Poll: Britain and the EU

[Foxholer]

Isn't that what we are trying to do? The problem is that all 27 other states have to agree and somehow I cant see that happening.

And it's also exactly what the negotiators of a Free Trade Agreement would have to do! - again with the agreement of all 27 remaining countries! Except after having withdrawn from the Union they are negotiating with! As I posted earlier, that's a lot of faith you are putting in those negotiators! Personally, I don't believe they've got a hope of negotiating such an agreement!

If it can't be done within the EU, what makes you think there is any hope of achieving the same thing from outside?!!

There doesn't actually seem any reason why access to benefits can't be restricted for a certain period! That way, everybody is 'happy'! The Freedom of Movement criteria isn't breached; a flexible UK labour market still exists; the burden on the UK for benefits (from benefit free-loading immigrants) is significantly reduced, if not eliminated;

 

[SocketRocket]

And it's also exactly what the negotiators of a Free Trade Agreement would have to do! - again with the agreement of all 27 remaining countries! Except after having withdrawn from the Union they are negotiating with! As I posted earlier, that's a lot of faith you are putting in those negotiators! Personally, I don't believe they've got a hope of negotiating such an agreement!

If it can't be done within the EU, what makes you think there is any hope of achieving the same thing from outside?!!

There doesn't actually seem any reason why access to benefits can't be restricted for a certain period! That way, everybody is 'happy'! The Freedom of Movement criteria isn't breached; a flexible UK labour market still exists; the burden on the UK for benefits (from benefit free-loading immigrants) is significantly reduced, if not eliminated;

Because we cant restrict benefits to EU immigrants without the approval of the 27 members.

 

[Foxholer]

Because we cant restrict benefits to EU immigrants without the approval of the 27 members.

Tosh! Other countries have done it!

 

[MegaSteve]

The first item on DaveCams list should be the annual 'subs'...

If 'we' get back two thirds then why bother handing it over in the first place?

Rather than pass a law to not raise taxes I'd rather them pass a law not to waste tax payers hard earned cash...

Then see them explain away the £55m [and then some] DAILY cost of EU membership...

 

[SocketRocket]

Tosh! Other countries have done it!

If you use comments like that I don't want to discuss it with you further.

 

[Ethan]

The first item on DaveCams list should be the annual 'subs'...

If 'we' get back two thirds then why bother handing it over in the first place?

Obviously it looks like more of a victory against the evil forces of the EU.

As with much of this debate, basically smoke and mirrors.

Asking the average punter in the street whether £55m a day is too much money to pay into the EU is a waste of breath, akin to asking the same person how much rocket fuel is needed to send a rocket to the moon. They have no idea and why should they?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I read that any UK budget cuts/saving//expenditure amounting to less than £5Bn a year is fiddling rounds the edges, then £55m a day is equivalent to about three such measures.

 

[MegaSteve]

Obviously it looks like more of a victory against the evil forces of the EU.

As with much of this debate, basically smoke and mirrors.

Asking the average punter in the street whether £55m a day is too much money to pay into the EU is a waste of breath, akin to asking the same person how much rocket fuel is needed to send a rocket to the moon. They have no idea and why should they?

Then simplify the question...

Where I have been visiting is in real need of a second river crossing...
I suspect if you asked the locals whether a new bridge, at a cost of a day and a bit of EU membership, is better value than the EU they'd plump, in the main, for the bridge...

Ask a similar question, of taxpayers all over the UK, regarding projects for their local area and the EU suddenly [hopefully] becomes an unwelcome expense...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Then simplify the question...

Where I have been visiting is in real need of a second river crossing...
I suspect if you asked the locals whether a new bridge, at a cost of a day and a bit of EU membership, is better value than the EU they'd plump, in the main, for the bridge...

Ask a similar question, of taxpayers all over the UK, regarding projects for their local area and the EU suddenly [hopefully] becomes an unwelcome expense...

Might I suggest that this would simply be because they have little or no idea of the impact on them of not being in the EU - or indeed which projects across the UK that they have benefitted from that have come through EU funding.

 

[MegaSteve]

Might I suggest that this would simply be because they have little or no idea of the impact on them of not being in the EU - or indeed which projects across the UK that they have benefitted from that have come through EU funding.

Oh, they are perfectly aware what membership has done for them... Wiped out their fishing fleet and all the jobs associated with it... Now rely on seasonal work and what little of that is now disappearing to the incoming east Europeans...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Oh, they are perfectly aware what membership has done for them... Wiped out their fishing fleet and all the jobs associated with it... Now rely on seasonal work and what little of that is now disappearing to the incoming east Europeans...

There you go - what did being in the EU ever do for us that wouldn't have happened anyway?

 

[Foxholer]

Tosh! Other countries have done it!

If you use comments like that I don't want to discuss it with you further.

:rofl:

Any excuse!

Oh, they are perfectly aware what membership has done for them... Wiped out their fishing fleet and all the jobs associated with it... Now rely on seasonal work and what little of that is now disappearing to the incoming east Europeans...

That could also be described as tosh! It's highly likely/almost certain that those fishing areas would have been wiped out even earlier if UK wasn't in the EU!

Your second point is valid though - and refered to in this article http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/immigration-policy-ukip-restrictions-european-union

 

[MegaSteve]

:rofl:

Any excuse!



That could also be described as tosh! It's highly likely/almost certain that those fishing areas would have been wiped out even earlier if UK wasn't in the EU!

Your second point is valid though - and refered to in this article http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/immigration-policy-ukip-restrictions-european-union

Tosh ... Is this your new word?

The continental boats [allowed under EU quota rules] still find plenty of fish off our shores... And, most likely contributed more, in the first instance, to the diminishing stocks in our seas...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Tosh ... Is this your new word?

The continental boats [allowed under EU quota rules] still find plenty of fish off our shores... And, most likely contributed more, in the first instance, to the diminishing stocks in our seas...

I could certainly imagine that advances in fishing technology and techniques being a significant factor in the depletion of fishing stocks.

 

[Foxholer]

Tosh ... Is this your new word?

The continental boats [allowed under EU quota rules] still find plenty of fish off our shores... And, most likely contributed more, in the first instance, to the diminishing stocks in our seas...

Seems to be most appropriate for many of the posts regarding EU!

Can you explain how it was UK's presence in the EU - and how it would have been different if they weren't in the EU! - that meant the quotas were too high? And while in the explanation mode...How are overall quotas and size of the boat/boats related - except in the number/time required to fill them?

So little/nothing to do with the fact that UK was in the EU at all!

 

[Ethan]

Then simplify the question...

Where I have been visiting is in real need of a second river crossing...
I suspect if you asked the locals whether a new bridge, at a cost of a day and a bit of EU membership, is better value than the EU they'd plump, in the main, for the bridge...

Ask a similar question, of taxpayers all over the UK, regarding projects for their local area and the EU suddenly [hopefully] becomes an unwelcome expense...

That is the sort of simplistic nonsense that will no doubt be common in this debate. If the money used for [one thing] had been used to [something else] then it would have saved [someone's] live or prevented [some accident or other]. That may be the way the Govt presents stuff to the public, but it isn't the way budgeting occurs at a Governmental level.

The world is a more complicated place than that, and the value of the UK expenditure to the EU occurs in all sorts of places including many that the average citizen has never even heard about or understands anything about. Nor do they know where else expenditure occurs and what sort of value it represents, or what it would cost to perform the same functions locally. As such, they are in no position to really understand the value and it just becomes political rhetoric.

 

[SocketRocket]

:rofl:

Any excuse!

OK, lets put it another way. If I was having the same debate with you face to face; would you reply that my comment (which was polite and genuine ) was "Tosh"? Or is that (as I suspect) something reserved while in 'faceless keyboard mode'.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That is the sort of simplistic nonsense that will no doubt be common in this debate. If the money used for [one thing] had been used to [something else] then it would have saved [someone's] live or prevented [some accident or other]. That may be the way the Govt presents stuff to the public, but it isn't the way budgeting occurs at a Governmental level.

The world is a more complicated place than that, and the value of the UK expenditure to the EU occurs in all sorts of places including many that the average citizen has never even heard about or understands anything about. Nor do they know where else expenditure occurs and what sort of value it represents, or what it would cost to perform the same functions locally. As such, they are in no position to really understand the value and it just becomes political rhetoric.

Problem @Ethen with this line of argument is that you will be accused of a sneering - what do the public know, they can't be trusted with this - sort of attitude. As much as I would totally agree with you.

 

[Foxholer]

Problem @Ethen with this line of argument is that you will be accused of a sneering - what do the public know, they can't be trusted with this - sort of attitude. As much as I would totally agree with you.

Indeed, I'm inclined to this view too!

The problem the 'makes sense to stay in' have is getting those benefits across to the general public! And there are probably a few similarly barely quantifiable benefits on the other side (getting out) too! It's a situation with, to me at least, surprising parallels with another recent referendum - emotionally driven; loads of non-quantifiable arguments for/against and some absolute tosh being spouted - by both sides!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Indeed, I'm inclined to this view too!

The problem the 'makes sense to stay in' have is getting those benefits across to the general public! And there are probably a few similarly barely quantifiable benefits on the other side (getting out) too! It's a situation with, to me at least, surprising parallels with another recent referendum - emotionally driven; loads of non-quantifiable arguments for/against and some absolute tosh being spouted - by both sides!

...and like was said also in the GE - a load of Scots had decided to vote for a particular party - and no matter what arguments were made for other parties or that spelled out irrationalities and inconsistencies in the policies of that party - 50% of the Scots electorate ignored all of that and the party got 95% of the seats, As canvassers for other parties said - the electorate had made up their minds in advance and just weren't listening to anything we said.