EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.
- Thread starter 711
- Start date
- Status
Are you being wilfully obtuse?The present UK policy (albeit poorly executed) is to take refugees from the UN's facilities in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Would it have been beyond the wit of Merkel or the EU to enact something similar, or were grand yet foolish gestures the only idea which sprang to mind?
Unless German was going to suddenly beam them all up, Merkel's high-handed declaration could not but involve other EU states. How else were they going to get there after all? Not to mention the need for increased SAR, as the vessels of the traffickers sank in the Med?
These differences are fundamental, and beyond the scope of diplomats to alter. Such should be blindingly obvious by now, for the EU has moved further and further away from the trading entity Britain was comfortable with. If we were part of the single market and only that (with the option of migrant controls if numbers reach an unsustainably high point), i might well not be voting as i am.
Trade (w/o TTIP), yes. Environmental and consumer protections, yes. Science and energy, to very possible. Endless laws and government, No.
No taxes or harmonisation of such, no ECJ/EAW, no foreign policy department, no aspirations for an army, no parasitical and corrupt parliament, no flawed currency union, no overreach on agriculture e.t.c.
If you make accusations about corruption then proof it with the facts, like one could proof it with the corruption MP's and councils in the UK.
There is absolutely no requirement for the UK by the EU for tax harmisation, foreign policy, EU army and currency union. So none these items should be reason for you to want to leave the EU.
What do you want me to do exactly. Seen it before and still like him and can still see why the EU didn't like him. (Brexit would speed up the disintegration of the EU he says. He wants us to stay to help reform the EU).
Particularly like the way he thinks that more freedom and more sovereignty should be given to the national parties. That's exactly what Brexiters want isn't it. He also pointed out that the European Councils are not answerable to anyone and says unless we can say to the people who make decisions for us "How can we get rid of you?" then we don't have a democracy. How right he is. That's the trouble with the EU. We don't vote these people in and we can't vote them out.
Last edited:
At the time the Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, the Chancellor John major, Leon Britain, Peter Lilley, The majority of the cabinet, Geoffrey Howe, Michael Heseltine, The German govt the French govt the Chairman of Barclays Bank, according to polls at the time the overwhelming majority of the directors of the CBI.
All advocates and believers in the UK joining the ERM which was a disaster for the UK and that was my point, you probably didn't understand it. Its the same thing here with the EU debate. Its the establishment view it doesn't make it correct.
If you are going to say that you know a lot about a country you will persuade a lot more people that you do if you start by spelling it's name correctly or did you mean you know a lot about Geese.
And then you call me Xenophobic, couldn't make it up
You asked me to indicate an occasion when Germany/ France showed scant regard to the rules within the EU and I did so with regards to the stability pact which it insisted everyone followed the rules of, right up until they didn't want to follow them at which point they broke them.
In case you don't understand this point either,
This from the Guardian in 2003 when the issue arose.
What is the stability and growth pact?
Adopted by the eurozone in 1997, the pact was set up to enforce budgetary discipline among the 12 countries now using the euro, with Germany the moving force behind the arrangement.
Why Germany?
When the eurozone was created, control of interest rates passed to the European Central Bank (ECB), whose job was to control inflation. Fiscal policy - taxes and spending - remained with national governments. Germany - with its traditional fear of inflation - wanted to make sure that no one (it had Italy and Greece in mind) would evade the ECB's anti-inflation policy by cutting taxes and spending as if there was no tomorrow.
So what went wrong?
Germany - yes, the main instigator of the pact - and France have been stuck in recession or stagnation for the past three years. For the third year in a row, they have breached one of the keystones of the pact - keeping budget deficits below 3% of gross domestic product, the total value of goods and services the economy produces. With their economies stagnant, tax receipts are down, while public spending in terms of unemployment benefits have gone up.
Are Germany and France being punished?
No. Theoretically, Germany and France faced big fines on the recommendation of the European commission. But imposing financial penalties when they're already mired in economic problems made little sense. So the commission this week recommended that Germany and France bring their deficits under control by next year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
At the time the Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, the Chancellor John major, Leon Britain, Peter Lilley, The majority of the cabinet, Geoffrey Howe, Michael Heseltine, The German govt the French govt the Chairman of Barclays Bank, according to polls at the time the overwhelming majority of the directors of the CBI.
All advocates and believers in the UK joining the ERM which was a disaster for the UK and that was my point, you probably didn't understand it. Its the same thing here with the EU debate. Its the establishment view it doesn't make it correct.
If you are going to say that you know a lot about a country you will persuade a lot more people that you do if you start by spelling it's name correctly or did you mean you know a lot about Geese.
And then you call me Xenophobic, couldn't make it up
You asked me to indicate an occasion when Germany/ France showed scant regard to the rules within the EU and I did so with regards to the stability pact which it insisted everyone followed the rules of, right up until they didn't want to follow them at which point they broke them.
In case you don't understand this point either,
This from the Guardian in 2003 when the issue arose.
What is the stability and growth pact?
Adopted by the eurozone in 1997, the pact was set up to enforce budgetary discipline among the 12 countries now using the euro, with Germany the moving force behind the arrangement.
Why Germany?
When the eurozone was created, control of interest rates passed to the European Central Bank (ECB), whose job was to control inflation. Fiscal policy - taxes and spending - remained with national governments. Germany - with its traditional fear of inflation - wanted to make sure that no one (it had Italy and Greece in mind) would evade the ECB's anti-inflation policy by cutting taxes and spending as if there was no tomorrow.
So what went wrong?
Germany - yes, the main instigator of the pact - and France have been stuck in recession or stagnation for the past three years. For the third year in a row, they have breached one of the keystones of the pact - keeping budget deficits below 3% of gross domestic product, the total value of goods and services the economy produces. With their economies stagnant, tax receipts are down, while public spending in terms of unemployment benefits have gone up.
Are Germany and France being punished?
No. Theoretically, Germany and France faced big fines on the recommendation of the European commission. But imposing financial penalties when they're already mired in economic problems made little sense. So the commission this week recommended that Germany and France bring their deficits under control by next year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ERM has nothing to do with the referendum nor does the Tory government of the late afternoon 1980's. Which one of those politicians is in the remain camp, only John Major? Most of them are dead ffs!
That pact your referring to does not mean Germany & France are trying to rule the EU! The irony of the xenophobic remark is lost on you it seems.
And btw, Germany has far and away the biggest economy in Europe. It's Europe's economic powerhouse, recession or no recession. Their economy is far healthier than that of the U.K. The Germans have also spent billions of their tax payers money bailing out the Greeks, Italians, Portuguese and Irish.
Yet none of all this has anything to do with the question whether or not Britain should remain in the EU.
So please stop clutching at straws and let's please keep the debate on topic; should Britain remain in the EU?
Heseltine?
Are you even following the debate because you keep asking questions and then when I give you the answers you say I'm off topic. In fact is there any cheap debating trick you would try or haven't tried in this thread.
The vast majority in of decisions that have a direct effect on you are made by the British parlement. I think you are exaggerating the amount of sovereignty national governments have to give up to the EU. Yet, the economic benefits of being in a common market are enormous and effect every citizen in the EU.
You stated that the same people who want Britain to remain in the EU were the ones who wanted Britain to join the ERM, not me!
I said look at the people in the same roles and they were saying join the ERM and they were wrong and I said that as a counter to the idea that most of the establishment are clearly in the remain camp so remain must be correct. That is a theme in this thread.
People in the same positions Ram's, Chancellor, PM, Leading Businesses and directors Foreign Secretary etc.
I can't explain the point any more clearly.
Oh and then you asked me to name names or I was full of shit, so then I named names and you said I was off topic or they were not relevant. Which is seriously hard to understand since you asked me to name them.
The ERM never had anywhere near the same support as the remain vote. Besides, the ERM has nothing to do with the referendum. The EU is tried and tested, the benefits of a single market for the UK are plane for everybody to see. So why leave? It's madness!
There were people who distrusted the idea but broadly it had the same level of support as remain has, especially among the main players.
You don't think its relevant but I do because I have been through this exact situation before. The Labour party was for it, the leading Conservatives were for it, and business was for it, all the European govts were for it and it was a disaster for the UK but not for Europe.
It isn't the ERM per say that is relevant so much as the group think within the establishment and the way that rolls out.
I will leave the point there.
No your right. The establishment was all for the pound sterling be in the ERM 30 years ago so that obviously means Britain must leave the EU 30 years later.
Interesting.
Sounds like the threat was bollocks all along then really.
Nah, just Cameron getting found out again. He's sneaky, we'll all know that.
He is. He's made so many U-turns that his position must be becoming questionable now, I would have thought.
Nonetheless, if the government is so happy to allow a bill to exclude the NHS from TTIP, which could therefore potentially prevent TTIP, it follows that the exclusion will make no difference. The threat was never there in the first place.
Nonetheless, if the government is so happy to allow a bill to exclude the NHS from TTIP, which could therefore potentially prevent TTIP, it follows that the exclusion will make no difference. The threat was never there in the first place.
Don't think he had any choice but to allow it. He couldn't cope with any more rebellions. What with Hunt and Osborne on the verge of breakdowns and him having to cope with this Referendum, he and his bullying cabinet are struggling somewhat at the minute.
Fair enough RD. So TTIP's fecked now then?
Or maybe the US will just back right down in face of the amendment? Wow, these trade negotiations are easy.
Or maybe the US will just back right down in face of the amendment? Wow, these trade negotiations are easy.
Oh it's not over yet. Just a temporary measure aimed at appeasement. Consider it a little pause whilst he regains his equilibrium.
If TTIP is a US thing, weird it has such prominence in this debate.
It's the supposed upcoming "trade deal" between the EU and the US.
and by upcoming they will probably have a draught document ready to go out for national parliaments to debate by 2020
as yet there are no firm proposals
EU plans to ensure a fifth of Netflix and Amazon content is European
20 May 2016
The EU is reportedly considering new quota rules which could force Netflix and Amazon to make more German, French and even Estonian shows.
Companies in America could also face taxes to help raise funds to support film and TV producers across Europe, it has been suggested.
The details are due to be published next week, however the Daily Mail have obtained a number of proposals leaked from the European Commission.
One draft says it hopes to create "a more level playing field in the promotion of European works by obliging on-demand services to reserve at least 20 per cent share for European works in their catalogues and to ensure adequate prominence of such works".
It states that the "promotion of European works will be enhanced by... putting on-demand players under the obligation to promote European content".
Speaking at the Cannes film festival, Andrus Ansip, the European Commission’s Vice President on media issues,said: "This is also about creating a level playing field."
James Waterworth, vice president of the CCIA trade association, whose members include Netflix and Amazon, said teh proposals were outdated.
He said: "The idea of cultural quotas is outdated, doesn’t serve the consumer interest in the twenty-first century and won’t help internet innovators or content innovators."
Netflix is currently available in all 28 EU countries, but the streaming service is only offered in local languages in some countries.
A Netflix source told the Daily Mail that the company’s services on this side of the Atlantic already include more than 20 per cent European content.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-euro/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Just add that to the EU's 31 laws and regulations dedicated to toothbrushes.
To state that she was going to shun an entire village was a completely irrational response though, even if this first person was aggressively xenophobic. Much of the reason why fringe parties find favour with the electorate, is because the more moderate mainstream have failed to do their job properly. They've either shown themselves to be untrustworthy, or consciously neglected certain communities and their concerns. The shadow minister was about to repeat the latter mistake, probably still shall if most senior politicians are any judge.
There are good reasons for that Jip, both practical and more symbolic: for not only are the terms of the deal being negotiated in the distant and secretive manner so common to EU affairs, but more importantly, TTIP has the potential to be damaging influence on the everyday lives of all Europeans. Many of the so-called economic heavyweight backing Remain. people like Christine Lagarde, are ardent supporters of such an unscrupulous treaty.
ETA: And because some in this thread questioned the existence of such views:
20 May 2016
The EU is reportedly considering new quota rules which could force Netflix and Amazon to make more German, French and even Estonian shows.
Companies in America could also face taxes to help raise funds to support film and TV producers across Europe, it has been suggested.
The details are due to be published next week, however the Daily Mail have obtained a number of proposals leaked from the European Commission.
One draft says it hopes to create "a more level playing field in the promotion of European works by obliging on-demand services to reserve at least 20 per cent share for European works in their catalogues and to ensure adequate prominence of such works".
It states that the "promotion of European works will be enhanced by... putting on-demand players under the obligation to promote European content".
Speaking at the Cannes film festival, Andrus Ansip, the European Commission’s Vice President on media issues,said: "This is also about creating a level playing field."
James Waterworth, vice president of the CCIA trade association, whose members include Netflix and Amazon, said teh proposals were outdated.
He said: "The idea of cultural quotas is outdated, doesn’t serve the consumer interest in the twenty-first century and won’t help internet innovators or content innovators."
Netflix is currently available in all 28 EU countries, but the streaming service is only offered in local languages in some countries.
A Netflix source told the Daily Mail that the company’s services on this side of the Atlantic already include more than 20 per cent European content.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-euro/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Just add that to the EU's 31 laws and regulations dedicated to toothbrushes.
To state that she was going to shun an entire village was a completely irrational response though, even if this first person was aggressively xenophobic. Much of the reason why fringe parties find favour with the electorate, is because the more moderate mainstream have failed to do their job properly. They've either shown themselves to be untrustworthy, or consciously neglected certain communities and their concerns. The shadow minister was about to repeat the latter mistake, probably still shall if most senior politicians are any judge.
There are good reasons for that Jip, both practical and more symbolic: for not only are the terms of the deal being negotiated in the distant and secretive manner so common to EU affairs, but more importantly, TTIP has the potential to be damaging influence on the everyday lives of all Europeans. Many of the so-called economic heavyweight backing Remain. people like Christine Lagarde, are ardent supporters of such an unscrupulous treaty.
ETA: And because some in this thread questioned the existence of such views:
Im not sure that could be much less of a story
there is no plan... and if there was then it would involve no changes.
Worth reading the whole article - it shows just how poor some of the research and "facts" being thrown about are
I will accept that both sides are probably guilty of that and the whole debate would be moved on a lot of people didn't resort to such poorly backed up arguments.
Too true.
If people believe that the EU has grown into a bloated and interfering bureaucracy, the article posted does little to alter that state. It s a question of how European cooperation should be enacted, and whether the EU's present remit is appropriate.
then they should probably quote facts instead of making up (or regurgitating lies) that say for example there are 31 EU laws about toothbrushes and engage in a more serious debate.
For example in what way do you feel it is bloated - and how does this "interfere" with our day to day lives in a way which any alternate system (that I presume you can outline) wont... of course after admitting that there are not 31 EU rules about toothbrushes because if your going to insist there is then what is the point in trying to engage in a more constructive way?
It's a good read. I vote for our right to have poisonous, child-strangling blankets.
It's heartening at least that the NHS has an exemption, but the whole concept of the agreement is bizarre.
Fair enough... Its a better reason than many I have seen put forward.
It is concerning that even with the arguments being thrown around during the referendum, that the Remain campaign and the goverment haven't really offered any solutions to overpopulation/overburdened services.
It's been a matter of ignoring that it exists and downplaying the impact.
It's been a matter of ignoring that it exists and downplaying the impact.
Amusing to read the load of tripe that's spouted that has nothing to do with the Referendum.
Still actually waiting to see something that is actually currently valid and truthful instead of reams of conjecture and lies.
Still actually waiting to see something that is actually currently valid and truthful instead of reams of conjecture and lies.
Last edited:
are you suggesting that is down to our EU membership?
I'm a bit puzzled by this 'TTIP is evil because it's being negotiated in secret' thing.
Have all the other international trade agreements around the world been constructed in an open forum, every point and counter-point published as they were made?
If they have then fair enough, it's a good argument and I'll take it on board, but if they haven't then the criticism seems a bit desperate to me.
Have all the other international trade agreements around the world been constructed in an open forum, every point and counter-point published as they were made?
If they have then fair enough, it's a good argument and I'll take it on board, but if they haven't then the criticism seems a bit desperate to me.
TTIP wants to be more than just another trade agreement. It might end up being “just another FTA”, but if it is more, people have the legitimate right to know about all the details. If you are really interested in this stuff you need to open another thread and I might be able to go into details. It is complicated as feck.
Overall I actually share the concerns about it being negotiated in secrecy. It is a big problem, because it is all about details. That said the funny thing is, that the EU commission actually published its draft and negotiation statements, which is a fairly unique step in terms of transparency. Usually national governments do this stuff more or less in backrooms, while giving vague public updates. So people who complain about the secrecy of TTIP should complain about the USA and the European national government, while the EU commission are the ”good guys”.
Last edited:
Thanks Pedro. I'm not sure my attention span would survive the full details, but I see the gist.
I'm not but others are making that link and the reason they can is because of a lack of perceived control or effective policy on the matter.
There has been little counter argument to the idea that Britain is becoming overpopulated by politicians or even that we can control it. It's no suprise that narrative is then used to convince people to leave the EU.
Part of the cause is an increase in population. Has our population increased as a result of being in the EU?
UK Population 1945 49million
1973 56million
2014 64 million
Increased 7 million in 28 years after the war and 8 million in 41 years since UK joined EEC
Population increase faster before EEC/EU and with life expectancy longer - erm NO
1973 56million
2014 64 million
Increased 7 million in 28 years after the war and 8 million in 41 years since UK joined EEC
Population increase faster before EEC/EU and with life expectancy longer - erm NO
I don't think we really know how many people are in the country, as in how illegals there are. If I go to my local restaurants there are always some illegals working there.
- Status