EU... in or out

[Guest]

We are not bailing out Greece and France! We are not in the Eurozone (which only Greece needs bailing out, not France). If we leave the EU we are not also leaving the Eurozone, because we were never in the Eurozone. The UK contribution to the EU funding is not going to Eurozone bail outs.

 

So you know exactly where all our money we have paid in goes in that bloated mess that we call the EU?

 

Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm

Agriculture (remember the old EEC) gets the most as it sustains Europe's rather chaotic food production system. About 50% of UK farmers income is from the EU. So even if we leave that is £4.1 billion we will not save, unless you want to destroy the UK farming sector.

Regional aid, which is often infrastructure for remoter, poorer areas. hence on my motorcycle tours of Scotland I often see EU signs to show a road or bridge has had EU funding. That is about £2.5 billion that we will not save of we leave the EU, unless you want to return the remote areas back to having no decent roads etc.

Then there is foreign aid and the EU is the biggest donor organisation in the world. That makes me proud, we can afford it, we are stinking rich when it comes to countries of the world. There is also an EU disaster fund ready to act in times of disaster, anywhere in the world.

Then there is administration, which at 6.8 billion euros is a lot. But the Mayor of London's budget is 4.2 billion euros

Finally some that I think should get way more spending; research, technology and education. That is the future where Europe should lead the world. So even if we leave the EU we really should stay in the European research Council as joined up research benefits all.

 

Oh I remember the EEC mate and its CAP. That broken policy of paying farmers to produce stuff we couldn't sell . so we ended up with Butter mountains and Wine lakes. Which the EEC then sold at a loss . What a brilliant idea that was and is.

The European system of price support and import barriers has in the past distorted trade patterns, often to the disadvantage of developing countries. In particular, EU farmers have been heavily subsidised (until recently) to grow sugar beet, whereas free trade would dictate that sugar would be imported from countries which can grow it at lower cost.

 

Oh don't give me this bollocks about UK farmers. We could ( if we left the EU) spend our own money helping them instead to it going to support others. But then I am not in favour in handouts for everyone. We are sending money to this vast corrupt and wastful organisation which is trying to make policies which will cover a multitude of countries and their varing issues and we are expected to support it.

Look at the wind farm fiasco. Due to the EU clean air polices we are being forced to cut our CO2 emissions. So we are heading down the solar and wind power areas. So companies get subsidies for the manufacture of said wind turbines, Land owners get susidies to install them on their land, They then get money for generating electricity, and the also get paid to not generate it when we have too much electricity . We also need to build back up power plants to cover the times when either wind or solar isn't working. So if its dark or too windy or there isn't enough wind then these items are just a waste. So we are paying people lots of money to build farms which still need power stations building as back up. yes what a brilliant way to waste money.

[spafe2302]

Hi guys, I dunno how many of you will remember me from years ago, but I figured I'd pop by anyway. Bit of a strange one to return on but will see how it goes.

I think the EU does more for us overall than being without it, I think it helps a lot, and I like being able to travel easily around Europe. Some of the posts earlier in the thread about displacing folk are really key ones for me that regardless of other impacts, that risk should be considered (although I'm sure if it came to it it'd be a staged thing, meaning that visas etc could be processed over many months so there wouldn't be a mass booting out of workers from Europe who were here).

However in terms of the peace the EU has brought... I think this link is very informative, although has it's own obvs bais...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ences.html

[Grumpy Old Git]

We are not bailing out Greece and France! We are not in the Eurozone (which only Greece needs bailing out, not France). If we leave the EU we are not also leaving the Eurozone, because we were never in the Eurozone. The UK contribution to the EU funding is not going to Eurozone bail outs.

 

So you know exactly where all our money we have paid in goes in that bloated mess that we call the EU?

Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm

Agriculture (remember the old EEC) gets the most as it sustains Europe's rather chaotic food production system. About 50% of UK farmers income is from the EU. So even if we leave that is £4.1 billion we will not save, unless you want to destroy the UK farming sector.

Regional aid, which is often infrastructure for remoter, poorer areas. hence on my motorcycle tours of Scotland I often see EU signs to show a road or bridge has had EU funding. That is about £2.5 billion that we will not save of we leave the EU, unless you want to return the remote areas back to having no decent roads etc.

Then there is foreign aid and the EU is the biggest donor organisation in the world. That makes me proud, we can afford it, we are stinking rich when it comes to countries of the world. There is also an EU disaster fund ready to act in times of disaster, anywhere in the world.

Then there is administration, which at 6.8 billion euros is a lot. But the Mayor of London's budget is 4.2 billion euros

Finally some that I think should get way more spending; research, technology and education. That is the future where Europe should lead the world. So even if we leave the EU we really should stay in the European research Council as joined up research benefits all.

Oh I remember the EEC mate and its CAP. That broken policy of paying farmers to produce stuff we couldn't sell . so we ended up with Butter mountains and Wine lakes. Which the EEC then sold at a loss . What a brilliant idea that was and is.

The European system of price support and import barriers has in the past distorted trade patterns, often to the disadvantage of developing countries. In particular, EU farmers have been heavily subsidised (until recently) to grow sugar beet, whereas free trade would dictate that sugar would be imported from countries which can grow it at lower cost.

 

Oh don't give me this bollocks about UK farmers. We could ( if we left the EU) spend our own money helping them instead to it going to support others. But then I am not in favour in handouts for everyone. We are sending money to this vast corrupt and wastful organisation which is trying to make policies which will cover a multitude of countries and their varing issues and we are expected to support it.

Look at the wind farm fiasco. Due to the EU clean air polices we are being forced to cut our CO2 emissions. So we are heading down the solar and wind power areas. So companies get subsidies for the manufacture of said wind turbines, Land owners get susidies to install them on their land, They then get money for generating electricity, and the also get paid to not generate it when we have too much electricity . We also need to build back up power plants to cover the times when either wind or solar isn't working. So if its dark or too windy or there isn't enough wind then these items are just a waste. So we are paying people lots of money to build farms which still need power stations building as back up. yes what a brilliant way to waste money.

We (UK) have not 'been forced to cut our CO2 emissions' by the EU - we (UK) agreed to reduce our emissions to an agreed (by UK) level in an agreed (by UK) timeline. We (as a responsible member of the UN) would have done this (possibly not to the same targets) anyway.

[Guest]

For somebody who won't be voting (as my knowledge on the subject isn't good enough for me to feel confident enough to vote on such a massive decision):

Can anybody give me (in Lehmans terms) what 1 of the biggest Pro's and 1 of the biggest Con's of leaving the EU would be?

Purely just out of curiosity.

[RantMachine]

Firstly, let me take a moment to applaud you for your opening statement - I wish more people would think this way, not just about this vote but about voting in general. Admitting you don't know enough takes a lot more strength of character than just rocking up and voting without understanding the implications of what you just did.

Distilling it down to one argument for each side might be tricky, but I can give you a short handful of bulletpoints each way (without the full explanations to go with them). I won't include the counter arguments (because there are loads of them and they just make it a pain to summarise, you can read the whole thread if you want them!), and I certainly won't be raising everything, just a few key ones:

STAYING IN

- Millions of jobs are linked to our EU membership

- Some of Britain's biggest trading partners are in the EU (speculation that they might break of these partnerships or make them less favourable if we leave)

- It's easier than ever for us to work and travel abroad

- It's easier to fight international crime (European Arrest Warrant)

- Leaving might harm our influence in the world

LEAVING

- Border control back in our hands

- Save large amounts of money currently spent on membership fees

- Many EU Institutions are seen as lacking democracy, leaving would free us from their control

- Other countries successfully go it alone

- Get rid of any threat to Britain's military freedom

[NeilM]

How about. ..

This not voting if not fully understading.

Let's extend this idea to the house of commons and house of lords.

Prior to any vote. Members are required to sit an exam on said subject to ensure they fully understand and comprehend what they are voting about.

Just a thought. ...

[RantMachine]

That would be absolutely beautiful.

Add in a clause that if they fail too many pre-vote tests, they get booted out and replaced.

Then you've got a perfect system

[Grumpy Old Git]

I once read a very good book on the voting system in a futuristic America. basically, a computer randomly selected a person of voting age who had been resident in America for a cetain period (can't remeber the full details). That person then had a single vote on the topic in question and the reult was absolute.

the story covered the dilemma and the huge responsibility held by just 1 (uninformed) person.

Is that not what we are currently contemplating but not just one person voting, but all eleigble citizens?

[JRH]

I once read a very good book on the voting system in a futuristic America. basically, a computer randomly selected a person of voting age who had been resident in America for a cetain period (can't remeber the full details). That person then had a single vote on the topic in question and the reult was absolute.

the story covered the dilemma and the huge responsibility held by just 1 (uninformed) person.

Is that not what we are currently contemplating but not just one person voting, but all eleigble citizens?

I remember that. Think it is an Issac Asimov short story

[Hoggs]

I once read a very good book on the voting system in a futuristic America.

I remember that. Think it is an Issac Asimov short story

 

Apparently called Franchise and if anyone is so inclined, you can read it here

http://www.rednovels.net/ScienceFiction ... 27325.html

[Stu]

Did someone say French fries?

[Hoggs]

I'm hungry now

[Stu]

That makes two of us! Almost home time then I can eat

[JRH]

I once read a very good book on the voting system in a futuristic America.

I remember that. Think it is an Issac Asimov short story

 

Apparently called Franchise and if anyone is so inclined, you can read it here

http://www.rednovels.net/ScienceFiction ... 27325.html

 

That's the one

[Six30]

For somebody who won't be voting (as my knowledge on the subject isn't good enough for me to feel confident enough to vote on such a massive decision):

Can anybody give me (in Lehmans terms) what 1 of the biggest Pro's and 1 of the biggest Con's of leaving the EU would be?

Purely just out of curiosity.

 

Just google it mate, that's where every one else copies and pastes from, you could take little bits out or your own words in so it looks like you wrote it yourself

[techno]

For somebody who won't be voting (as my knowledge on the subject isn't good enough for me to feel confident enough to vote on such a massive decision):

Can anybody give me (in Lehmans terms) what 1 of the biggest Pro's and 1 of the biggest Con's of leaving the EU would be?

Purely just out of curiosity.

 

How about you d a little research into it yourself before the vote and maybe you might change your mind and actually cast your vote one way or the other?

You may find there is any issue or issues you really don't agree with or something you actually feel passionate about that could sway you one way or the other.

No one in this thread really knows what the outcome will produce but they have looked into certain issues whether speculation or fact.

Surely it's better than just going through life not caring one way or the other as I'm guessing most of us will never possess the full facts for significant votes in our lifetime.

[NeilM]

Very strange happening today.

Tescos in Batley.

Some silly old bugger has cornered a member of staff in the mobile phone section.

He starts on this political rant knowing full well the poor staff member had to realistically take it.

For 5 mins while we were being dealt with by another member of staff all you could here was UKIP this UKIP that.

And when the staff member mentioned he was a liberal the silly old bugger nearly keeled over...lol

At least its being discussed I suppose.

[Guest]

For somebody who won't be voting (as my knowledge on the subject isn't good enough for me to feel confident enough to vote on such a massive decision):

Can anybody give me (in Lehmans terms) what 1 of the biggest Pro's and 1 of the biggest Con's of leaving the EU would be?

Purely just out of curiosity.

 

How about you d a little research into it yourself before the vote and maybe you might change your mind and actually cast your vote one way or the other?

You may find there is any issue or issues you really don't agree with or something you actually feel passionate about that could sway you one way or the other.

No one in this thread really knows what the outcome will produce but they have looked into certain issues whether speculation or fact.

Surely it's better than just going through life not caring one way or the other as I'm guessing most of us will never possess the full facts for significant votes in our lifetime.

Because voting has currently got us a great PM, parties and everyone is happy the way the country is being ran, right? Voting therefor must work..

Voting is a waste of time, the powers that be will do what they want in the end, regardless.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Guest

[Joeman]

The problem is, whoever you listen to for advice will be bias one way or another, and noboddy actually knows the true consequences of leaving or staying in Europe.

So there is no way to fully educate yourself prior to voting.

Democracy is a good thing but currently we are all expected to be political experts and do our own research before casting a vote. That's where democracy falls down.

[Throttled]

People started to use crash helmets and wear seat belts and crash casualties were reduced from that point. Countries in the Europe joined together in the EU (and other organisations) and the instances of fighting were reduced from that point (to zero).

 

Nope mate. We have not fought Germany or Italy since WWII. France has not fought Germany or Italy since WWII. In fact apart from a few wars when the Soviet union imploded Europe has been fairly stable since WWII. So given that the EU has not been around since WWII and only started in 1957 as the EEC then you point is rather mute. So maybe we haven't had any wars in Europe because the Soviet Union isn't around any more. Or maybe its because of NATO, or maybe its because we are less willing to send people to die in pointless wars due to better access to information.

so you see the problem is that we have not had any wars in Europe for many reasons. Where as seat belts and crash helmets have been proven to reduce deaths and injurys. So I say again you can't prove that the EU has stopped wars as there are other many reasons why we have not had any.

 

I am not saying that there is a direct causal link between EU membership and war. I am not saying leaving will mean war. I am saying membership helps a lot in safeguarding peace.

[Throttled]

Firstly, let me take a moment to applaud you for your opening statement - I wish more people would think this way, not just about this vote but about voting in general. Admitting you don't know enough takes a lot more strength of character than just rocking up and voting without understanding the implications of what you just did.

Distilling it down to one argument for each side might be tricky, but I can give you a short handful of bulletpoints each way (without the full explanations to go with them). I won't include the counter arguments (because there are loads of them and they just make it a pain to summarise, you can read the whole thread if you want them!), and I certainly won't be raising everything, just a few key ones:

STAYING IN

- Millions of jobs are linked to our EU membership

- Some of Britain's biggest trading partners are in the EU (speculation that they might break of these partnerships or make them less favourable if we leave)

- It's easier than ever for us to work and travel abroad

- It's easier to fight international crime (European Arrest Warrant)

- Leaving might harm our influence in the world

LEAVING

- Border control back in our hands

 

The UK never gave up border controls as it opted out of Schengen, which has all but ended anyway with the mass migration from the middle east.

 

- Save large amounts of money currently spent on membership fees

 

About £4-5 billion, which could easily be taken up by having to do many individual treaties/agreements with EU countries and their administration.

 

- Many EU Institutions are seen as lacking democracy, leaving would free us from their control

 

The EU is the most democratic of all of the European institutions, it is the only one with elected members.

 

- Other countries successfully go it alone

 

Switzerland and Norway are members of a number of European institutions and have close links with the EU, but no say. They are not really going it alone.

 

- Get rid of any threat to Britain's military freedom

 

NATO, not the EU.

[Gin]

Really interesting talk that I thought fitted this conversation..

http://download.ted.com/talks/YanisVaroufakis_2015G-320k.mp4

[Throttled]

The problem is, whoever you listen to for advice will be bias one way or another, and noboddy actually knows the true consequences of leaving or staying in Europe.

So there is no way to fully educate yourself prior to voting.

Democracy is a good thing but currently we are all expected to be political experts and do our own research before casting a vote. That's where democracy falls down.

 

Democracy is the least worse political system to paraphrase Churchill I think. A reason why democracy does work is because of "the wisdom of the crowd" where it has been found that a large group decision is often better than one individual even if that individual is an expert. The ignorant in the crowd are more than cancelled out by those who do have knowledge of a certain subject. Collective knowledge is pooled.

I think that a read of this thread is enough to make anyone better informed as to the issues and more importantly non issues being discussed. The big non issue is immigration. Leaving the EU will have hardly any affect on the present immigration issues. The UK opted out of Schengen (which has collapsed anyway) and never gave up its border controls. The present agreement between the UK and France to have the UK's border in France at Calais was a agreement between us that had nothing to do with the EU. The UK opted out of the refugee agreement which is why we only take a few Syrians directly from camps there and have not allowed any to walk into the country. Non EU immigration is not affected in any way by the EU, the UK always had full control over that. EU immigration is due to our membership of the EEA and if we stop the east Europeans from doing work here, we will just need to give their low paid jobs to.......? Plus we need to find jobs for UK citizens who will lose their right to work in the EU and may have to return. They do well paid work and will not be a replacement for the low paid work. Plus there is every indication we will negotiate to stay in the EEA along with various other non EU countries.

[RantMachine]

ABRIDGED BECAUSE HUGE POST

I said they were the arguments people use, I never said they were factually correct

[Throttled]

ABRIDGED BECAUSE HUGE POST

I said they were the arguments people use, I never said they were factually correct

 

I know you know what you know, I did that for those who don't know what they don't know........