EU Referendum

[Doon frae Troon]

Ashcroft poll has it level 41% aside.
That's worrying, especially if Cameron invokes 'operation fear'.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm sure we all know how the EU is governed; how decisions are made, and where our elected representatives fit in - but just in case here's a summary

The Parliament also decides on the allocation of the EU’s budget
jointly with the Council. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) caucus
according to political affiliation, rather than nationality; there are eight political
groups and a number of non-attached MEPs.

You missed the Visigard Bloc. The Eastern European group of countries that actively get together to decide how the will vote on legislation. Not actually, formally, part of the accepted structure of the EU but allowed to get away with it.

 

[chrisd]

Its probably already been covered but my question is:

If leaving the EU is now going to be so devastating to the country for many years to come, and given that David Cameron didn't really achieve many concessions from Europe, if he's now being truthful, was he negligent in embarking on such a risky strategy OR are they just conning us as to the risks involved in leaving??

 

[SocketRocket]

Indeed! And £115M was allocated by the PM (no reference to Parliamentary approval) in September. And a further £30m in new funding in January - again no Parliamentary approval!

There was, however, a statement made by the Minister on Feb 8th

If it's in the Budget it already has Parliamentary approval.

 

[Foxholer]

If it's in the Budget it already has Parliamentary approval.

:rofl: Yeah, right!

The overall expenditure has - as in 0.7% of GDP. But the specific recipient certainly doesn't!

And any 'New Money', of which there was £30M, also doesn't - as it wasn't in the Budget!

 

[MarkE]

Ashcroft poll has it level 41% aside.
That's worrying, especially if Cameron invokes 'operation fear'.

Cameron will only drive the waverers to vote Leave by his constant scaremongering. Nobody is going to be swayed by negativity. Dos'nt he have anything positive to say regarding the merits of staying, rather than constant belittling of opposing views?

 

[ColchesterFC]

Cameron will only drive the waverers to vote Leave by his constant scaremongering. Nobody is going to be swayed by negativity. Dos'nt he have anything positive to say regarding the merits of staying, rather than constant belittling of opposing views?

Exactly my view. When the debate started I was probably 80% in favour of remaining in the EU. Now I would say that I am 50/50 as to which way I will vote and it is mainly due to scaremongering and outright lies being told by politicians campaigning to remain, chiefly David Cameron and more recently I think it was Philip Hammond with claims such as the Calais "Jungle" migrant camp could move to southern England, it could take 10 years to sort out a trade agreement and British holiday makers could be stranded abroad if we vote to leave.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Cameron will only drive the waverers to vote Leave by his constant scaremongering. Nobody is going to be swayed by negativity. Dos'nt he have anything positive to say regarding the merits of staying, rather than constant belittling of opposing views?

You would like to think they learned a lesson with Scotland.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You would like to think they learned a lesson with Scotland.

Didn't the vote go the governments way

And wasn't some of the scare tactics actually factual in the end - oil prices as a prime example

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Didn't the vote go the governments way

And wasn't some of the scare tactics actually factual in the end - oil prices as a prime example

You appear to have forgotten that the No campaign went into the referendum with a 21% lead.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You appear to have forgotten that the No campaign went into the referendum with a 21% lead.

Irrelevant - the No campaign won.

 

[SocketRocket]

:rofl: Yeah, right!

The overall expenditure has - as in 0.7% of GDP. But the specific recipient certainly doesn't!

And any 'New Money', of which there was £30M, also doesn't - as it wasn't in the Budget!

It doesn't need parliamentary approval for each spending decision. It's not 'New Money' it's just spending out of the pot that has already been allocated.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Irrelevant - the No campaign won.

:lol:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

At some point are the Leave Campaign going to counter a Remain statement of EU benefits and leave risks with something a bit cleverer and constructive than simply stating 'scaremongering'?

Just today we have had a 'dodgy dossier' (which in itself is just a lazy and hackneyed way of referring to the government document) and the 'scaremongering' complaint aimed at the Email from BMW to all it's Rolls-Royce employees. How about Leave take such as the document and BMW Email and counter the points made - because I learn nothing from Leave just ignoring these things.

And so we hear Baron Lamont of Lerwick stating with confidence , as if how could we possibly doubt, that the EU will need the UK more than the UK need the EU and so of course trade agreements with no significant barriers/tariffs/bureaucracy will be agreed very quickly - and he makes that statement with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever - from anyone - and that is his counter to the 'dodgy dossier'. Not really good enough.

 

[Foxholer]

It doesn't need parliamentary approval for each spending decision. It's not 'New Money' it's just spending out of the pot that has already been allocated.

From the first line of the announcement......

'Britain will provide £30million in new funding....'

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ort-for-refugees-arriving-in-europe-in-winter

Or is that a carefully designed piece of announcement-ese?!

 

[SocketRocket]

From the first line of the announcement......

'Britain will provide £30million in new funding....'

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ort-for-refugees-arriving-in-europe-in-winter

Or is that a carefully designed piece of announcement-ese?!

I dont understand what you are trying to say here! Are you suggesting the money the UK Government is paying towards support for Syrian refugees does not come from the overseas development fund? Are you suggesting that the current funding needs to be put before parliament first?

Because it's described as 'New Funding' that means it's an area we have not funded before, it's nothing to do with what budget the money comes from. It doesn't come from a money tree at the back of Downing street

 

[SocketRocket]

At some point are the Leave Campaign going to counter a Remain statement of EU benefits and leave risks with something a bit cleverer and constructive than simply stating 'scaremongering'?

Just today we have had a 'dodgy dossier' (which in itself is just a lazy and hackneyed way of referring to the government document) and the 'scaremongering' complaint aimed at the Email from BMW to all it's Rolls-Royce employees. How about Leave take such as the document and BMW Email and counter the points made - because I learn nothing from Leave just ignoring these things.

And so we hear Baron Lamont of Lerwick stating with confidence , as if how could we possibly doubt, that the EU will need the UK more than the UK need the EU and so of course trade agreements with no significant barriers/tariffs/bureaucracy will be agreed very quickly - and he makes that statement with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever - from anyone - and that is his counter to the 'dodgy dossier'. Not really good enough.

Most of this is subjective balderdash. The main point here is whether or not you believe your nation has the capabilities to stand on it's own two feet and control it's own destiny. Whether we will be a bit better or worse off for a while is not what matters in this important issue. I have faith in my nation more than I have in this smothering alliance that is incapable of making major decisions.

 

[Hobbit]

At some point are the Leave Campaign going to counter a Remain statement of EU benefits and leave risks with something a bit cleverer and constructive than simply stating 'scaremongering'?

Just today we have had a 'dodgy dossier' (which in itself is just a lazy and hackneyed way of referring to the government document) and the 'scaremongering' complaint aimed at the Email from BMW to all it's Rolls-Royce employees. How about Leave take such as the document and BMW Email and counter the points made - because I learn nothing from Leave just ignoring these things.

And so we hear Baron Lamont of Lerwick stating with confidence , as if how could we possibly doubt, that the EU will need the UK more than the UK need the EU and so of course trade agreements with no significant barriers/tariffs/bureaucracy will be agreed very quickly - and he makes that statement with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever - from anyone - and that is his counter to the 'dodgy dossier'. Not really good enough.

A number of posters on here have countered the Stay campaign with reasoned arguments, and some emotional ones too. Is it really necessary to trawl through the thread and paraphrase them for you, or maybe you are capable of doing that?

First and foremost, for me, it's about self determination. It's about us deciding what we do, not a group of countries who, quite honestly, are making decisions that in truth have a bias based in what they want for themselves, as we do. It's flawed because of the natural nationalism that exists.

Financially, we get nothing from the EU! Yes, that's right, nothing. We pay in more than we get out. £14 billion pounds more! I hear cries of "but the EU funded x&y. No they didn't, we did. Every project that receives EU funding only receives up to a maximum of half the overall cost of the project. And as we're a nett contributor, we're actually funding all of the project.

But what about trade barriers? We import more than we export. If they put barriers in place, we would do the same. Imagine the pressure that industries in an EU country would exert on its government if the governments action led to it being harder to export to the UK. We would also be free to create trade agreements with countries outside of the EU, which we can't currently do. And we'd also be allowed to subsidise industries at levels we determine - I'm sure the steelworkers would have preferred to be told they would receive x subsidy rather than we're not allowed to subsidise you because it's against EU laws.

And then we often read your argument of a Tory government unfettered by EU employment laws - your scaremongering! The workers, and the general populace have proven time and again, via the ballot box and strike action that they are well capable of curbing governments, Tory and Labour. But on the issue of democracy, you want to curb a lawfully elected Tory government by using powers of a third party rather than accept the will of other UK citizens who voted that government in? Really? Really, truly? I find that unpalatable.

 

[chrisd]

A number of posters on here have countered the Stay campaign with reasoned arguments, and some emotional ones too. Is it really necessary to trawl through the thread and paraphrase them for you, or maybe you are capable of doing that?

First and foremost, for me, it's about self determination. It's about us deciding what we do, not a group of countries who, quite honestly, are making decisions that in truth have a bias based in what they want for themselves, as we do. It's flawed because of the natural nationalism that exists.

Financially, we get nothing from the EU! Yes, that's right, nothing. We pay in more than we get out. £14 billion pounds more! I hear cries of "but the EU funded x&y. No they didn't, we did. Every project that receives EU funding only receives up to a maximum of half the overall cost of the project. And as we're a nett contributor, we're actually funding all of the project.

But what about trade barriers? We import more than we export. If they put barriers in place, we would do the same. Imagine the pressure that industries in an EU country would exert on its government if the governments action led to it being harder to export to the UK. We would also be free to create trade agreements with countries outside of the EU, which we can't currently do. And we'd also be allowed to subsidise industries at levels we determine - I'm sure the steelworkers would have preferred to be told they would receive x subsidy rather than we're not allowed to subsidise you because it's against EU laws.

And then we often read your argument of a Tory government unfettered by EU employment laws - your scaremongering! The workers, and the general populace have proven time and again, via the ballot box and strike action that they are well capable of curbing governments, Tory and Labour. But on the issue of democracy, you want to curb a lawfully elected Tory government by using powers of a third party rather than accept the will of other UK citizens who voted that government in? Really? Really, truly? I find that unpalatable.

A good argument well explained Brian

 

[Deleted member 15344]

At some point are the Leave Campaign going to counter a Remain statement of EU benefits and leave risks with something a bit cleverer and constructive than simply stating 'scaremongering'?

Just today we have had a 'dodgy dossier' (which in itself is just a lazy and hackneyed way of referring to the government document) and the 'scaremongering' complaint aimed at the Email from BMW to all it's Rolls-Royce employees. How about Leave take such as the document and BMW Email and counter the points made - because I learn nothing from Leave just ignoring these things.

And so we hear Baron Lamont of Lerwick stating with confidence , as if how could we possibly doubt, that the EU will need the UK more than the UK need the EU and so of course trade agreements with no significant barriers/tariffs/bureaucracy will be agreed very quickly - and he makes that statement with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever - from anyone - and that is his counter to the 'dodgy dossier'. Not really good enough.

What do you think of the French Politicians comments about border control and a refugee camp moving from Calasis and into UK ?

Is that "scaremongering" ?

I think it's valid to suggest that scaremongering happens on both sides of the vote