UK EU referendum [W:40:728]

Infinite Chaos · Feb 14, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

PeteEU said:
NATOs civilian "allegiances" is an Europe chairman of NATO... that is it. NATO has been and always will be an American military organisation with European members.

The point was peace - not who we think runs NATO. NATO and the EU have brought relative peace since 1945. There have been problems outside the NATO and EU area such as the Balkans in the late 80's and 90's.

PeteEU said:
~ Again no the EU is not sorting it out, as the EU does not do that. The individual member nations are in talks to change the rules in the EU.. big difference. And they are only doing it, because Cameron is threatening to leave the EU.

Which is it? Something is being considered / done or it is not? Can't claim both.

PeteEU said:
~ Point 1. Protection for non-Euro Countries. It is a load of hot air, because what he wants is assurances that the City of London will not get imposed rules and regulations from Brussels on banking and financial companies.

It's not hot air - other non Eurozone countries do not always want Eurozone rules and costs imposed on them. Equally, some of the new members may not wish to join the Euro and they should be given protection from Eurozone policy.
Finally, what's wrong with protecting the city? You see a financial transactions tax on financial industries as a good thing because it doesn't affect you or Denmark but if there was a similar tax that affected manufacturing industries the Germans would complain.

PeteEU said:
Point 2. Competitiveness. He wants less regulation.. well duh, that has been EU policy for the last 10 years.

So why instead of saying "Duh, that's current policy" have other countries agreed and suggested working with the UK on this?

PeteEU said:
Point 3. Ever closer union crap. He is using this phrase, which was set out in the original Treaty of Rome as far as I can remember, to promote an idea that the EU is moving towards a super state and that the UK does not want to be part of it. Problem is, that this is not what the phrase meant and he knows it. It meant a closer economic union.. towards a common market (done) and a common currency (done).. There is nothing in any treaty that states a social nor political nor military union of any sorts. But that does of course not stop him and Faragage to promote this idiotic view.

Any new member has to sign up (currently) to abandoning its own currency and financial independence to eventually join the Euro. That could take years or decades per country but that reality is there. As I said above - why are other countries in agreement rather than saying "hot air, hot air!" as you are?

PeteEU said:
Point 4. Migration.. this is what he is really after.. the above is just hot air. He wants to be able to discriminate against non Brits.. which is a slippery slope to start on. Migrants must have to contribute for 4 years before qualifying for in-work benefits or social housing. What I would like to know is how many migrants actually get in-work benefits and social housing.. got any stats on that? Not discussed much is it? Odd no?

And so why have the Eastern Europeans taken the biggest complaint against this if it's just hot air?

PeteEU said:
And then there is "ending the practice of sending child benefits overseas." Easy.. the child has to live in the UK.. problem solved.

This doesn't apply anywhere at present. Those rules are the same in other countries but they currently pay the rate in that country - we don't. Again - other nations are interested in this so your claim it is hot air is just your opinion again.

Sweden · Feb 14, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

I'm a republican twice over, both in England and Sweden. I want an elected upper house in both my countries - Sweden abolished ours, to give more power to already over-powerful governments, at a time when it was assumed that govs would always be socialist. (A bit like the foolish Labour Party devolving power in Scotland, because it assumed it would always form the Scottish government). Proportional representation, if that's what you think is 'best practice', takes away power from voters and gives it to politicians. I've seen at first hand its baneful effects in several countries.

"Perhaps I should have said ..........". Perhaps you should give accuracy priority over bombast.

PeteEU · Feb 14, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Infinite Chaos said:
Which is it? Something is being considered / done or it is not? Can't claim both.

Eh? of course something is being "done".. well discussed. Question is how much the EU wants to again give the UK to remain in the club.

It's not hot air - other non Eurozone countries do not always want Eurozone rules and costs imposed on them. Equally, some of the new members may not wish to join the Euro and they should be given protection from Eurozone policy.

We are talking banking no? Not in general? The Eurozone has banking rules now, and those outside the Eurozone have no part in it unless they so choose. Now we shall see how that goes, but I am certain that if the UK or others start exploiting the differences to attract more business then any deal will fall apart.

Finally, what's wrong with protecting the city? You see a financial transactions tax on financial industries as a good thing because it doesn't affect you or Denmark but if there was a similar tax that affected manufacturing industries the Germans would complain.

The idea was to create a fund that paid for future bailouts.. not a bad idea if you ask me... that the industry paid for its own mistakes instead of leaving it with the taxpayer.. and it is the latter that Cameron wants it seems. Now I personally dont want to bail out banks again... you might, but that is your problem. So I am for a fund and regulation that prevents banks in playing Russian roulette with my money and that of others. And if they do, they as an industry must pay for the miss-management, not the tax payer. As it is in the UK atm, if one of your banks yet again goes under, then it is Osbourne that has to bail them out with your money. Hence there is no risk what so ever for British based banks since Osbourne will pick up the tab on your behalf.

So why instead of saying "Duh, that's current policy" have other countries agreed and suggested working with the UK on this?

Have they? They have agreed that more needs done.. not that something new needs done.. It is all in the words. Fighting red tape has been going on for years.. remember they removed the curbed cucumber directive? One of many streamlining efforts on regulations.

Any new member has to sign up (currently) to abandoning its own currency and financial independence to eventually join the Euro. That could take years or decades per country but that reality is there. As I said above - why are other countries in agreement rather than saying "hot air, hot air!" as you are?

Financial independence... hmm strong words.. and very inaccurate. The only thing they are giving up, is the ability to print money. They still are in control of taxes, and their finances. What they cant do, is do a Greece or UK as it is now.. print money to cover up massive holes in your finances.

And so why have the Eastern Europeans taken the biggest complaint against this if it's just hot air?

Because they see it as a targeted discrimination of their citizens, which it is. They know fully well that it will hit so few that it is not even worth discussing, but the principle of the whole thing... and the fact it sets a very bad precedence. What will the UK demand next? The UK already had restrictions on eastern Europeans and they lapsed.. was there a "flood" of Eastern Europeans coming to the UK? Not really. More came yes, but to work, not to get benefits that they cant get in the first place. Most people think that a Pole can go to the UK and demand benefits.. they cant.

This doesn't apply anywhere at present. Those rules are the same in other countries but they currently pay the rate in that country - we don't. Again - other nations are interested in this so your claim it is hot air is just your opinion again.

It does not apply anywhere because no one has attempted it. We have the same issue in Denmark, and frankly there is nothing discriminatory with not giving money for children that are not in the country. You and others deny voting rights for your citizens when they are abroad so why should this be any different? The problem is political... it is like lowering pensions or shutting down schools. Politically it looks very bad. In Denmark there has been a call to means test the child benefit... this has call has been around since the 1980s, and yet successive governments have refused to touch it. Why? Because it can be used politically against them. And yet people complain that the richest families get child benefits.. hell the richest families complain as well but cant refuse it!

The problem is that these demands might come bite the UK in the ass. Spain and France have 2+ million British expats, who mostly are pensioners. If Cameron and UKIP think a few hundred thousand healthy working EU migrants are a problem, then what would 1 million sick old and fraile British pensioners be?

Abbazorkzog · Feb 14, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Sweden said:
The Act of Union - which united England and Scotland has long outlived its usefulness.

How has it outlived its usefulness? Everything happening now indicates you are incorrect.

Separation would permit Scots to grow out of their whining spoilt teen-ager mode and same England a load of money and the risk of another socialist government.

Wat

England would remain a key member of NATO; Scotland might even join. Why on earth would England be 'isolated' on the international stage?

Because nobody wants 'Little England', a 'Little England' would be the very reason that Scotland destroys the UK.

I really hope the SNP win and Scotland becomes independent next time round. And there will be another referendum - much truth in the 'neverendum' joke.

You sound like a Putinist.

QuadpolarNutjob · Feb 14, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

UK people should be allowed to choose. as i understand it they voted to join a 'european economic community', not a federal europe. i doubt they will be allowed to vote though, it seems the EU is considered too big to fail, when it does i imagine it will cause the war it was intended to prevent.

Sweden · Feb 14, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

QuadpolarNutjob said:
UK people should be allowed to choose. as i understand it they voted to join a 'european economic community', not a federal europe. i doubt they will be allowed to vote though, it seems the EU is considered too big to fail, when it does i imagine it will cause the war it was intended to prevent.

Even slippery David Cameron will not be able to avoid an in/out refendum now. He will promote his piddling, pathetic 'renegotiation' backed by unlimited funding from the EU. And, absurdly, a visit from President Obama which, fingers crossed, may give a big boost to the leave vote.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 15, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

PeteEU said:
Eh? of course something is being "done".. well discussed. Question is how much the EU wants to again give the UK to remain in the club.

Yes, that remains to be seen but I also suspect other nations are riding on our tails over things they would complain about.

PeteEU said:
~ We are talking banking no? Not in general? The Eurozone has banking rules now, and those outside the Eurozone have no part in it unless they so choose. Now we shall see how that goes, but I am certain that if the UK or others start exploiting the differences to attract more business then any deal will fall apart.

Yeah, banking. We should also make sure only Eurozone countries have to bail out Eurozone countries in future. That financial transactions tax was a dirty trick.

PeteEU said:
~ The idea was to create a fund that paid for future bailouts.. not a bad idea if you ask me... that the industry paid for its own mistakes instead of leaving it with the taxpayer.. ~

I highly doubt Eurozone countries would be bailing out non Euro countries in future so why should we let measures like the financial transactions tax slip through and scupper our economy?

PeteEU said:
~ Have they? They have agreed that more needs done.. not that something new needs done.. It is all in the words. Fighting red tape has been going on for years.. remember they removed the curbed cucumber directive? One of many streamlining efforts on regulations.

I'll let you concede the point - something / more needs to be done; that's what Cameron asked.

PeteEU said:
~ Financial independence... hmm strong words.. and very inaccurate. The only thing they are giving up, is the ability to print money. They still are in control of taxes, and their finances. What they cant do, is do a Greece or UK as it is now.. print money to cover up massive holes in your finances.

How is it inaccurate? If your currency is the Euro, you don't have your own currency. That isn't just about printing money.

PeteEU said:
~ Because they see it as a targeted discrimination of their citizens, which it is. ~

Not as many as the arrivals of 2003 onwards but there are a range of benefits which need to be explored - which the EU is already starting to look at.

Targeting the unemployed
How it would work: Banning first time EU jobseekers from claiming out-of-work benefits. Cutting the length of time EU migrants can claim benefits when they lose their job. At the moment, EU citizens working in the UK for three years are entitled to Jobseekers Allowance and housing benefit for six months. The IPPR think tank has suggested this Housing Benefit limit should be cut to three months - something that the EU is already considering.
Will the EU accept it: The Poles and other EU nations opposed to Mr Cameron's existing plans could go for this. It would not, in theory, threaten the principle of free movement because it only applies to jobless migrants. It could also be done without treaty change.
What critics will say: Mr Cameron's plan to ban migrants from claiming in-work benefits and child benefit for four years is a Tory manifesto commitment. So he would be accused of breaking a promise to the electorate.
A shorter benefits ban
How it could work: The length of time migrant workers have to pay into the system before they can claim tax credits and other in-work benefits could be reduced from four years. The Labour Party called for a two year ban at the general election, although Britain's top civil servant, Sir Jeremy Heywood, has warned ministers any ban lasting longer than six months could be discriminatory and it may have to be cut to a "few weeks or months".
Will the EU accept it: It would be tough to get agreement from the East European nations, who would still view it as direct discrimination against their citizens.
What critics will say: See above - they would accuse Mr Cameron of a humiliating climb down.

PeteEU said:
~ It does not apply anywhere because no one has attempted it. ~

I'll accept your concession of the point again.

Higgins86 · Feb 15, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

If we were to leave I question what would really change? We're still part of NATO so we're not going to abandon Europe, we're still going to be a massive source of income for Europe and vice versa. We're still going to maintain trade relations with Europe.

I see no incentive to stay.

joG · Feb 15, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Higgins86 said:
If we were to leave I question what would really change? We're still part of NATO so we're not going to abandon Europe, we're still going to be a massive source of income for Europe and vice versa. We're still going to maintain trade relations with Europe.

I see no incentive to stay.

What would change would be the missing vote in EU decision making. This would lead to less balanced regulation and treaties. The result would very likely be to the disadvantage of both the EU and UK.

PakPuk · Feb 15, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

joG said:
What would change would be the missing vote in EU decision making. This would lead to less balanced regulation and treaties. The result would very likely be to the disadvantage of both the EU and UK.

EU decisions are taken by all members states, the UK can and will be over ruled. joG you are a real mouthpiece for the established orthodoxy I must say

Higgins86 · Feb 15, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

joG said:
What would change would be the missing vote in EU decision making. This would lead to less balanced regulation and treaties. The result would very likely be to the disadvantage of both the EU and UK.

It could also give us more freedom to look at other options. China have been investing a lot in our infrastructure and we have been trying to grow our trade relations with them.
I mean name me something that the EU has voted on that has greatly improved life for the average Brit?

Andalublue · Feb 15, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Higgins86 said:
If we were to leave I question what would really change? We're still part of NATO so we're not going to abandon Europe, we're still going to be a massive source of income for Europe and vice versa. We're still going to maintain trade relations with Europe.

I see no incentive to stay.

Freedom of movement? There are the best part of a million Brits living in the rest of the EU. About half of those people will be forced to return, mostly pensioners, and absolutely no indication, not even from the Brexiters, that leaving will cut immigration. So, with immigration set to continue and repatriation of British pensioners and people unable to secure work permits, get set for the accelerated collapse of public services. I guess you're young and don't have much regular use for the NHS or social services, but you will. Eventually.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 16, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

David Cameron is holding crucial talks in Brussels, where he hopes to gain support for his EU reform demands.
The prime minister is due to discuss the renegotiation with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and senior MEPs.
Link.

Sounds innocuous but on Victoria Derbyshire this morning - (BBC News 24) pundits broke down the week - Cameron will emerge from the 2 day meeting with an announcement; he will then jet back for senior cabinet meeting to explain his position which also then lets his anti-EU members off the leash to start their campaign to leave.
6p.m. Friday (or thereabouts on friday) Cameron will announce the deal and set off the campaign for the referendum.

We're in for some interesting times - shame there is no real movement to explain to the public exactly what the arguments are. Only those of us following the dealings have any idea or informed opinion.

Andalublue · Feb 16, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Infinite Chaos said:
We're in for some interesting times - shame there is no real movement to explain to the public exactly what the arguments are. Only those of us following the dealings have any idea or informed opinion.

I think that's how the Brexit campaign want it. They're hoping people will vote 'out' on a wave of nationalistic emotion and hatred of meddling foreigners. Facts and consequences will only get in the way.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 17, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Andalublue said:
~ Facts and consequences will only get in the way.

True on both sides Andy, there are few hard facts on most of the important issues.

Andalublue · Feb 17, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Infinite Chaos said:
True on both sides Andy, there are few hard facts on most of the important issues.

I think the difference between the two sides of this argument is that those arguing to remain do so with a much greater degree of realism about the EU. I don't think anyone arguing to stay is doing so from the point of view that the EU is some kind of sunny upland of democracy, prosperity and choruses of Kumbaya. To hear the Brexit crowd you'd think that Britain post-withdrawal will be some kind of democratic paradise, national sovereignty restored (unless you're Scottish, of course).

It's an appeal based on emotion and some ludicrous sense of victimhood. Just this morning on BBC Radio Five Live the leader of UKIP in Wales was arguing that Britain could never find justice in the EU because look what happens to UK entries to Eurovision these days; the Scandinavians and East Europeans all gang up on us. Seriously. Check it out.

Most of us arguing to remain simply look at the pragmatic pros and cons of staying or leaving. Suggesting we are driven along by some emotional tie to Brussels is ridiculous. There were no stronger critics of the EU's horrific bullying of Greece this time last year than those who are arguing for us to stay and fight for a better, more democratic, more pluralist EU - with Britain on the inside effecting change, rather than on the outside pissing in the wind.

Camlon · Feb 17, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

I say leave, but don't go for the Swiss or Norwegian solution. UK can instead create a free trade deal similar to what Turkey, South Korea, and Mexico got with the EU. It will make little sense to reject a free trade deal, because UK has a trade deficit to the EU, and a collapse in UK imports would create a recession in the EU. With a free trade deal, it will make little sense for companies to leave, and hence everything will work out fine.

Why stay in a union, that do not have proper democracy, that tries to take more and more power, that prevents UK from controlling its borders, and who has over and over again failed miserably?

Andalublue · Feb 18, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Camlon said:
I say leave, but don't go for the Swiss or Norwegian solution. UK can instead create a free trade deal similar to what Turkey, South Korea, and Mexico got with the EU.

The EU would have a strong incentive to reject such a deal. They will want to take a strong line to discourage other EU members from following the UK.

It will make little sense to reject a free trade deal, because UK has a trade deficit to the EU, and a collapse in UK imports would create a recession in the EU.

No, it wouldn't.

With a free trade deal, it will make little sense for companies to leave, and hence everything will work out fine.

The EU will go out of its way to demonstrate that there is a considerable difference between trading as a member, and as a non-member. Understandable. There will be significant motivations for companies to move to within the EU.

Why stay in a union, that do not have proper democracy, that tries to take more and more power,

That's exactly what the Scots were asking. I think they are regretting their decision now.

that prevents UK from controlling its borders, and who has over and over again failed miserably?

The UK has farmed out protection of its borders to the French. It'll be interesting to see what they do when they have to deal with it themselves. In any case, since the UK's never been a member of Schengen, with the exception of the Dover-Calais corridor, nothing much will change. What do you think taking control of its borders will mean?

The UK is not a nation state, so talk of national sovereignty is just English hot air. How ironic that the same blowhards that were promoting one supra-national union, the UK just 18 months ago, are now attacking another by using the same arguments that they were trashing when talking to the Scots.

Abbazorkzog · Feb 18, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

I just think the EU needs to stick together if for nothing else to prevent the little countries from being bullied by the US and Russia. I'm pretty aptly against globalism or any advocacy of world government/governance in any form, but I am a staunch internationalist and federalist, and if there is one way (the only way) Europe can successfully defend itself from the ailments of a Neo-Fascist Russia and Islamists, it is as a single unit.

Camlon · Feb 18, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Andalublue said:
The EU would have a strong incentive to reject such a deal. They will want to take a strong line to discourage other EU members from following the UK

They can't reject UK leaving the EU, thats UK choice to make. They can try to resist it, but then that just proves how oppressive EU is.

No, it wouldn't.

A collapse in UK imports would certainly create a recession in the EU. EU is very fragile, and the international economy is very interlinked. Just the slowdown in China affected the economy significantly, seeing a massive reduction in UK imports is going to cause a lot of trouble for the EU.

The EU will go out of its way to demonstrate that there is a considerable difference between trading as a member, and as a non-member. Understandable. There will be significant motivations for companies to move to within the EU.

EU is a toothless tigher, they will scream at you, but in the end they will cave to what is better for EU economy. And, if they try, then just let them. Why be part of something who want to punish members from leaving, countries should be part of the EU because they want to, not because they are forced to.

The UK has farmed out protection of its borders to the French. It'll be interesting to see what they do when they have to deal with it themselves. In any case, since the UK's never been a member of Schengen, with the exception of the Dover-Calais corridor, nothing much will change. What do you think taking control of its borders will mean?

It means that UK can decide who is able to get working visa in the UK. This is getting quite important now that EU is collapsing due to third world migrants.

Also, when I said EU fails over and over again, I wasn't just talking about immigration. EU has a habit of making the wrong decisions, and delaying the inevitable.

joG · Feb 18, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Infinite Chaos said:
Sounds innocuous but on Victoria Derbyshire this morning - (BBC News 24) pundits broke down the week - Cameron will emerge from the 2 day meeting with an announcement; he will then jet back for senior cabinet meeting to explain his position which also then lets his anti-EU members off the leash to start their campaign to leave.
6p.m. Friday (or thereabouts on friday) Cameron will announce the deal and set off the campaign for the referendum.

We're in for some interesting times - shame there is no real movement to explain to the public exactly what the arguments are. Only those of us following the dealings have any idea or informed opinion.

And as far as I can see the proposed changes are not enough consequential to stabilize the eu and might only stoke resistance in the UK, as they look half-hearted.

joG · Feb 18, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

Andalublue said:
I think that's how the Brexit campaign want it. They're hoping people will vote 'out' on a wave of nationalistic emotion and hatred of meddling foreigners. Facts and consequences will only get in the way.

Oh. The reasons to roll back the worst overshoot of the "ever closer union" to a pre 1990 structure are overwhelming. The Treaties of Lisbon, Schengen, Dublin and Maastricht have shown how poorly the workmanship was, the size of the dangers therein and how much sovereignty was actually committed for transfer, when they were signed. The situation shows in glaring relief how much the citizens were lied to and how deeply they were betrayed. The populations of Europe should be horrified at how little Cameron is asking and the British should feel fools they are being made out to be.

gunner · Feb 18, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

joG said:
And as far as I can see the proposed changes are not enough consequential to stabilize the eu and might only stoke resistance in the UK, as they look half-hearted.

The UK was never going to get meaningful concessions; and why should we? Personally, I've never liked our half baked relationship, with Europe.

PakPuk · Feb 18, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

gunner said:
The UK was never going to get meaningful concessions; and why should we? Personally, I've never liked our half baked relationship, with Europe.

Cameron is just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic with his pathetic "re-negotiation", does he really take us for being so stupid?

gunner · Feb 18, 2016

Re: UK EU referendum [W:40]

PakPuk said:
Cameron is just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic with his pathetic "re-negotiation", does he really take us for being so stupid?

I think he's banking on stupidity raining supreme.

UK EU referendum [W:40:728]

EU UK Referendum - leave or stay?

The UK should leave the EU whether reformed or not

The UK should leave if the EU does not agree reform

The UK should stay whether reformed or not.

The UK should stay if the EU agrees reforms

Infinite Chaos

Sweden

PeteEU

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian

QuadpolarNutjob

Sweden

Infinite Chaos

Higgins86

joG

PakPuk

Well-known member

Higgins86

Andalublue

Hello again!

Infinite Chaos

Andalublue

Hello again!

Infinite Chaos

Andalublue

Hello again!

Camlon

Andalublue

Hello again!

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian

Camlon

joG

joG

gunner

PakPuk

Well-known member

gunner