EU Referendum

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You still haven't provide any reasons for the UK to stay in the EU - it seems the only thing you can provide is negatives towards people's reasons for wanting to leave

I fully understand the stability reason put forward by Flydewhite and not rocking the boat etc - but can you use that as reason when it appears it wasn't valid when people were using it as a reason for No to Scottish a independence.

A lot of reasons have been posted by people as reasons for wanting to leave , sovereignty , immigration , getting more for out money etc - but still not seen any reasons for staying from you

Asking for objectives, costs and timescales for reaching new agreements is not the same as saying that new agreements will be costly; take a long time to come to fruition; and will not provide everything that Leave wishes for in respect of sovereignty, immigration and cost savings.

 

[MarkE]

Better the devil indeed - but we must not forget that many if not most of the workplace, employment and welfare benefits, rights and protections are framed in the context of EU legislation - so for many the 'devil' is a rather benevolent devil. I do not feel inclined to consider an environment in which Ian Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling and their like, have free reign to reform in these areas (as that is what sovereignty much sought after by Leave means)

Why do the stay campaigners continue to look on the negative side of everything? Why is Sovereignty sneered at like a dirty word? You don't like IDS and his ilk, well in a democracy we can vote them out of power.
I prefer to see it as stepping out of the shadows, rather than leap into the dark.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Asking for objectives, costs and timescales for reaching new agreements is not the same as saying that new agreements will be costly; take a long time to come to fruition; and will not provide everything that Leave wishes for in respect of sovereignty, immigration and cost savings.

I'm sorry but what does that answer have anything to do with what I posted ?
If you can't think of a reason to stay in the EU then just say that then

 

[Foxholer]

I have no (well, little) doubt that his statements were correct. But the question was whether they were simply 'proposals' that were never implemented - ie did the EU 'general' standards/regulations or the specific TFL/Crossrail 'special considerations for the Project' ones prevail?

I'm inclined to think that TFL and Crossrail got their way! In the case of Crossrail, a 25% bigger tunnel would have significantly increased the cost of the project - and that requirement would have been announced way before now!

Just watched Bozo for as long as I could, and my above inclination seems to be correct! Crossrail didn't need to cater for the possibility of usage by German trains- and it was 50% that was mentioned!

And, from a few searches, TFL seems to have got its way with all the 'cyclist friendly' additions that it wanted too, even if he is having a hard time getting the same standards applied to the rest of Europe!

So ammo for the myth-making propagandists amongst the 'usual project specific negotiations'!

Bozo is definitely passionate about his point of view, but I'm afraid he comes across, to me at least, as just a buffoon when asked to provide real data!

Btw. I fully support his endeavours to make lorries etc safer for cyclists - both the sane and idiotic ones!

 

[Hobbit]

I didn't question at all whether UK would be in NATO - there is no reason whatsoever for UK not being in NATO if it leaves the EU.

You wish to know how much it costs to be in the EU today and have access to the single market and how much in the future. I am sure that the government and OBR have all the figures for these costs projected 5, 10 etc years into the future, after all they are needed for the budget and spending reviews - and one is coming up soon. So where are the equivalent forecasts of costs from Leave. There will of course be forecasts - but these forecasts require very significant assumptions to be made - and at the moment I hear and read only the vaguest of aspirational assumptions- and so forecasts built more on sand than on stone.

i can't disagree with what you've posted, and I'd like those answers too. We do know what it costs to be in the EU, it's £14billion more than we get out. As to the IDS and the ilk. I fundamentally disagree with your thoughts on why you want to stay in, I.e. That the EU will police them.

i did ask earlier in the thread why you wouldn't support the democratic choice of the people of the UK, preferring to be governed by the EU rather than have a Tory govt. Would you have the same inclination if you were guaranteed 20yrs of Labour rule?

we don't know the exit conditions because they don't get negotiated until a country formally decides to leave.... It's all there in the Lisbon Treaty. We can guess, which is the projection many politicians are doing but we don't know what the other EU countries demand.

 

[SocketRocket]

Am I the only one that thinks that all this confusion, negativity and lack of clarity is the fault of the Government and especially the Prime Minister for not presenting the case for the referendum on both sides Instead of 'Stay' is all things nice and 'Leave' is the end of life as we know it.

If the Government decided the people of the UK needed a vote on future membership of the EU then that decision must have been based on a degree of dissatisfaction with our membership. OK Cameron has carried out his sham stitch up renegotiation of our terms of membership on what he calls a reformed European Union. He now recommends we vote to stay due to the great job he has done to give us a special membership deal that addresses all our concerns (what a joke)

In my opinion the government should have spent considerable more time in these discussions and part of the negotiations should have dealt with issues like our trading position if we exit. Then a truly clear referendum could have been made with the electorate having the facts at hand for and against staying. Rather than do this he has decided to keep people with a view that differs from his personal one to figure it our for themselves.

A shabby and selfish way of running a referendum on such an important issue. His personal opinion should be kept out of it.

On the point made of maintaining stability. Do you think the situation with the Euro, falling world trade, inability to create a coherent policy over the current migration crisis , the idea of opening free movement to Turkey, no control over our own borders as stabilisers? I certainly don't.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

i can't disagree with what you've posted, and I'd like those answers too. We do know what it costs to be in the EU, it's £14billion more than we get out. As to the IDS and the ilk. I fundamentally disagree with your thoughts on why you want to stay in, I.e. That the EU will police them.

i did ask earlier in the thread why you wouldn't support the democratic choice of the people of the UK, preferring to be governed by the EU rather than have a Tory govt. Would you have the same inclination if you were guaranteed 20yrs of Labour rule?

we don't know the exit conditions because they don't get negotiated until a country formally decides to leave.... It's all there in the Lisbon Treaty. We can guess, which is the projection many politicians are doing but we don't know what the other EU countries demand.

This is quite simple for me. We vote for MEPs - the EU is not as undemocratic as many paint it - though I think our MEPs could and should have more power - but they are not toothless. UK should stay in a work for greater say for our MEPs.

The nature of the UK government is not a huge factor in my In/Out thinking. However if the prospect was of 20-25yrs Labour government in a UK out of the EU I would have few fears of the sort I have in respect of unfettered Conservatism hand-in-glove with business. Besides - the EU vote has only come about because we have a Conservative government so the 'what-if' about a Labour government is pretty irrelevant - it is of more relevance standing where we are today with the prospect of a wiff-waff BoJo as PM and Conservatives in power for another 20+yrs

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Am I the only one that thinks that all this confusion, negativity and lack of clarity is the fault of the Government and especially the Prime Minister for not presenting the case for the referendum on both sides.

If the Government decided the people of the UK needed a vote on future membership of the EU then that decision must have been based on a degree of dissatisfaction with our membership. OK Cameron has carried out his sham stitch up of a renegotiation of our terms of membership on what he calls a reformed European Union. He now recommends we vote to stay due to the great job he has done to give us a special membership deal that addresses all our concerns (what a joke)

In my opinion the government should have spent considerable more time in these discussions and part of the negotiations should have dealt with issues like our trading position if we exit. Then a truly clear referendum could have been made with the electorate having the facts at hand for and against staying. Rather than do this he has decided to keep people with a view that differs from his personal one to figure it our for themselves.

A shabby and selfish way of running a referendum on such an important issue. His personal opinion should be kept out of it.

On the point made of maintaining stability. Do you think the situation with the Euro, falling world trade, inability to create a coherent policy over the current migration crisis , the idea of opening free movement to Turkey, no control over our own borders as stabilisers? I certainly don't.

You cannot be serious.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

This is quite simple for me. We vote for MEPs - the EU is not as undemocratic as many paint it - though I think our MEPs could and should have more power - but they are not toothless. UK should stay in a work for greater say for our MEPs.

The nature of the UK government is not a huge factor in my In/Out thinking. However if the prospect was of 20-25yrs Labour government in a UK out of the EU I would have few fears of the sort I have in respect of unfettered Conservatism hand-in-glove with business. Besides - the EU vote has only come about because we have a Conservative government so the 'what-if' about a Labour government is pretty irrelevant - it is of more relevance standing where we are today with the prospect of a wiff-waff BoJo as PM and Conservatives in power for another 20+yrs

Pretty much agree with you on our MEP's having more power and also that the EU is not as undemocratic as many portray.

Also would not be happy about BoJo who I see as a political opportunist.

On the other hand 20 minutes of J Corbyn being in charge would be too much for me.

 

[SocketRocket]

You cannot be serious.

Why cant I be serious? The Government should take a responsible view and inform people with a balanced view, it is not for the Government to keep information from the electorate that disallows them to make a decision on such an important matter without the facts for and against and this being probably the most important in their lifetime.

So please, explain why thats not a serious proposition?

 

[SocketRocket]

This is quite simple for me. We vote for MEPs - the EU is not as undemocratic as many paint it - though I think our MEPs could and should have more power - but they are not toothless. UK should stay in a work for greater say for our MEPs.

The nature of the UK government is not a huge factor in my In/Out thinking. However if the prospect was of 20-25yrs Labour government in a UK out of the EU I would have few fears of the sort I have in respect of unfettered Conservatism hand-in-glove with business. Besides - the EU vote has only come about because we have a Conservative government so the 'what-if' about a Labour government is pretty irrelevant - it is of more relevance standing where we are today with the prospect of a wiff-waff BoJo as PM and Conservatives in power for another 20+yrs

Our MEPs are in a big minority and often tend to get outvoted. MEP's are not an instrument to protect UK sovereignty and determination. We have our HOC to do that for us.

I guess your enthusiasm for MEP's does not stretch to the UK party that has the most?

 

[Hacker Khan]

Am I the only one that thinks that all this confusion, negativity and lack of clarity is the fault of the Government and especially the Prime Minister for not presenting the case for the referendum on both sides Instead of 'Stay' is all things nice and 'Leave' is the end of life as we know it.

If the Government decided the people of the UK needed a vote on future membership of the EU then that decision must have been based on a degree of dissatisfaction with our membership. OK Cameron has carried out his sham stitch up renegotiation of our terms of membership on what he calls a reformed European Union. He now recommends we vote to stay due to the great job he has done to give us a special membership deal that addresses all our concerns (what a joke)

In my opinion the government should have spent considerable more time in these discussions and part of the negotiations should have dealt with issues like our trading position if we exit. Then a truly clear referendum could have been made with the electorate having the facts at hand for and against staying. Rather than do this he has decided to keep people with a view that differs from his personal one to figure it our for themselves.

A shabby and selfish way of running a referendum on such an important issue. His personal opinion should be kept out of it.

On the point made of maintaining stability. Do you think the situation with the Euro, falling world trade, inability to create a coherent policy over the current migration crisis , the idea of opening free movement to Turkey, no control over our own borders as stabilisers? I certainly don't.

Yes you are. He's the frikkin PM, it is his job to decide what he thinks the UK should do in big matters that effect the country, that's the whole point of him. Do you really think he will be taken seriously if he flip flops between 2 differing opinions in the name of neutrality. He isn't neutral, the governments official position is not neutral and much as I love a wooly liberal, he'd be a global joke if the PM of a country, the person that effectively runs the country, could not express his opinion on one of the major issues of his lifetime in Parliament. Sorry if his position does not match yours, I am sure you'd be saying the same if he came out in favour of leaving

If you want these mythical facts that everyone is hiding then read The Guardian then The Daily Mail. And the truth will be somewhere in the middle.

 

[Hobbit]

Some trade figures to ponder

the largest exporter to the UK is Germany, £4bn, followed by China and the USA at £3bn each.

the largest importer of UK goods is Switzerland £4bn, followed by the USA £3bn, then Germany £2bn, China £1.5bn, and the Ireland £1.5bn.

Would Germany risk their trade? And after that where's the next big issue? Bearing in mind we loaned £10bn to Ireland at the height of the financial troubles would Ireland really play hard ball.

We export £23bn worth of goods to the EU, and £34bn worth of goods to non EU countries. The majority of our exports within the EU are to the less developed EU countries.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Asking for objectives, costs and timescales for reaching new agreements is not the same as saying that new agreements will be costly; take a long time to come to fruition; and will not provide everything that Leave wishes for in respect of sovereignty, immigration and cost savings.

Hogan have you come up with any reasons to stay in the EU yet ?

 

[Hobbit]

And as for keeping information from the electorate then careful with that paranoia there, the little people in the trees are watching you know.

i always cut the trees down for this very reason! Also, it discourages treehuggers!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Hogan have you come up with any reasons to stay in the EU yet ?

Yes, see post 999 in which he agreed with a post regarding the reasons. Plus I am sure he has expressed an opinion in many other posts that frankly I can't be arsed to read back through. But feel free as it seems you are so obsessed by him.

 

[Hacker Khan]

i always cut the trees down for this very reason! Also, it discourages treehuggers!

2 for 1 double whammy, well played sir.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yes, see post 999 in which he agreed with a post regarding the reasons. Plus I am sure he has expressed an opinion in many other posts that frankly I can't be arsed to read back through. But feel free as it seems you are so obsessed by him.

Obsessed ? No ?

It's quite clear from his posts that he is in the IN camp - but he constantly seems to be "attacking" the OUT camp accusing of scaremongering etc etc etc

I posted that I haven't seen many valid reasons to stay in the EU but have IMO seen valid reasons for leaving - Hogan responded ( surely not as I'm the obsessed ) by dismissing what I see as valid reasons for leaving - so in fact backed up my point that still not seeing valid reasons to stay - so I asked him to provide them - failed to do so once again focusing of dismissing of people's valid reasons for leaving and continuing to focus on dismissing the campaign to leave.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I posted that I haven't seen many valid reasons to stay in the EU but have IMO seen valid reasons for leaving - Hogan responded ( surely not as I'm the obsessed ) by dismissing what I see as valid reasons for leaving - so in fact backed up my point that still not seeing valid reasons to stay - so I asked him to provide them - failed to do so once again focusing of dismissing of people's valid reasons for leaving and continuing to focus on dismissing the campaign to leave.

This should keep you reading for a while....

http://www.the-eu-and-me.org.uk/whats-in-it-for-me

 

[Deleted member 15344]

This should keep you reading for a while....

http://www.the-eu-and-me.org.uk/whats-in-it-for-me

Seen that before - believe there isn't anything in there that we can't achieve as a nation on our own as well a good deal of it focusing on what we can do in other countries.

But are they reasons good enough to stay ?

We aren't going to suddenly dismiss human rights and equality because we leave the EU IMO