EU vote?

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by VVC-Geeza

If the OUT vote wins the day, how long after before it happens?

Anybody's guess. Possibly minimum two years? For the upper limit see post 359.

Originally Posted by suzublu

I heard, that if we vote to remain, Brussels are going to ask the Imperial War Museum to change its name to, .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................................... The Metric War Museum

Seriously? You think they'll include a reference to war? You little stirrer. They might burn the history books though and replace them with feel-good tomes starting in 1970.

Originally Posted by RobSun

I have read this thread with great interest and I am enjoying the debate.

I originally was an out, then became unsure, started to lean in but now I am firmly on the out side. I have been very dissapointed with the lack of facts so did my own digging, and have come to my conclusions.

I stated at first I was an absolute outer. This isn't from any new considerations but goes back to as early as 1981 and the reasons I would like to share.

I at that time worked for a Swiss/German engineering company but UK based. I had to go over to head office in Switzerland, and visit plants in Europe. During one of those trips I and a few colegues were sat in a board room in the black forest region of Germany with our UK directors and senior European directors. We were told that we were very fortunate to be working for a European company as this safegaurded our futures. One of my Geordie colegues asked for him to illuminate on that statement. We were all stund by the reply. We were told tha there was a European wide plan to end all manufacturing in the UK and produce everything on the mainland and export to us. Our jobs were therefore safe. The question was then asked, how was the UK expected to earn and survive. They said the UK would have banking, call centres, retail, and heritage tourism. Germany and France would be the power houses and manufacturers of Europe.

In 1990 I was working for a Birmingham based engineering group and was having a meeting with the MD of a Sheffield hand tool manufacturer. We got on well and after the meeting had more general discussion and our backgrounds. He had been a senior manager at British Steel and told me this. He had been instructed by our government during the 80s to take a big wig E U politition around all the Bitish Steel sites because they were basically slagging off our inefficient industries. He was told to show him everything and create a good impression to fight back. He collected him from Heathrow took him to Wales, Scotland, and eventually ended with Scunthorpe. After two weeks he took him back to Heathrow and on the way asked him what he really thought. The reply was that it was in far better shape than he expected was run efficiently and well managed. Anyway it matters not because in 10 years none of it will exist.

What are you saying he asked. The European plan is for all manufacturing to be done on the mainland withGreat Britain being a consumer.

Well they have nearly succeeded haven't they with the help of our own governments.

I voted in in the 70s since the 80s regretted it. I believe Great Britain would now be a stronger country if we hadn't joined and although we will have a hiccup at first we will be stronger again out. Even the experts predicting a resession say it will be miniscule compared to the bankers created ressesion of 2008.

Wow. Thanks for that, stunning. I suppose England would be required to import only from EU with massive tariffs on rest of the world goods. The London Stock Exchange is now part owned by German investors. Seems everybody is asleep at the wheel. Of their BMW.

[RobSun]

Whilst working for the Birmingham based group I came across several instances where biased trading was being carried out to try to enable the EU plans.

We manufactured everything from screws to car and aircraft components. We could say that most families in the UK would some where in there homes or cars something made, imported, or made on machinery we had made by us.

A lot of companies we made components for were European owned. They would inevitably have parts supplied by their parent companies and in over 90% of the times we tendered for those parts we lost even though our prices were lower. This on some occasions became heated between them because they could not get the best prices. We always tendered for the components at the parent sites also and we knew on many occasions because of information gained from the UK sites that we were competitive, but rarely got the business. In some cases after pushing the issue of unfair practices we were allowed to supply the UK sites only.

I could only conclude that the mainly French and German companies were practising ''non EU'' rules on fair competition and protectionism against us and in line with the plans highlighted in my previous post.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by bobthebuilder

Your first point is just too simplistic. Referenda are not held in politically and economically stable environments, circumstances change, so that the result will change. For example a UK Leave vote might have a substantial impact on a further Scottish referendum. And people are typically influenced in elections by last minute events.



I don't buy your implication that one or more of the referenda has been unfair. Please can you give an example?

On the first point, I totally agree with what you have said, circumstances do change, and that is exactly why the SNP don't rule out the possibility of a second referendum.
I'm surprised you need me to quote an example of unfair practice, because didn't I actually give one?? (Promising new powers AFTER the process had began, and I could add stating that Scotland could not use the pound) I could probably write a book, but let's just say:

1: promising changes after the event, even though he (the PM) had just left the negotiating table with nothing.
2: and perhaps most important, using public funds to support one side of the campaign, these funds being in addition to the maximum funding allowed by the electoral commission.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by bobthebuilder

For once DD, I agree with you, and a snapshot is a very good description of the process.



And like you, I hope whoever loses doesn't bleat on about being robbed or wanting another referendum.

And the way to ensure that, is to conduct a fair and open process.
And considering the electoral commission felt that the way to achieve this was to appoint lead campaigns for each side of the argument, and to impose limits on the expenditure of each, why does the government think it's fair to use the bublic purse to support one side, and not the other?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[topman]

Originally Posted by Polly

And considering the electoral commission felt that the way to achieve this was to appoint lead campaigns for each side of the argument, and to impose limits on the expenditure of each, why does the government think it's fair to use the public purse to support one side, and not the other?

The limits were for the campaign groups, the government and political parties aren't in any campaign group.

[HarryM1BYT]

Originally Posted by Polly

why does the government think it's fair to use the bublic purse to support one side, and not the other?

I suspect that might have had the opposite effect to the one they really intended. It was enough to finalise my mind up on which way I would vote.

[SideValve]

I guess because the official line of all parties except Farage's rabble is that we're better off in. All this tosh about immigration is just trying to appeal to people's base instincts. For years this government have done next to nothing to reduce immigration from outside the EU because we need the skills and the taxes. Gove might promise he'll get immigration down to tens of thousands but that will only work if they invest in the skills here - the direct opposite of this government's actions. Personally I believe the reason EU has kept its manufacturing base is simply because they've invested in it. I worked briefly in Munich and they held engineering in very high esteem. I've also worked in UK schools and never met a pupil that wanted to be an engineer.
If we stay in and actually fight to make Europe work I reckon things could improve. If we leave and muppets like Boris and Farage, who have sound-bites instead of policies, get their way I reckon we'll be facing the longest recession in our history.
On the other hand that will stop immigration.

[HarryM1BYT]

Last night I printed a put a home made 'VOTE OUT' poster in a window. I'm not seeing many such posters, but all those I have seen, are for OUT. Maybe that means that political feelings amongst the OUT's is stronger than the IN's?

Originally Posted by SideValve

I guess because the official line of all parties except Farage's rabble is that we're better off in. All this tosh about immigration is just trying to appeal to people's base instincts. For years this government have done next to nothing to reduce immigration from outside the EU because we need the skills and the taxes. Gove might promise he'll get immigration down to tens of thousands but that will only work if they invest in the skills here - the direct opposite of this government's actions. Personally I believe the reason EU has kept its manufacturing base is simply because they've invested in it. I worked briefly in Munich and they held engineering in very high esteem. I've also worked in UK schools and never met a pupil that wanted to be an engineer.
If we stay in and actually fight to make Europe work I reckon things could improve. If we leave and muppets like Boris and Farage, who have sound-bites instead of policies, get their way I reckon we'll be facing the longest recession in our history.
On the other hand that will stop immigration.

I do agree that technical and engineering skills are held in much higher esteem in the rest of the EU, than in the UK, but I cannot agree with your entirely with your analysis of Johnson and Farage.

Johnson comes across as a bit of a buffoon to me - he is there to make a name for himself and just wants to be on the winning side. Farage seems to be a very honest straight forward, down to earth individual, with high principles - a breath of fresh air in the political scene.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT

Last night I printed a put a home made 'VOTE OUT' poster in a window. I'm not seeing many such posters, but all those I have seen, are for OUT. Maybe that means that political feelings amongst the OUT's is stronger than the IN's?

I did se a EUR-IN poster the other day - but I think he was taking the p***

[SideValve]

Yep, I am on the "In" side. I've got a relative in Austria and when I visit him I see what can be done working with Europe. I know that its a long way from perfect and even they have narrowly avoided a Nationalist becoming president but they are basically Social Democrat and have been for years and seem to see the benefit of taking care their infrastructure, education and healthcare rather than selling all to the highest bidder like we do.
It seems that the arguments for leaving are:
1. take control of our borders (stop immigration)
2. regain sovereignty
3. trade with the rest of the world

However, we have control of our borders - we actually have border controls in France - I haven't heard any leavers say what will happen to those. We also have the right to send any undesirables back to the EU country they come from and we work with fellow EU states to fight crime across borders, I haven't any leavers say what will happen to that.
We haven't lost sovereignty. A tiny proportion of legislation originates from the EU and we have MEP's (elected by proportional representation & therefore more democratic than either of our houses of parliament) that have a say in that legislation - except of course the idiots from UKIP who pocket expenses from the EU but don't turn up and therefore fail their electorate. Yes people can appeal to the European court if they think their human rights have been breached but I always though the British believed in Human Rights. Apparently the right wing of the Tory Party don't and want it ditched. I guess its a return to Victorian values of crime & punishment. VAT is often cited as an EU negative but it replaced purchase tax (that everyone also hated) and we set the rate Originally it was 5 & 7.5% but we put it up, not the EU.
And we already trade with the rest of the world. I think we have all noticed how much we buy from China, India, New Zealand etc etc. The EU hasn't stopped that and our membership of the EU is seen as a massive benefit for foreign investors ("Hitachi, like other multinationals, invested in the UK in order to access the whole of the EU market, and unimpeded access to the EU market is fundamental for our position in the UK." - Hitachi). Thankfully the scandalous TTIP treaty is being negotiated between the US & the EU - if it had been direct with us I have little doubt our govt would have gaily signed. Arguably a far worse deal than EU membership.


Leaving the EU won't return us to fabled glory days, it will relegate us to the side-lines. We are a small country with few natural resources and little home-owned industry. We do well at finances (we own several tax havens) but the only reason we are "the fifth largest economy" is because we always spend more than we earn. Out of Europe the chances are that we will earn less.

So yep, I am English and glad to be part of Britain. And I'm British and glad to be part of Europe.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

Wel, "Polite" is not how I read it.

As for twisting words - where did I say in my post of yesterday that the link was an "authoritative source" ?

I quoted in that post articles from the Independent, the Express and the Spectator!

I was not citing either as "Authoritative"

Once again you read what is NOT there and then try to infer I said something I did not.

If you are doing this deliberately then this is a known Troll tactic - If you are doing it without any thought at all - then i would ask that you be more careful and not to jump to conclusions.

The exchange which led to you offering the Spectator article was as follows:

DarcyDog: "The anti EU feelings within Europe are very high indeed amongst the average working population."

MSS: "Is there an authorative quanification of this?"

DarcyDog: "http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/e...l-over-europe/"

Ref Politeness, why would a person (i.e. you) read the middle line (MSS:....) in the block immediately above this as anything other than polite?

Given that you offered the Spectator article in response to my request for "authoritative quantification" of your statement, how can you claim that it was not offered as an authoritative source?

I see that once again you have accused me of trolling on the basis of the above, yet when you claimed earlier in the thread that I had been trolling you, amongst other things, I asked for links to the relevant material back in post 287 and none has been provided.

Further on the point of trolling, I simply empathised with a post from another member back in post 310 and you once again started to tear apart my post. You then did the same again with my post 344.

By contrast with the above, I have only engaged with you in response to your posts commenting on mine. I have not commented diretly in response to any of your posts unless they were commenting on mine.

So, the question then arises as to who is trolling who and why one member feels that he can get away with accusing another of various things untruthfully (in other words, tell blatant lies). Is this perhaps done in order to seek an upper hand in a debate when the debate is being lost?

I hope the memebrship, if they have any interest in the matter, will look at the evidence themselves and make up their own minds. There are enough threads where you have made our points of debate very personal (in one direction) and become rude.

As for myself, it feels as if I am constantly under attack from the playground bully, because I have not unquestionably submitted to his views in debates.

As of now, I intend not to respond to any of your posts, even if you respond to mine. I prefer to debate matters with individuals who are polite and display a high level of personal integrity and other human characteristics.