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

[leicsmac]

I cannot believe you are comparing the doom and gloom predictions centred around fear from the in team, to the apprehensions displayed by the Brexit team about Sovereignty issues

 

Really? Both sides are overstating the sky falling if the other side gets their way, IMO (Sun and Daily Mail headlines for Brexit, Mirror headlines for Bremain today being exhibit A). That's part and parcel of such a campaign, I guess.

 

The whole thing has been a dog-and-pony show driven by emotion rather than rationality, and I'm not sure why, given the deep politicking involved on both sides and how much they both have invested, anyone thought it would be different.

[The Guvnor]

Really? Both sides are overstating the sky falling if the other side gets their way, IMO (Sun and Daily Mail headlines for Brexit, Mirror headlines for Bremain today being exhibit A). That's part and parcel of such a campaign, I guess.

 

The whole thing has been a dog-and-pony show driven by emotion rather than rationality, and I'm not sure why, given the deep politicking involved on both sides and how much they both have invested, anyone thought it would be different.

 

I don't take too much notice of the rags, their owners really have their own agenda's, what I find reprehensible is the fact the gov't exploited a loophole to circulate a glossy booklet before the campaign officially started, which incidentally was £2miilion over allowed campaign budget anyway, and was supposed to 'educate and inform' us.

 

please

[Webbo]

Evan Davies was saying on newsnight last night that most neutral forecasts say there will be some negative effect on the economy but not disastrously so, which seems very likely to me. Personally I'd accept being a little poorer for the right to make our own laws. 

[Dodgy Bob]

Personally I'd accept being a little poorer for the right to make our own laws.

I can see the appeal of localised power, but personally, before voting myself poor, I'd want to have a very strong grasp on the following questions:

1) which EU laws have I been affected by in the last year

2) what proportion of those laws do I agree/disagree with

3) specifically why do I not agree with the laws

4) are the EU planning to improve the parts I don't agree with

5) what affect would leaving the EU have on the law: would it remain in place, would it be cancelled entirely, would it be replaced by something better, or would it be replaced by something worse

Until I could answer those questions thoroughly, I'd have a hard time accepting a pay cut on what must otherwise be gut instinct, likely heavily influenced by the media.

[Webbo]

I can see the appeal of localised power, but personally, before voting myself poor, I'd want to have a very strong grasp on the following questions:

1) which EU laws have I been affected by in the last year

2) what proportion of those laws do I agree/disagree with

3) specifically why do I not agree with the laws

4) are the EU planning to improve the parts I don't agree with

5) what affect would leaving the EU have on the law: would it remain in place, would it be cancelled entirely, would it be replaced by something better, or would it be replaced by something worse

Until I could answer those questions thoroughly, I'd have a hard time accepting a pay cut on what must otherwise be gut instinct, likely heavily influenced by the media.

It doesn't matter whether you approve of those laws or not, the fact that they can impose them on you without you being able to vote against them means you're not living in a democracy and eventually there will be laws imposed upon you that you don't approve of.

[Dodgy Bob]

It doesn't matter whether you approve of those laws or not, the fact that they can impose them on you without you being able to vote against them means you're not living in a democracy and eventually there will be laws imposed upon you that you don't approve of.

You could say the same for the House of Lords. They can impose laws upon you that you don't approve of, and you can't vote against most of them either.

[Webbo]

You could say the same for the House of Lords. They can impose laws upon you that you don't approve of, and you can't vote against most of them either.

The House of Lords are an amending chamber. They don't impose laws.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

It doesn't matter whether you approve of those laws or not, the fact that they can impose them on you without you being able to vote against them means you're not living in a democracy and eventually there will be laws imposed upon you that you don't approve of.

So by the same basis, are you suggesting Germany, France, Italy etc, etc, etc are not a democracy?

[Webbo]

So by the same basis, are you suggesting Germany, France, Italy etc, etc, etc are not a democracy?

If they have laws imposed upon them by politicians they haven't voted in and can't vote out then yes.

[theessexfox]

The House of Lords are an amending chamber. They don't impose laws.

His wording wasn't great, but do we live in a democracy where the unelected chamber has powers to block laws passed by an elected chamber? Is that not them imposing their power against the electorate? In theory anyway, like the theory of the EU being able to impose unwanted laws on the British electorate. 

[Webbo]

His wording wasn't great, but do we live in a democracy where the unelected chamber has powers to block laws passed by an elected chamber? Is that not them imposing their power against the electorate? In theory anyway, like the theory of the EU being able to impose unwanted laws on the British electorate. 

Our elected chamber can't block unwanted laws imposed on us.

 

Any way I couldn't argue against making the HOLs elected.

[SMX11]

If the lords was free of party politcs it would be better. Rather have genuine independants that old lib dem mp's

[Dodgy Bob]

Unless you can readily name a few examples of imposed, unwanted EU laws then it's all quite theoretical. Yes, in theory, we could have all sorts of things we don't want imposed on us. But will we? Have we? Probably not.

If it does start happening and it's noticeable, people would demand a referendum and we'd probably be out pretty quickly, or we'd only ever have to wait until the next election to vote in a party who promised to take us out, which is exactly the same amount of power we have to remove our own government.

I wouldn't vote myself poor over such an obscure, academic point.

[Webbo]

Unless you can readily name a few examples of imposed, unwanted EU laws then it's all quite theoretical. Yes, in theory, we could have all sorts of things we don't want imposed on us. But will we? Have we? Probably not.

If it does start happening and it's noticeable, people would demand a referendum and we'd probably be out pretty quickly, or we'd only ever have to wait until the next election to vote in a party who promised to take us out, which is exactly the same amount of power we have to remove our own government.

I wouldn't vote myself poor over such an obscure, academic point.

The working time directive, the free movement of people and the access to benefits ,the NHS,housing, schools etc to people who've never paid in, votes for prisoners, foreign access to our fishing grounds to name but a few but let me guess you're in favour of all that.

You can vote for what you like mate, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Webbo - the working time directive has an opt out in this country, so need not apply

[Webbo]

Webbo - the working time directive has an opt out in this country, so need not apply

It did have until the EU made it a health and safety issue.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

It did have until the EU made it a health and safety issue.

If an employee wishes to work more than 48 hours in a week, they can sign a disclaimer for their employer and they have the right to work longer.

There is an argument around the productiveness of individuals that work longer hours, but that law is not enforced on individuals that wish to work longer.

https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/overview

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=205

Common Fisheries Policy...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy

[Guest MattP]

Really? Both sides are overstating the sky falling if the other side gets their way, IMO (Sun and Daily Mail headlines for Brexit, Mirror headlines for Bremain today being exhibit A). That's part and parcel of such a campaign, I guess.

 

The whole thing has been a dog-and-pony show driven by emotion rather than rationality, and I'm not sure why, given the deep politicking involved on both sides and how much they both have invested, anyone thought it would be different.

 

The great thing about this though is that it was the Remain side saying all the Brexit had was fear, now we've actually got to the crunch I'd argue the Remain side have been worse at the scare stories than the Brexit lot, the financial predictions being put forard by the chancellor yesterday were so ridiculous I don't know whre to start, this guy struggles to predict our own growth or GDP two years in advance them all of a sudden he can pull out what it will be in 2030 because we have to vote to stay in the EU?? There can't seriously be anyone out there falling for this nonsense.

 

The remain side thought the "facts" would see them through, as it happens the "facts" when it comes to the Eurozone, migration crisis, rights of jurisdiction are actually starting to favour the leap in the dark, people are realising that there is huge risk in voting either way in this referendum and it might just be best in that case to vote for the side that at least leaves these decisions in our own hands rather than other peoples.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

It would be a fallacy if you think leaving the EU means we are free of the migration crisis or problems within the Eurozone - they will still be factors to our own country whether we're in the EU or not.

The question is whether we'd rather be an active participant in finding a solution? It's certainly in our interests to be able to push our preferred agenda is it not?

[Guest MattP]

It would be a fallacy if you think leaving the EU means we are free of the migration crisis or problems within the Eurozone - they will still be factors to our own country whether we're in the EU or not.

The question is whether we'd rather be an active participant in finding a solution? It's certainly in our interests to be able to push our preferred agenda is it not?

 

They'll be factors, but hopefully a leave vote will see us look further afield for business, we'll be returning to our empty seat at the table and starting to draw up independent trade deals with the rest of the World, Europe is the only continent on the planet barely achieving any growth now anyway, it couldn't be a better time to get out.

 

As for the migration crisis, absolutely not, we will have nothing to do with it, we are out of Schengen anyway and we'll hopefully be immediately going back to be being a country in total control of it's borders and if Angela Merkel and the European Union wants to invite millions of migrants to the continent it is nothing to do with us.

 

I've long given up on thinking we have any serious influence in the European Union, let alone actually being able to push any preferred agenda.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

They'll be factors, but hopefully a leave vote will see us look further afield for business, we'll be returning to our empty seat at the table and starting to draw up independent trade deals with the rest of the World, Europe is the only continent on the planet barely achieving any growth now anyway, it couldn't be a better time to get out.

 

As for the migration crisis, absolutely not, we will have nothing to do with it, we are out of Schengen anyway and we'll hopefully be immediately going back to be being a country in total control of it's borders and if Angela Merkel and the European Union wants to invite millions of migrants to the continent it is nothing to do with us.

 

I've long given up on thinking we have any serious influence in the European Union, let alone actually being able to push any preferred agenda.

We can trade further into the world if we wish... but that doesn't escape the fact that it's a lot easier and generally more profitable to trade with countries near you, especially if you're starting from scratch.

And as long as we maintain a humanitarian interest in the world and protecting our country, we will have a continued interest in the migration crisis... Plus even in the event of an exit, what happens after won't be certain until a long time following the result, so given its an immediate issue we won't be able to simply wipe our hands.

The other thing you need to consider is that we don't even know whether the issue of Free Movement of People is an absolute red line issue for Brexit representatives when negotiating a revised trade deal with the EU? If a free trade deal was offered, but Free Movement was a requirement, would Brexit member push for a rejection of this in favour of tariffed trade?

This is where the Brexit camp are struggling in my mind, because they're not selling enough of a vision to enable enough people to believe it - there's too many holes. No voter in the uncertain bracket would believe we could leave and get everything we want out of a rengotiation of trade terms - that's too good to be true.

People like a rounded vision, a story of the journey the country would take and where people fit in with it. Although being a reasonably fraudulent argument, the Soverignity theme is a good starting point, but they're not making enough of it with other factors.

True the Bremain camp aren't doing much better - it feels like they're scared to talk up the EU too much (understandable given how no one here really understands it), but they do have a building story.

[Guest MattP]

We can trade further into the world if we wish... but that doesn't escape the fact that it's a lot easier and generally more profitable to trade with countries near you, especially if you're starting from scratch.

And as long as we maintain a humanitarian interest in the world and protecting our country, we will have a continued interest in the migration crisis... Plus even in the event of an exit, what happens after won't be certain until a long time following the result, so given its an immediate issue we won't be able to simply wipe our hands.

The other thing you need to consider is that we don't even know whether the issue of Free Movement of People is an absolute red line issue for Brexit representatives when negotiating a revised trade deal with the EU? If a free trade deal was offered, but Free Movement was a requirement, would Brexit member push for a rejection of this in favour of tariffed trade?

This is where the Brexit camp are struggling in my mind, because they're not selling enough of a vision to enable enough people to believe it - there's too many holes. No voter in the uncertain bracket would believe we could leave and get everything we want out of a rengotiation of trade terms - that's too good to be true.

People like a rounded vision, a story of the journey the country would take and where people fit in with it. Although being a reasonably fraudulent argument, the Soverignity theme is a good starting point, but they're not making enough of it with other factors.

True the Bremain camp aren't doing much better - it feels like they're scared to talk up the EU too much (understandable given how no one here really understands it), but they do have a building story.

 

We would of course want to enter into talks and offer help with the migration crisis (Canada has done so and their membership of the EU is certainly not on the table yet as far as I am aware) but that doesn't extend to the point of being in a freedom of movement pact with countries who are inviting millions of them to settle, I doubt most British people want to be a part of the European Union so they can share in Gernmany's guilt from the past.

 

Yes if free movement was imposed (in fact is ANYTHING was "imposed") I'd like to see a rejection,as I've said before there is no financial penalty I wouldn't incur for our own sovreignty.

 

I certainly agree about the Brexiteers regarding painting a picture but the simple fact is you can't do a lot of that, no one really knows what the future holds when we leave (as they don't where we stay in either) no one denies it is a big risk to leave but certainly one worth taking in my opinion, the EU is not exactly going to tell us we are going to have free trade regardless before a referendum are they? My own opinion is it won't be a problem as the continent is in no position to start punishing others with tariffs when it doesn't have to and trades more to us than we do to them, of course they could do this purely out of spite but if that were the case they why on earth would anyone choose to remain if they were that childish when it came to politics?

 

I'm actually looking forward to seeing some pressure on the European Union from us post Brexit, it's alright talking about Norway non stop but let's actually see how this organisation behaves when it is discussing deals with a country who it needs to do business with and one who is a G7 member and fifth largest economy in the World.

 

The Bremain camp aren't even talking it up let alone too much, every speech I hear seems to be telling us how shit it is, how much reform it needs but then almost an apology about why we should stay in it because coming out could be much worse.

 

If this referendum was about us joining the EU from the outside I think we'd actually have Norway style polling where up to 70% wouldn't want anything to do with the project, that's more than enough for me to tell me where my vote goes.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Your last point is true... because if you're already on the outside you have a confirmed, secure, position, but whilst you're in and have everything setup to that effect, you have to respect the opposite position and realise it'd be a massive overhaul to come out - the impact on business and individuals in terms of understanding where they stand under employment and trade law and the like will be huge (that factor could provide a small economy gain in the service sector I imagine).

But we should be under no doubt, if we do vote to leave and our economy takes an initial hit (which will in all likiness would happen) we will not be in the strong position to negotiate that many think we will be. The balance of trade between UK and EU may be in our favour, but in terms of individual nations the output to us is a lot smaller, so there will be some countries still in the EU that may well block any deal that seems favourable to us.

The EU could also find itself in a protectionist position - if one country leaves, the last thing it would want to do as a project is to make leaving look more attractive than staying in - so another potential difficulty for our negotiating position. And that's not childish at all - that's about protecting your members interests.

What we could find is that in the event of a leave vote, it pushes a reform agenda from within the EU to a position we would have viewed as more attractive - I'm certainly sensing that those at the top of the EU feel it needs to change course due to the rising popularity of anti EU Sentiment across the continent, but we shall see on that.

But the clear obstacle that must be burning in your mind in terms of Brexit - you don't really know what your voting for. They almost need a manifesto, highlighting what their priorities and policies are, what their red line positions would be in terms of negotiations, an approximate time line, that way people can be clear on what voting Brexit actually means.

They may even benefit from being frank and acknowledging some of the difficulties, otherwise "project bluesky" won't hold weight against "project fear", especially when to many the British economy and their jobs still feel quite insecure.

[The Railway Man]

Might be too late to save themselves, but at least we are getting sort sort of apology from these guys who have tried to take control of our lives now, it's a shame it took something like this to get it out of them.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1681922/eu-has-meddled-too-much-admits-boss-juncker

 

The European Union meddles too much in people's lives, according to its most senior official.

 

In a significant admission, Jean-Claude Juncker said a lot of the laws made in Brussels should have been left to national governments.

As a result the EU has lost popularity with ordinary people because they feel it over-regulates, the European Commission President said.

Asked about the rise of euroscepticism by a Tory MP, Mr Juncker said: "We are not blind. We are listening to those who are expressing their views.

"You are right in saying the European project has lost parts of its attractiveness."

He told backbencher Nigel Evans, who asked whether he recognised there was a problem, that the EU had been "wrong in over-regulating and interfering too much in the daily lives of our fellow citizens". 

Mr Juncker's candid comments came during a session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.

The EU boss said: "I think that one of the reasons that European citizens are stepping away from the European project is that we are interfering in too many domains of their private lives. And too many domains where the member states are better placed to take action and pass legislation …"

He insisted the Commission was trying to "do less" and that 80 pieces of European legislation had been scrapped on his watch.

 

 

Although problem is if we vote to remain will they then just revert back to doing what they always have???????????? Are we getting this now as they are trying to get to stay?

[simFox]

Unless you can readily name a few examples of imposed, unwanted EU laws then it's all quite theoretical. Yes, in theory, we could have all sorts of things we don't want imposed on us. But will we? Have we? Probably not.

If it does start happening and it's noticeable, people would demand a referendum and we'd probably be out pretty quickly, or we'd only ever have to wait until the next election to vote in a party who promised to take us out, which is exactly the same amount of power we have to remove our own government.

I wouldn't vote myself poor over such an obscure, academic point.

What about the common fishing policies and the death of our fishing industry?