but in recent days I have spoken to East Europeans working here, and to people of mixed-heritage.
I have been shocked by their accounts of recent racist abuse in the streets of Manchester and the genuine apprehension caused by the knowledge of it. The referendum has unearthed a nasty strain in the English character and seems to have given racist individuals some feeling of permission to act in this manner.
-
This is one of the best, non-biased, pieces I have seen on the Brexit. It's very well written:
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/looking-behind-the-brexit-anger/
-
Thanks Howard - that's very interesting. You need to read it all, but it seems to me that the key points are:
1. There's no correlation between leave voters and those who have come off worst as a result of post 2010 austerity. So the Leave vote is not a protest against the Tory government.
2. Quote: 'This is not a class conflict so much as a values divide that cuts across lines of age, income, education and even party.....Values, such as whether children should obey their parents or whether we should bring back the death penalty, are better indicators of a Leave or Remain vote than income '
And the blogger illustrates point no 2 above with a fascinating chart showing the correlation between voting Leave and support for the death penalty, and that it cuts across all income levels.
-
1. There's no correlation between leave voters and those who have come off worst as a result of post 2010 austerity. So the Leave vote is not a protest against the Tory government.
I think that article makes one fundamental mistake, voters don't necessarily vote on what has actually happened to them, they vote on what they perceive has happened to them.
Councils across the land have been using "austerity" as an excuse for pretty much every cut in funding they had made since 2010, so whilst technically an area might not be worse off, the council has closed the local library and swimming pool in the name of austerity (when it was actually, say, a mis-management issue, or whatever) and so they think they are worse off.
-
Interesting. But fundamentally we Remainers did not make the case for the Heart as well as the Head. Gove said during the Scottish referendum that he could be Scottish and British at the same time; there's no fundamental conflict. We should have said that of being British and European.
What we seem to have from some leading Leavers is allowing free movement as the cost of no trade barriers.
It's EU-lite. You've heard it here first!
-
It's beginning to look as though the Tory leadership election might be fought on two alternative ways forward to Brexit: stay in the single market and accept continuing EU immigration (May), or curtail EU immigration by staying out of the single market (Leadsom)
-
Professor Michael Dougan of Liverpool University has uploaded a new video analysing our position and the Leave campaigns claims post-referendum:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI)
-
The Conservative Party in Parliament?
329 of em and 328 voted to trigger article 50.
Is that a challenging, questioning political group or a flock of sheep?
-
The Conservative Party in Parliament?
329 of em and 328 voted to trigger article 50.
Is that a challenging, questioning political group or a flock of sheep?
Perhaps a group of very sensible people (on this issue anyway).
-
Sensible, maybe, perhaps, time will tell. Could just as easily be catastrophic.
Anyway whether it's one or the other, definitely a flock of sheep.
-
a flock of sheep.
No, sheep are much more sensible. Lemmings maybe, or perhaps jellyfish would be more apt, as the many Tory MPs who are remainers seem to have become completely spineless. And the way the Labour Party has caved in is beyond pathetic.
And how about this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-david-davis-no-economic-impact-assess-uk-eu-leave-no-deal-select-committee-a7630626.html
Incredible! Thank God for Nicola Sturgeon! ;)
-
...
Incredible! Thank God for Nicola Sturgeon! ;)
She seems to be backtracking faster than an Italian tank as well.
-
'An Italian tank,' Mikes.
Obviously your a Brexiteer.
-
Yes, I agree Dave, the conduct of current parliamentarians (all colours) does nothing to inspire anything positive.
On the EU issue Many MP's seem to have completely forgotten which way their constituents voted. Their loyalty to their political parties seems to far exceed any regard for the wishes of the people who put them in office in the first place.
It seems one thing after another. Today we here of The Conservatives fraudulent expenses submission during the General Election and also that we've got to pass a law to prevent MP's employing family members because they can't be trusted to comply on their own.
If there was an election tomorrow I wouldn't know who to vote for and that's the first time in my life, I've ever thought that.
-
It seems one thing after another. Today we here of The Conservatives fraudulent expenses submission during the General Election
To be fair, as well as the Conservatives http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195) We have the Labour Party fined £20000 [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37760562 (http://[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37760562) and the Lib Dems fined £20000 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38234883 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38234883), although the Conservative's fine is bigger at £70000.
This does suggest to me that the rules are overcomplicated, if all three big parties got it wrong.
-
Really, Amazing!
Suggests to me that if you can neither understand/follow the rules for your own election process, then you are either dishonest or incompetent.
Either way the implications are concerning.
-
So this is what our esteemed MP gets up to when he thinks we aren't looking...... ;)
https://www.scribd.com/document/371977491/Letter-from-European-Research-Group-to-PM-May#fullscreen&from_embed
-
So this is what our esteemed MP gets up to when he thinks we aren't looking...... ;)
https://www.scribd.com/document/371977491/Letter-from-European-Research-Group-to-PM-May#fullscreen&from_embed
That and taking part in survey panels. Don't know how he finds the time...
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25360/william_wragg/hazel_grove#register
-
So this is what our esteemed MP gets up to when he thinks we aren't looking...... ;)
https://www.scribd.com/document/371977491/Letter-from-European-Research-Group-to-PM-May#fullscreen&from_embed
He is doing what a great many, quite possibly the majority, of his constituents want him to do. I've no idea what the 'when he thinks we aren't looking' comment is supposed to imply.
-
He is doing what a great many, quite possibly the majority, of his constituents want him to do. I've no idea what the 'when he thinks we aren't looking' comment is supposed to imply.
He is doing what SOME of his constituents want. And given he kept his seat mainly due to Ukip not standing, I suspect we know which ones.
I sincerely doubt it's the majority by any means. Wragg didn't even manage to get a majority of the constituency voting for him in the last election - only 45.4% of the voters. But let's not beat around the bush here. He's not representing the people in Hazel Grove who wanted to stay in the EU - at best he's ignoring them. At worst he's deliberately antognising them. He's not representing the leave voters who think staying in the customs union is a good idea. There's been multiple opinion polls on this and they all say the same thing - there's a majority for stating in the single market full stop. Yes, even leave voters. The latest of many came in a month ago.
http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/19/people-want-stay-single-market-brexit-7242029/
The referendum was close in its result. The UK certainly didn't decide en-mass to leave the EU. It was a slender majority. But instead of trying to bridge the gap and bring people along on the journey, people like Wragg - and his new bezzie, 18th century throwback Jacob Rees-Mogg - are acting like they won a highly convincing victory.
It's been said by many, but just imagine if the result went the other way - 52% remain, 48% leave. And that following that Cameron and Osborne decided that was enough of a mandate to do HARD REMAIN. Join Schengen. Adopt the Euro immediately. Would that help heal the country's bitter divide?
-
He is doing what SOME of his constituents want. And given he kept his seat mainly due to Ukip not standing, I suspect we know which ones.
I sincerely doubt it's the majority by any means. Wragg didn't even manage to get a majority of the constituency voting for him in the last election - only 45.4% of the voters. But let's not beat around the bush here. He's not representing the people in Hazel Grove who wanted to stay in the EU - at best he's ignoring them. At worst he's deliberately antognising them. He's not representing the leave voters who think staying in the customs union is a good idea. There's been multiple opinion polls on this and they all say the same thing - there's a majority for stating in the single market full stop. Yes, even leave voters. The latest of many came in a month ago.
http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/19/people-want-stay-single-market-brexit-7242029/
The referendum was close in its result. The UK certainly didn't decide en-mass to leave the EU. It was a slender majority. But instead of trying to bridge the gap and bring people along on the journey, people like Wragg - and his new bezzie, 18th century throwback Jacob Rees-Mogg - are acting like they won a highly convincing victory.
It's been said by many, but just imagine if the result went the other way - 52% remain, 48% leave. And that following that Cameron and Osborne decided that was enough of a mandate to do HARD REMAIN. Join Schengen. Adopt the Euro immediately. Would that help heal the country's bitter divide?
Opinion polls have been proved wrong so many times in recent years that they are best ignored. Its easily possible to prove any desired result with a poll.
Hazel Grove voted 52.21% to leave the EU. The UK voted 51.89% to leave the EU. So its pointless saying 'imagine if the result went the other way'. It didn't. We are leaving. Its time for all the snowflakes to accept it and work together towards a brighter future.
But of course, some people only want democracy when the result goes their way.
-
Opinion polls have been proved wrong so many times in recent years that they are best ignored. Its easily possible to prove any desired result with a poll.
Hazel Grove voted 52.21% to leave the EU. The UK voted 51.89% to leave the EU. So its pointless saying 'imagine if the result went the other way'. It didn't. We are leaving. Its time for all the snowflakes to accept it and work together towards a brighter future.
But of course, some people only want democracy when the result goes their way.
Ah the snowflake accusation comes out. No need to worry any more what kind of fence you sit on. I speak of building bridges, taking everyone on a journey, you just assume that you're right about everything and everyone else can stuff it. Makes you wonder who actually is the "snowflake"...
But everyone else please listen - anyone who doesn't agree with Harry better shut up! Cos that's democracy!
-
William Wragg got elected for a number of reasons. There were two reasons I voted for him. Firstly, as mentioned, no candidate from UKIP was standing and it was absolutely vital for the UK and Europe that we had an MP who supported leaving the EU. Secondly, the most likely alternative as Lisa Smart and that just doesn't bear thinking about.
He is the person this constituency sent to Parliament. He is morally obliged to vote for what he thinks is best for Hazel Grove and for the UK. Neither he, nor any other MP of whatever political persuasion is supposed to change what they say, or how they vote depending on how close the result was. It is unreasonable to expect him to do and say other that he has, just as it would be unreasonable for an MP who supported the EU stop saying he or she thinks the referendum result was a mistake.
-
William Wragg got elected for a number of reasons. There were two reasons I voted for him. Firstly, as mentioned, no candidate from UKIP was standing and it was absolutely vital for the UK and Europe that we had an MP who supported leaving the EU. Secondly, the most likely alternative as Lisa Smart and that just doesn't bear thinking about.
He is the person this constituency sent to Parliament. He is morally obliged to vote for what he thinks is best for Hazel Grove and for the UK. Neither he, nor any other MP of whatever political persuasion is supposed to change what they say, or how they vote depending on how close the result was. It is unreasonable to expect him to do and say other that he has, just as it would be unreasonable for an MP who supported the EU stop saying he or she thinks the referendum result was a mistake.
Not sure who was asking him to say the referendum was a mistake? I mean he clearly believes in leaving the EU and doing it in the hardest way possible.
But every MP is there to represent ALL their constituents, not just the ones they agree on. MPs also get voted in on the basis of a national manifesto, set by the party leadership. Many of his voters will not be aware of his personal views and will have voted for him on the basis of the national manifesto. Wragg is currently going against the party leadership, whose policies helped get him his job... How many people voted him in on the basis of the national ticket that he's now going against? Well given he didn't bother to campaign last election, I'd argue the figures are quite high in the national manifesto's favour.
-
Incidentally, we vote for MPs in Parliament to make decisions on our behalf. Referendums - of any kind, on any subject - do not fit into this model. A national plebiscite is a failure of MPs to actually do their job properly...
-
He is doing what a great many, quite possibly the majority, of his constituents want him to do. I've no idea what the 'when he thinks we aren't looking' comment is supposed to imply.
It means that Wragg is certainly not doing what his constituents want him to do! So he's doing it behind our backs. That's why the letter is headed 'private and confidential'.
As andrewbowden points out, those who voted for Willie Wragg did so on the basis of the Tory manifesto, which promised 'a deep and special partnership with the EU, including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement, and that we would 'seek to replicate all existing EU free trade agreements and support the ratification of trade agreements entered into during our EU membership'.
But Wragg and the other 61 irresponsible wreckers who signed that letter are Brextremists who don't actually want us to reach any agreement with the remainder of the EU. They want us to walk away without an agreement. But that is not what people voted for, and they know it.
I'm ashamed that we have someone like that as our MP.
-
MPs also get voted in on the basis of a national manifesto, set by the party leadership. Many of his voters will not be aware of his personal views and will have voted for him on the basis of the national manifesto.
I must say I find that surprising. I voted for him precisely because of his views on the EU; not because he stood as a Conservative, and probably would have abstained if there were not a candidate who opposed the EU (although there probably would have been a candidate from UKIP if there had been no other anti-EU candidate). I hope nobody votes for any candidate based on a party manifesto (although I suspect some do). It's always the individual candidate that matters and it's important to know what the views of the candidates are; it's almost impossible to make a sensible decision on who to vote for otherwise.. It is unfortunate (but understandably in the circumstances) that we had no hustings this time, but I was glad to see the hustings for the previous election were well attended, as it's very important to hear what the specific candidates have to say.
-
I must say I find that surprising. I voted for him precisely because of his views on the EU; not because he stood as a Conservative, and probably would have abstained if there were not a candidate who opposed the EU (although there probably would have been a candidate from UKIP if there had been no other anti-EU candidate). I hope nobody votes for any candidate based on a party manifesto (although I suspect some do). It's always the individual candidate that matters and it's important to know what the views of the candidates are; it's almost impossible to make a sensible decision on who to vote for otherwise.. It is unfortunate (but understandably in the circumstances) that we had no hustings this time, but I was glad to see the hustings for the previous election were well attended, as it's very important to hear what the specific candidates have to say.
Wragg was almost invisible last election. He did nothing. He - like many Tory politicians - refused to do hustings. There was no campaigning on the doorstep. Nothing. We had one whole leaflet in our house and it was highly generic. I remember his "I was a teacher" line (hint - dig into that story and it turns out he was a trainee teacher and left for politics at the end of the course,)
You can do all you want to try and get people to vote on the person rather than the party, but when the person hides away, how do you do that?
And the fact is that you may vote on the candidate, most people don't. Out of the general electorate, the vast majority don't go to hustings, or pay huge attention to the story. They see sound bites on TV, hear snippets on the radio, get told what to believe by the Mail, the Sun and the Express. And that's about it. To do any more requires effort, and most people don't care enough. Hey, 31.3% of people didn't even vote at all election. And that's the lowest number since 1997.
-
If Wragg and his fellow wreckers carry on like this, the next Prime Minister will be Jeremy Corbyn. The bookies are already expecting it: http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/5657323/Prime+Minister+Betting.html
-
We do have representative democracy and that means letting MPs get on with it, but whether that means lead from the front or listen to popular demand is a judgement call. However if we had PR, Brexiteers could form a line outside Will's office and Remainers would be represented too.
Poor old Cameron actually had 3 referendum events, so maybe he was likely to lose one!
I do worry most days the news is telling us how much worse we will be without friends in the rest of Europe. Mind you, there is nothing like a damaging incident like agent-poisoning or terrorism to get sides to pull together.
-
Wragg was almost invisible last election. He did nothing. He - like many Tory politicians - refused to do hustings. There was no campaigning on the doorstep. Nothing. We had one whole leaflet in our house and it was highly generic. I remember his "I was a teacher" line (hint - dig into that story and it turns out he was a trainee teacher and left for politics at the end of the course,)
You can do all you want to try and get people to vote on the person rather than the party, but when the person hides away, how do you do that?
And the fact is that you may vote on the candidate, most people don't. Out of the general electorate, the vast majority don't go to hustings, or pay huge attention to the story. They see sound bites on TV, hear snippets on the radio, get told what to believe by the Mail, the Sun and the Express. And that's about it. To do any more requires effort, and most people don't care enough. Hey, 31.3% of people didn't even vote at all election. And that's the lowest number since 1997.
I voted for wragg in general but wont be again like you say never see or hear from him .
-
I voted for wragg in general but wont be again like you say never see or hear from him .
You could have met him if you'd have gone to the public meeting about proposals for a Mellor, Marple Bridge, Mill Brow and Compstall (MMMC) Neighbourhood Plan. He was there. Or again, at the Gang Show in Marple last week. He is about quite often.
-
Jeez - Really?
So to interact with our MP we have to buy tickets to a show or attend a niche meeting for a tiny section of the constituency?
You could have met him if you'd have gone to the public meeting about proposals for a Mellor, Marple Bridge, Mill Brow and Compstall (MMMC) Neighbourhood Plan. He was there. Or again, at the Gang Show in Marple last week. He is about quite often.