The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Webbo]

What a load of Bollox. It's nothing to do with the war or the empire, it's to do with the fact we can't make our own laws, make our own decisions. We can't elect our own leaders and we can't vote them out either.

If implied racism is the best pro EU lobby can come up with they deserve to lose.

[leicsmac]

What a load of Bollox. It's nothing to do with the war or the empire, it's to do with the fact we can't make our own laws, make our own decisions. We can't elect our own leaders and we can't vote them out either.

If implied racism is the best pro EU lobby can come up with they deserve to lose.

So you're saying that none of the arguments used by the OUT lobby use our history of standing alone (and often leading alone) as part of them?

Of course that's not the whole story, but you can't say it's not at least a part of the motivation. The arguments regarding closer political cooperation are inextricably linked to sovereignty issues and that's a huge thing on both sides, which you can't leave history out of.

For what it's worth I'm leery of further integration with the EU from a practical perspective because I think there's so many disparate groups all with their own interests that it simply can't get anything done, but I definitely see the need for the UK to actually pick a side to integrate with rather than continuing to think we can keep up with the economic and military powerhouses by ourselves.

[Foxxed]

What a load of Bollox. It's nothing to do with the war or the empire, it's to do with the fact we can't make our own laws, make our own decisions.

Wait, what? We can't make our own laws? We can, we do.

What we can't do, however, is agree to something on an EU level and then disregard that on the national level.

So, perhaps, you're saying, yes but we didn't agree to these EU laws?

Do you remember the treaty negotiations on broad legislation areas we have every five or ten years? Treaty negotiations we have a red card veto on?

Once we've agreed on those, the European Commission, which is jointly chosen by the European Parliament and European Council and has been sacked by such, then goes about making those laws agreed upon.

Once it's done that, the European Council and Parliament, both of which we have a large number of people in due to our population size, then votes either yes or not on that.

Then, that is European legislation put into our legislation books. And if we refuse to, or pass other legislation that goes against it, then we will be punished by the EU, and have been in the past.

[Foxxed]

Basically, we can't pass laws that go against laws we agreed to on a EU level, agreed via a red card veto in treaty negotiations by the UK PM, and agreed to by largly majority voting in both the EU parliament, via UK MEPs, and EU Council, via UK representatives.

And my argument is that the British can't see why this is needed. They can't see the need when playing a counter-weight, in the form of a trade block, to China and the US. So why not? Why not when the rest of Europe by in large can?

Maybe it's not longing for the time when we were a great power in the world, and refusing to accept by not cooperating with other mid-sized powers in the EU. But if it's not that it's, in my opinion, ignorance the global political power situation.

[Webbo]

Wait, what? We can't make our own laws? We can, we do.

What we can't do, however, is agree to something on an EU level and then disregard that on the national level.

So, perhaps, you're saying, yes but we didn't agree to these EU laws?

Do you remember the treaty negotiations on broad legislation areas we have every five or ten years? Treaty negotiations we have a red card veto on?

Once we've agreed on those, the European Commission, which is jointly chosen by the European Parliament and European Council and has been sacked by such, then goes about making those laws agreed upon.

Once it's done that, the European Council and Parliament, both of which we have a large number of people in due to our population size, then votes either yes or not on that.

Then, that is European legislation put into our legislation books. And if we refuse to, or pass other legislation that goes against it, then we will be punished by the EU, and have been in the past.

Are we privy to those negotiations? Does any party publish their demands in their manifestos? How often do politicians tell us they'd like to do something but they're not allowed to because of Europe? There are people in charge of our lives that we didn't vote in and can't vote out, it stinks. I could however forgive that if it actually made us any better off but Europe is going backwards economically and I don't particularly want to be tied to a sinking ship.

[davieG]

I'm  happy to have the original common market concept that we voted to stay with but any enforced political union isn't  working, we can't  even agree on a unified political UK so what chance is there for a European one.

[Alf Bentley]

3 genuine questions for anyone who thinks we should vote to stay in the EU:

 

1) Why should I NOT be concerned that the EU forced hardline (and counter-productive) austerity policies on Greece, when its government had been democratically elected to end austerity and seemed open to reasonable compromise?

2) Why should I NOT be concerned about the impact of the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (US-EU free trade deal) on our democratic right to choose our own social/health policies - in particular, to keep a public NHS?

3) Why should I believe that, if we stay in the EU, governments will be better able to pursue policies of social protection, wealth redistribution and public investment, as a counter-balance to the downsides (and benefits) of global free trade?

 

All the debate around the EU referendum seems to address the perspective of Eurosceptic Tories and UKIPpers. It's reasonable for that to be high on the agenda as a lot of people support the "unregulated free markets and national democracy" line.

But I have different concerns - and there are a fair few lefties who have doubts about the EU now. Those doubts don't seem to be addressed by the "In" campaign.

 

I'm not a nationalist and am quite happy for the UK to pool sovereignty with other EU nations and agree common regulations, within reason. I also support the "subsidiarity principle" advocated by the EU, whereby decisions are taken at the lowest possible level - at local/city/county/institutional level where possible, at regional level where not, at national level where appropriate and at EU level where necessary.

 

It is perfectly possible to pool sovereignty where necessary or useful, but to protect national and local democratic control of issues that can be handled locally or nationally. But, as an instinctive "In" voter, I'm not sure that's what the EU is doing anymore. It seems to believe that global free trade will inevitably boost economic efficiency and growth (probably true in the short-term, not so sure about the long-term) and that EU social and regional policies will ensure that everyone benefits from this. I'm definitely not sure about that last bit, having seen what has happened to the Greek economy and Greek democracy with the EU's insistence on austerity policies rejected by the electorate.

 

How well protected will social provision like the NHS be if we stay in the EU and sign up to the Transatlantic free-trade treaty (TTIP)?

Here's Wiki on the TTIP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

Here's an apparently reputable assessment of the impact of the TTIP on the NHS: https://fullfact.org/europe/does-ttip-mean-privatisation-nhs/

 

From that, it sounds as if we might not know about the impact of the TTIP on the NHS and other public services until after it is implemented. Most public services would probably have to be opened up to competition from private US corporations. US corporations might be able to sue the British government in special courts for compensation if denied the right to compete to take over British public services, but they might not be able to prevent a govt keeping services like the NHS public.

That all needs a lot more clarification as to what we'd be signing up to. At least, it sounds as if all national parliaments would have to vote to approve or reject the TTIP. If so, it might never be ratified and the EU referendum and TTIP might be 2 completely separate issues. But TTIP seems to typify what the EU has become: an institution that helps global corporations to take over the world in the expectation that "trickle-down" effects will benefit everyone.

[Webbo]

3 genuine questions for anyone who thinks we should vote to stay in the EU:

 

1) Why should I NOT be concerned that the EU forced hardline (and counter-productive) austerity policies on Greece, when its government had been democratically elected to end austerity and seemed open to reasonable compromise?

I shall more than likely be voting to leave but I had to comment on this.

 

Greece voted to go back to how it was before, living beyond their means and expecting the rest of Europe to pick up the bill. The rest of Europe said they could vote for what they like but we're not paying for it. As I remember the Greeks certainly weren't giving the impression of compromising, making all sorts of threats if they didn't get their way.

 

The Greeks have a lot of their debt forgiven and the rest has been put on  more favourable terms than their economic position deserves.

[Alf Bentley]

I shall more than likely be voting to leave but I had to comment on this.

 

Greece voted to go back to how it was before, living beyond their means and expecting the rest of Europe to pick up the bill. The rest of Europe said they could vote for what they like but we're not paying for it. As I remember the Greeks certainly weren't giving the impression of compromising, making all sorts of threats if they didn't get their way.

 

The Greeks have a lot of their debt forgiven and the rest has been put on  more favourable terms than their economic position deserves.

 

 

I've made a vow not to waste time debating with people about stuff we'll never agree on.....so I politely decline your invitation to a lengthy debate about the alleged failings of the left-wing govt of Greece.  

 

I'm more interested in hearing left-wing arguments for voting "In" or "Out". I suspect you might not be the best person to ask. 

 

I'm genuinely 50-50 at the moment, but frustrated at the narrowness of the debate: nationalist appeals to stand up to Brussels bureaucrats, on the one hand; scare stories about lost jobs and lost rights on the other

[Webbo]

I started off as 50-50 until I'd seen what the Govt had negotiated but I can't see anyway I can vote to stay in. Cameron has asked for virtually nothing and the EU are hinting we might get half of that.  Then we've got to take their word that they're actually going do what they say after we've already voted. The whole thing is a massive carve up.

[Strokes]

I shall more than likely be voting to leave but I had to comment on this.

 

Greece voted to go back to how it was before, living beyond their means and expecting the rest of Europe to pick up the bill. The rest of Europe said they could vote for what they like but we're not paying for it. As I remember the Greeks certainly weren't giving the impression of compromising, making all sorts of threats if they didn't get their way.

 

The Greeks have a lot of their debt forgiven and the rest has been put on  more favourable terms than their economic position deserves.

This is why the euro was always doomed to fail! You can't have different governments, with different ideals all working under the same currency, it's beyond stupid.

[Webbo]

This is why the euro was always doomed to fail! You can't have different governments, with different ideals all working under the same currency, it's beyond stupid.

The stupidest thing is everyone knew that at the time but went along with it anyway.

[Alf Bentley]

This is why the euro was always doomed to fail! You can't have different governments, with different ideals all working under the same currency, it's beyond stupid.

 

 

Largely agree. If you're going to have a single currency, surely you need a single (or at least dominant) fiscal policy on tax-and-spending? As I recall, the Euro countries had/have to stay within limits for debt and deficit, but not taxation or spending.

 

Not sure how that works in the USA, though. They have different taxes and spending policies in different states. Presumably the policy at national/federal level is sufficiently dominant to keep things on track?

 

I'm not sure if the previous Greek governments were working under any ideals, just corruptly under-declaring their deficits to avoid tough fiscal decisions......mainly a conservative government, of course, not Syriza. Same old Tories, always leaving an economic mess for the far left to clear up! 

 

 

The stupidest thing is everyone knew that at the time but went along with it anyway.

 

 

They didn't, though, did they? That wise man Gordon Brown twisted Blair's arm to make sure we stayed out of the Euro.....and that was before he saved the world from the global financial crisis.

 

....and I said I'd vowed not to get involved in these sort of debates?! 

[Webbo]

 

 

 

 

They didn't, though, did they? That wise man Gordon Brown twisted Blair's arm to make sure we stayed out of the Euro.....and that was before he saved the world from the global financial crisis.

 

....and I said I'd vowed not to get involved in these sort of debates?! 

I think we have Rupert Murdoch to thank for that.

[Guest MattP]

This is spot on, and the biggest problem most people have with the idea of the EU, based on ideology. Lots of people from the UK are still hugely hung up on the rose-tinted days of Empire and think that we're still a mover and shaker on the world scene to match the US or China. Well, we're still a pretty big player, but that simply isn't the case any more - economically or militarily.

 

Sorry mate but this really couldn't be further from the truth.

 

I've attended a couple of meetings and no one has mentioned anything to do with like things the empire, it's a total fantasy of the "In" crowd that anyone supporting an exit is a little Englander harping back to the "good ol' days"

 

The debate is almost always centered around democracy, migration, accountability and sovereignty.

[davieG]

EU referendum viewpoints: How would exit affect English football?

By Brian WheelerPolitical reporter

• 29 January 2016

•  
• From the sectionEU Referendum

Image copyrightOtherImage captionEuropean imports have left a lasting impression on the Premier League

We know a bit about what politicians and business leaders think about the upcoming referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, but what about the world of football?

Would a British exit change the character of the Premier League, which relies so heavily on European players and managers? Or would it give a boost to home-grown talent? As the January transfer window reaches its climax, we asked football experts, the governing bodies and both sides in referendum debate for their views.

The footballing authorities

Image copyrightGetty ImagesImage captionPremier League chief Richard Scudamore backs EU membership

Football's governing bodies like to stay out of the political spotlight, and they refused to comment when asked if they were for or against the UK's EU membership.

But Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore gave an insight into his position last October, in a little reported speech to the Institute of Directors.

According to the International Business Times, he said: "I believe we, in the UK, must be in Europe from a business perspective. I believe in the free movement of goods, but when it comes to services, we must be entitled, especially in the audiovisual world, to territorialism."

By services he meant broadcasting rights, which the Premier League's entire £3.3bn a year business depends on. Scudamore argued that broadcasting rights should be protected by national governments, to protect the Premier League's exports of raw live feeds of games from piracy and copyright infringement.

The FA is concerned about the influx of foreign players into the top tier of the English game, which it believes is crowding out young home-grown talent.

Working with the Home Office, it has brought in tougher visa restrictions on players from outside the EU, to ensure only established stars can be snapped up by English clubs.

The FA declined to comment on whether it would like to see similar restrictions on players from within the EU, which could only come about if Britain left.

Rory Miller, former director of the MBA (Football Industries) programme at Liverpool University

Image copyrightOther

"The interests of the FA, which is concerned about the future of the England team, and the Premier League, which is concerned with maximising the value of national and international broadcasting rights for the clubs, are far from identical.

"If - after Britain left the EU - there was a strict migration quota strictly applied then one would assume that the Home Office would give preference to the thousands of workers needed to keep essential public services going. Footballers and other sports people would not be given priority, except, perhaps, for the absolute stars.

"The worst case scenario for the Premier League is that it would not be permitted to attract foreign stars in great numbers and would then lose ground in international sponsorship and broadcasting rights to rivals like Spain and Germany. This would make a minor hole in the UK's invisible exports and tax receipts as well.

"While Premier League teams might thus be forced to give more opportunities to home grown English players, it is doubtful whether the growing insularity of English football would actually benefit the England team because of diminished opportunities to play against the very best and to be coached by the very best.

"In the end, it will all depend on how British politics evolve after an exit from the EU. If right wing 'Little Englanders' came to power, insisting on the strictest migration quotas, then the international attraction of the Premier League would be significantly reduced."

Will Straw, Britain Stronger in Europe

Image copyrightPAImage captionThe EU promotes sport in schools across Europe, says Will Straw

"British football, its clubs and its fans, are stronger and better off in Europe.

"For clubs, free movement plays a vital role in the transfer marker. Players from the EU can sign for UK clubs without needing a visa or work permit.

"Leaving the EU could have a big impact on foreign players, as a Guardian studyhas found that around two thirds of Premiership players from the EU would not meet the criteria currently used for non-Europeans to get a work visa automatically.

"Losing this unhindered access to European talent would put British clubs at a disadvantage. FA boss Martin Glenn has said that deteriorating relations between the EU and Britain is one of his 'biggest concerns'.

"Fans benefit from Britain's membership of the EU. Europe's single market brings us cheaper flights, making it more affordable to see away games across Europe. Free movement, meanwhile, ensures that British fans don't face visa fees when travelling around Europe.

"But this is not just about the big leagues, it is also about the future of the sport. The EU promotes sport in schools across Europe. Under the Erasmus programme, anyone in Britain with a bright idea for a local football project can get money from the EU to get the ball rolling and make that idea a reality. Britain has received £1.5m in Erasmus sports funding over the past two years.

"Football in our country gains so much from being in Europe. Clubs and fans all benefit from European action, laws and funding. Leaving the EU would hurt our leagues, inconvenience our fans, and be a step back for the next generation of footballers."

Robert Oxley, Vote Leave

Image copyrightGetty ImagesImage captionWould leaving the EU strengthen the England team?

"In the dressing room of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, the team tactics are quite clear. Run 'project fear' and scare voters about the prospect of leaving the EU.

"Their latest claims, that football would somehow be damaged by a vote to leave are utter nonsense and should be shown the red card.

"Their claims ignore the fact that outside the EU, we would be free to set our own policy on migration, visas, and work permits to suit our economy and our national game and instead assume we would apply an incredibly restrictive visa regime that literally no-one is arguing for.

"Right now we are both prevented from implementing policies to nurture domestic talent and from bringing the top footballing talent from right across the globe. That's the worst of all worlds.

"The FA has acknowledged the recent restrictions that have been introduced on skilled immigration from non-EU countries are the direct consequence of the EU's freedom of movement rules.

"This has hurt clubs' abilities to bring in players from outside of the EU while preventing any limits from being imposed within the EU. That's not a decision of anyone we elect, that's thanks to the controversial 1995 Bosman ruling in the European Court of Justice. This trade-off has happened across the economy, but what if it didn't have to give up control on players from inside and outside of the EU?

"What if the UK and the FA got to decide who plays in the Premier league from abroad rather than unaccountable and unelected EU judges? That's what would happen if we vote leave. Don't believe the scaremongering to the contrary."

Brian Monteith, Leave.eu

Image copyrightGetty Images

"Leaving the EU will be of great benefit for British football for it will mean we can lift our horizons to recruit from the rest of the world because it will become easier to introduce footballers from countries outside the EU.

"All we hear is the scaremongering about leaving the EU when the truth is it offers positive opportunities for us and children from poorer nations. Who could be against that?

"The freedom of movement for people in the EU comes at the price of heavy restrictions on visas for potential signings from Africa, the Caribbean, South America and Asia. Once we leave the EU the UK will be free to treat footballers from all countries equally which will broaden the pool of talent for our teams, not reduce it.

"Why should our clubs find it difficult to gain a work permit for a highly talented Moroccan or Nigerian but a Belgian of only average talent is made an easy option. Surely it makes sense to treat everyone equally and let our clubs decide who they want to sign?"

[Strokes]

Football should not even come into consideration when choosing which way to vote.

[Rincewind]

Which way favours an OAP?

[Strokes]

Which way favours an OAP?

The pub?

[leicsmac]

Sorry mate but this really couldn't be further from the truth.

 

I've attended a couple of meetings and no one has mentioned anything to do with like things the empire, it's a total fantasy of the "In" crowd that anyone supporting an exit is a little Englander harping back to the "good ol' days"

 

The debate is almost always centered around democracy, migration, accountability and sovereignty.

 

 

It's nowhere near the whole argument, I know, but as I said earlier in the thread the sovereignty argument will always be linked to our autonomy as a nation, which will be in turn linked to our history and being able to 'stand alone' for the last however many hundred years, despite the world changing more rapidly now than it has ever done.

 

As I also said, for other reasons I'm not in favour of closer political union with the rest of the EU, simply because at a pragmatic level I think there are too many differing interests to make such a system work, and it will simply result in political death of a thousand bureaucratic cuts.

[Guest MattP]

There is clearly going to be ever closer union, that's the whole reason for the project.

I can't stand these people who keep trotting out the "I want to stay in the reformed EU" line, there isno such thing .

The choice is clear, it's either remain and carry on, or get out.

[Guest]

Football should not even come into consideration when choosing which way to vote.

 

Why not?

 

If it's important to you?

[Guest]

Watching Cameron's ridiculous performance this week - especially after the ludicrously weak propositions he made - makes me think he really wants to be out of Europe and is looking to sabotage the stay in vote from the inside.

 

Unless the man is a complete fool.

 

Who in England watching would be more likely to vote to stay in after everything he's done?

[Webbo]

Watching Cameron's ridiculous performance this week - especially after the ludicrously weak propositions he made - makes me think he really wants to be out of Europe and is looking to sabotage the stay in vote from the inside.

 

Unless the man is a complete fool.

 

Who in England watching would be more likely to vote to stay in after everything he's done?

In that case the EU's refusal to give him even that makes it look like they want us to leave.

[Guest]

In that case the EU's refusal to give him even that makes it look like they want us to leave.

 

It does if you're an EU out sympathiser.

 

If you're an EU in sympathiser then it looks like they have a set of rules agreed by everyone in the EU which they can't just change for individual countries.

 

To me he just seems hopeless and his poor attempt of appeasement was ill thought out and certianly didn't go far enough to change the "we want out" voters minds.