EU... in or out

[Fozzie]

Rant - your views on what would happen in an "out" are sheer speculation as well! And so they can only be for anyone talking about it.

We both gave "hard facts" on open borders. And they are both pulled apart depending on which camp you're in. There is so much scaremongering I don't know who has the right ones. Is it you? Have you been manipulated? Or have I? My views beyond that on what would happen out are what I hope could happen and would be a driving factor for me voting "out". If the "out" campaign don't cover this issue before the referendum I won't vote, I'm still waiting for them to cover it, hence I'm forced to speculate.

I can't see a world where peace loving EU would strand their own people here. That's my basis. It's not a benefit just for us, it's a benefit for the whole of Europe. They wouldn't chop off their nose to spite their face. It goes against everything the "in" crowd say about the positives of the EU.

Also I worked for the oil industry, which had some of the finest carbon capture schemes I've ever seen. Even better with Statoil in Norway that I mentioned wanting to work for. That industry is aware of the future change to cars/bikes and is falling in line with it early. So I commend it as it seeks a sustainable future.

Also I'm an engineer producing new units for bio-gas powered turbines. It's a carbon neutral technology running at 85% efficiency against the national grids 45-50%. Each one we make saves an average of 35,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

But why is this now going personal? This is a sign an argument is derailing.

So now I've proven my green credentials, and suggested it's why I'm heading for an "in" vote, why the disagreement? Shouldn't this be cause to say "hurrah, another is heading towards our cause!"

[Gin]

I don't think this is getting personal at all. You're providing your side of things and people are disagreeing with it.. Simply debate really

If we were attacking your personality / family etc then sure but people are only replying to information you've given in this thread..

P.S. If a mod thinks anything I've said is personal then of course, I will admit that I have overstepped a line and apologise, in that case feel free to mention it here or send me a PM! If that's the case then that wasn't my intention at all, just trying to have a mature debate..

[Fozzie]

It went to use my own line of work against me is all, you should surely know that the oil industry is very green? You were around me when I started my journey down that path, and I must have had the open rant how I dislike people assuming we are choking the world. I also thought you knew I also love hybrid technology, I can remember conversations about the hydrogen fuel cell powered car I built with my grandfather also! I'm assuming you remember, hence I was a little taken aback when you used it in that context.

[Joeman]

http://www.harborfreight.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/m/image_14690.jpg

[Gin]

I have to say that I don't know about a hydrogen-fuel cell or some of your other points.

Mentioning that I knew you when you joined this profession would have been making it personal, so would mentioned the other people that we both know working for the same companies.

Equally I remember other times you weren't as eco friendly, but like I said, I don't want this to be personal and am only using information you've given in this thread.

Sorry that I don't remember those other conversations that you say I've had with you.. Even with them I think my point is still valid. I guess the only conciliation is you're not part of fracking.

[Tango]

Ok.....this was always going to be a contentious subject.......there's been some good points made on here for both sides......and it's good to see people changing their position in light of some of this information....... But let's not start making it personal, eh?

Dunno about the others, but I'm prepared to let it run a bit longer as long as I don't see any further personal comments.

I've got to get into work now.........so please play nicely until I can get back on........

[Fozzie]

I'm surprised is all (not offended however). Mentioning my line of work that way when I assumed you knew the background facts I then listed was what I saw as going personal, just because I was also edging towards a no vote or even vote "in" situation as the "in" side had finally made a point I value above others.

Do you remember my first college project? It was a wind turbine/solar panel combo, with a charge controller. It was designed to prove you could produce power on an oil site, export the power and create a carbon offset. Save more than you produce. We came 2nd place overall in a competition based around the build.

My second year, I then refined this idea with a solar/wind power storage and distribution system to keep an even supply for as long as possible.

I was strongly opposed to battery powered cars. I used to say battery cars don't work as the batteries are horrendous on the environment to produce and we should use Hydrogen? They also just move the problem upstream. Whereas now I believe you can compromise. That's all that has changed...

For everyone else reading, this is the background on why "In" supporting the EU's green directives speaks very broadly to me. I will vote "in" entirely due to this reason alone I feel that strongly about it.

[RantMachine]

That looked suspiciously like squeezing in a final word after Bob said to drop it

[Fozzie]

Nah, I was typing as he posted that. You can tell from the times we posted.

I want the topic to continue as I'm not offended, I was just caught off guard that my line of work was used against me when I was swaying on my point of view towards the "in" crowd.

So moving on, there has to be other reasons why you are voting "In" Rant other than you disagree with me on the open borders and what will happen if we leave the EU. The green one has me at a "Yep... I'm going with the guy who cares about the Earth".

But economically, why is the UK worse off negotiating its own deals with the EU and the rest of the world? Surely if we can't get a good deal with the EU, we will go elsewhere, and this will hurt the EU. Is this a scaremongering tactic, or is it true that leaving will cause us harm?

[Mr Fro]

Whereas my theory is we will work it out based on the best interests of the country.

Because this always happens doesn't it. We'd probably have a better chance is decent, honest people were in charge.

Are we over analysing this and getting lost in the minutiae? To use a Blairism that make my spine feel odd, we need to get "back to basics". I've not done a great deal of research in to the in-out debate or the consequences or either - which is likely far more than most will do before voting however, what fundamental things will result from an "out" result that are of interest to the man in the street?

Will we kick out everyone who isn't a fully paid up British bod?

Will all illegals get an instant UK passport?

Will unemployment reduce or rise?

Will EU countries get narky with us and make travel more onerous?

Are we likely to see import/export costs rise?

Will trade be more difficult/expensive?

What will happen to public services?

Will we revert to 1970's Britain?

How will I feel this in my pocket?

Will there be another "temporary" tax hike that becomes permanent?

Will Sterling strengthen or weaken?

Will we be able to shed some of the ridiculous rules and regs derived from the EU?

Horror of horrors, will we end up like America?

The green stuff is all very interesting but I think that it's a bit of a red herring. We will continue down that path, not because of some fantastic set of ideals but because that's where the money lies. If I were head of an energy firm and had the opportunity to implement something that would increase efficiency from 40% to 80% while still charging the end user the same then I'd do it.

"Out" could be good for green if the price of oil/gas gets jacked up as everyone will want an alternative and cheaper fuel source. I filled my oil tank the other day which cost me £280ish, down from £460ish last year - if it were to go up to say £600 to fill it I would certainly look long and hard at ground source. Similarly, if electricity went up significantly then I would clad the roof of my house in solar panels providing I could store the energy so I could plug my car/bike in when I get home from work. Not because of the long term effect on bunnies and kittens but because it will cost me less in the long run and I'd get a warm, fuzzy feeling from not paying tax on my fuel (poor old UK.gov will no doubt find a way to swindle me back out of it though).

[RantMachine]

Nah, I was typing as he posted that. You can tell from the times we posted.

I want the topic to continue as I'm not offended, I was just caught off guard that my line of work was used against me when I was swaying on my point of view towards the "in" crowd.

So moving on, there has to be other reasons why you are voting "In" Rant other than you disagree with me on the open borders and what will happen if we leave the EU. The green one has me at a "Yep... I'm going with the guy who cares about the Earth".

But economically, why is the UK worse off negotiating its own deals with the EU and the rest of the world? Surely if we can't get a good deal with the EU, we will go elsewhere, and this will hurt the EU. Is this a scaremongering tactic, or is it true that leaving will cause us harm?

 

If I'm honest about it... yes, I do have concerns about the potential economic implications of both "in" or "out" (although more on the "out" side of things, I must say). But not enough to swing me either way. In fact, most of the issues at stake leave me feeling that there is no perfect answer from an economic standpoint, or at least certainly not one that we can reasonably predict. Overall it seems preferable to stay in, but I do recognise that leaving might have a few benefits to it (distancing ourselves from TTIP, for example). But still, not enough for me to fairly say one way or another.

BUT - having said all that, I don't feel that I need to have reached a decision on the economic ramifications in order to make an educated vote; human lives are infinitely more important to me than money, and with an "out" vote standing to turn nearly four million of them upside down, I know that it is right for me to vote "in".

[Fozzie]

If I'm honest about it... yes, I do have concerns about the potential economic implications of both "in" or "out" (although more on the "out" side of things, I must say). But not enough to swing me either way. In fact, most of the issues at stake leave me feeling that there is no perfect answer from an economic standpoint, or at least certainly not one that we can reasonably predict. Overall it seems preferable to stay in, but I do recognise that leaving might have a few benefits to it (distancing ourselves from TTIP, for example). But still, not enough for me to fairly say one way or another.

BUT - having said all that, I don't feel that I need to have reached a decision on the economic ramifications in order to make an educated vote; human lives are infinitely more important to me than money, and with an "out" vote standing to turn nearly four million of them upside down, I know that it is right for me to vote "in".

 

I think we're closer aligned than we think, just our methodology is different. I use economics to the benefit of the people, it's a socialist quirk I have. I'm coming at it from the worry poorly suited and badly regulate policies could allow things like our housing market to suffer as it hurts everyone aside from the rich few. I don't want the people here to suffer so assume the logical choice is to have a Norwegian style agreement.

Whereas I think you worry that the government can't be trusted to look after these people, so it's more likely their lives will be turned upside down as bitterness from the EU causes slammed doors.

So in essence we both want the people to be safe, but I'm more trusting that the system will not let them down given the EU's fierce stance on human rights. But you're right there, as I would be making a risky bet the more I think about it.

Food for thought here...

[Gin]

I'm not sure there's anyone that would argue the case for the people of the UK to not be safe though.

So of course on that broad generalisation you're going to be aiming at the same point..

I'm pretty sure when the last elections happened everyone in the UK wanted, for instance, the NHS to keep helping sick people in the UK but that didn't mean they all chose the same party for that goal, one party wanted to achieve it by using X method to fix it and another party would use Y method.

The difference in those two methods is what causes the divide in opinion, i.e. this debate.

You believe the government will manage to keep everyone currently living in the UK happy and safe if we leave the EU. Other people think out government would not be able to do this.

It therefore doesn't actually matter if we all agree we want people to live happily ever after, as the debate is about HOW to achieve that..

[Fozzie]

There are plenty of people who would argue for people not to be safe here!

They generally follow groups like Britain first, EDL, UKIP and the Tories for the watered down ones.

Make no mistake, I have no issue with people following UKIP and the Tories, there are plenty of good people in there. But there are a lot more people out there than you think who really just want to frog march people onto a boat.

Worrying such views exist but there we go

[RantMachine]

I'm not sure there's anyone that would argue the case for the people of the UK to not be safe though.

So of course on that broad generalisation you're going to be aiming at the same point..

I'm pretty sure when the last elections happened everyone in the UK wanted, for instance, the NHS to keep helping sick people in the UK but that didn't mean they all chose the same party for that goal, one party wanted to achieve it by using X method to fix it and another party would use Y method.

The difference in those two methods is what causes the divide in opinion, i.e. this debate.

You believe the government will manage to keep everyone currently living in the UK happy and safe if we leave the EU. Other people think out government would not be able to do this.

It therefore doesn't actually matter if we all agree we want people to live happily ever after, as the debate is about HOW to achieve that..

Hit the nail right on the head!

And as I keep saying, historic legal and diplomatic precedent does not lean towards granting amnesty to nearly 2 million people, and our diplomatic process does not have the capacity to process that much paperwork in a short span of time! And even if it did, can you imagine our government wanting to explain that kind of decision to the vocal "out" crowd, who would have just won a landmark vote and therefore can't really be ignored at that time?

Has anyone tried applying for a new passport lately? Not quick, is it? Unless you're willing to pay a premium of course. But even if every single person could afford to pay extra to have their paperwork sped up, they wouldn't have the staff to fast track them all! Premium services only work on the premise that a limited number of people will pay for them Now add an application for indefinite leave, which takes 4 to 12 months to process under current levels of demand. Under current levels, roughly 100,000 applications are fully processed each year. So, 1.9 million applications is 19 times the usual volume. So the first 100,000 people will be reasonably ok, but unless the border agency makes a SIGNIFICANT increase in admin staffing, some of them could even be waiting for more than a decade before they hear back

[Gin]

There are plenty of people who would argue for people not to be safe here!

They generally follow groups like Britain first, EDL, UKIP and the Tories for the watered down ones.

Make no mistake, I have no issue with people following UKIP and the Tories, there are plenty of good people in there. But there are a lot more people out there than you think who really just want to frog march people onto a boat.

Worrying such views exist but there we go

 

The people that you're talking about a minority though!

Therefore my point still stands that a Vast majority of the British public would likely not want harm to fall to other people living in the UK!

However the divide then comes when you dig down into other issue and people start spiting up their priorities! ... I.E. Elections, This Debate etc etc

Therefore, you are arguing a different side to Rant because, though yes you both want to keep people living well, you have massive differences in how you would go about this..

[Fozzie]

A growing minority, which will all vote "out" regardless of argument.

UKIP had double the votes of the entire of Scotland, and a core element to their policies is to curb immigration, in effect targeting the open border but for completely separate and distant reasons. I bet they are all "out" voters. Many of which don't care for the facts.

I don't see my argument as that different to Rant. We both want the people here to be safe, we both don't want them shown the door. But I also don't want to end up in a situation where we are crippled and it hurts everyone. However I conceded that my point of view would rely on a everyone being amicable and following a common sense approach to keep everyone here safe, while being able to make reforms where we wish. Then I remembered politicians are rarely that kind.

[Throttled]

The cost of the EU to the UK is £12 billion (£20 billion minus the rebate and other money returned)

https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

UKIP want to put an extra £16 billion extra in the defence budget.

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_is_the_party_of_defence

I do not want us to have to find another £4 billion to spend on UKIPs desire weapons when it far better spent on the EU which stands for peace and cooperation and has been proven to be able to do that.

[Gin]

UKIP had double the votes of the entire of Scotland, and a core element to their policies is to curb immigration, in effect targeting the open border but for completely separate and distant reasons. I bet they are all "out" voters. Many of which don't care for the facts.

 

I am not a UKIP voter, in fact I am very much the other end of the graph..

However that comment... Jeez.

I have some friends who voted UKIP.. However 90% of those didn't actually want to boot people out of the country, they were simply looking for a way to shake up the voting system and show that they have little or no faith in the two leading parties.

There was a massive undercurrent through the last elections, that was people simply making a stand against the current electoral system and they chose UKIP as their way of doing that as it would get a reaction.

I don't agree with this method of voting and I had some Wonderful debates with them at the time about it all that I look back really fondly on.

But to say that they're all irrational bigots is a bit much..

[Hoggs]

And as I keep saying, historic legal and diplomatic precedent does not lean towards granting amnesty to nearly 2 million people, and our diplomatic process does not have the capacity to process that much paperwork in a short span of time!

 

As I was walking down my road the other day, I estimated that probably 80% of the shops and services are run by non British Europeans. If they all had to up and leave it would have a devastating effect on the community as a whole. Can you own a business in the country you are being deported from? Or would you have to sell up? Even if you can keep it you now need to find workers and as previously mentioned GENERALLY brits don't want to work 10+ hour shifts in a corner shop. Or at weekends (and I myself fall into this group - have done it, don't want to do it again).

This is part of the reason I'm in. Where I live is a much nicer place because of all the different cultural backgrounds. We have a Greek Deli and a Polish Shop and an Italian Deli (all run by their respective nationalities) and a couple of (delightfully) crazy Greek restaurants and an amazing all day breakfast cafe (run by non british Europeans) and a british run bar/restaurant. Also run by non british europeans, hairdressers, beauty salon, barbers, tailors... oh and a gym. I always forget the gym....

[Gin]

This is part of the reason I'm in. Where I live is a much nicer place because of all the different cultural backgrounds. We have a Greek Deli and a Polish Shop and an Italian Deli (all run by their respective nationalities) and a couple of (delightfully) crazy Greek restaurants and an amazing all day breakfast cafe (run by non british Europeans) and a british run bar/restaurant. Also run by non british europeans, hairdressers, beauty salon, barbers, tailors... oh and a gym. I always forget the gym....

 

You know in all this I hadn't really thought about the devastating effect it could have on our countries wonderful multiculturalism..

Living in Birmingham was honestly some of the best years of my life and I adore the place now (No jokes please ) simply because of a huge variety of people that studied there, worked there, lived there..

I can't even imagine the place without all these amenities you've mentioned.. !

Great point made

[Six30]

Foreigners taking low paid jobs the lazy Brits don't want to do.... How many road sweeping or shelf stacking jobs are there, what happens when there all taken do we just keep the gates open.

£55 million a day ..a fooking day..we pay the eu.... How many hospitals could that build..

[Fozzie]

UKIP had double the votes of the entire of Scotland, and a core element to their policies is to curb immigration, in effect targeting the open border but for completely separate and distant reasons. I bet they are all "out" voters. Many of which don't care for the facts.

 

I am not a UKIP voter, in fact I am very much the other end of the graph..

However that comment... Jeez.

 

You’ve pulled my comment well out of context of what I said in previous posts there, so please keep it civil.

I said the hateful minority are following UKIP, and said right from the start good people exist in the groups and the views for wanting to leave are separate. But an integral view of UKIP is its anti-EU stance, and was one of its leading points for reasons to vote for it in the election. So I have my money on the vast majority of them voting out, the good ones because they can’t be convinced the EU isn’t bad for us, the hateful ones because they’re racist. It was to support my point that the minority is bigger than you think, as they’re using a party that wants out for separate reasons. The minority has commandeered the power of a bigger minority to push their agenda, and that worries me.

I want to maintain the multi-culturism, never have I suggested people be sent home either. I’d only go out if we could guarantee the people living here remain as they are using my speculated idea we could do as the Norwegians do. But if the people aren’t safe, then I won’t risk it on the basis that I’d rather risk being worse of economically than displace millions.

[Throttled]

Foreigners taking low paid jobs the lazy Brits don't want to do.... How many road sweeping or shelf stacking jobs are there, what happens when there all taken do we just keep the gates open.

£55 million a day ..a fooking day..we pay the eu.... How many hospitals could that build..

 

None, since UKIP want to spend more than that increasing the defence budget.

[RantMachine]

I want to maintain the multi-culturism, never have I suggested people be sent home either. I’d only go out if we could guarantee the people living here remain as they are using my speculated idea we could do as the Norwegians do. But if the people aren’t safe, then I won’t risk it on the basis that I’d rather risk being worse of economically than displace millions.

You haven't said that, true. But nearly all of your posts (making exception for those that weren't even discussing this part of the issue) have been wilfully ignoring the facts that if we do have an "out" vote, that is what will almost certainly happen! And they certainly aren't going to give any guarantees that it won't happen, especially not before the referendum takes place.

And no, we aren't arguing the same point. I am saying that I would not dream of casting a vote that had even the smallest scrap of a change of worsening the lives of other human beings, or making our world a less diverse place, or punishing people when they have done nothing but work hard. You are arguing... well, you've argued just about every angle possible short of admitting that maybe you just don't have a proper grasp of the implications of this referendum and need to go away and read more before arguing either side!

But as we are at this moment in our little debate, far too many of your points have come back to jobs, or houses, or economy, for us to be arguing the same angle. Economy and quality of human life are immeasurably different issues, in my books they don't even deserve to be considered side by side. People come first and even suggesting that we should think about how we could have more money or more houses when social stability, culture, families, homes, careers and livelihoods are at stake is vile to me.

 

As I was walking down my road the other day, I estimated that probably 80% of the shops and services are run by non British Europeans. If they all had to up and leave it would have a devastating effect on the community as a whole. Can you own a business in the country you are being deported from? Or would you have to sell up? Even if you can keep it you now need to find workers and as previously mentioned GENERALLY brits don't want to work 10+ hour shifts in a corner shop. Or at weekends (and I myself fall into this group - have done it, don't want to do it again).

Yes, I believe you're pretty much bang on; they can't make them sell up, but they would potentially have to bugger off and employ someone to run it for them.