EU vote?

[bobthebuilder]

I would have thought the pro union side are hacked off because the SNP said this was a once in a generation event and yet are now trying to renege on this. Similarly as I pointed out earlier, Farage is saying he will demand a second referendum if the vote goes narrowly against him.

That's the trouble with referenda, if you allow them, the loosing side just wants another one until it gets the result it wants.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by Mr bountyfull

Well to the point I will be voting out. I would like to say that as a way of maintaining peace and trading it was a great idea, however the application has been less than perfect.

I will be voting out based on one idea only and that is the continued democratic right of every registered British voter to choose another NAUGHTY WORD-NAUGHTY WORD-NAUGHTY WORD- but then have the right to try and get rid. All other reasons are secondary.

Now the basics can be debated until the cows come home but on issues like immigration and the economy it will make little difference however we will be able to weigh up the costs v benefits to this and that and in all probability choose the same paths as the EU would have chosen for us. I however like to take responsibility for my own mistakes.

.

Yes - for me it is the direction that the EU is going that is worrying.

The EU seems to be more in tune with austerity more than increasing living standards for all but an elite. The way it placed non-elected officials in charge of Greece’s economy seems to me to indicate a more worrying version of the Eurozone.

Certainly, within the PIGS - it escalates problems linked to housing, work, wages and education. A lazy acceptance of establishment propaganda and a fear of being branded “xenophobic” have silenced many. Some are even trying this tactic on here!

The EU is driven by big business and Corporations.

It cared little that the People of Greece or the youth unemployment in the PIGS such that they will have decades of austerity that could pass through generations.

I believe it is important to try to understand where the EU is heading.

Is its mission to create a centralised superstate?

Well, the former European Commission president José Manuel Barroso said in 2007:

“. . . I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimension of empire.”

Hmmmmmm!

It has constantly been criticised – certainly by its own MEP’s when they see for themselves how it works, for being undemocratic and distant. The propaganda may be good, may sound nice but is it simply a tool for multinationals? - another part of the globalisation process?

A significant section of the British population is either opposed to or sceptical about our inclusion in the EU, and yet any serious discussion of what it represents and where it is leading is near enough impossible due to the appalling antics of both the In and the Out “political elite”.

However, decades of pro-EU spin have failed to convince many of its worth.
What I find to be totally wrong is the idea put across by its promoters, that the EU is somehow synonymous with “Europe”. This is nonsense, we are told that to be anti-EU is to be “anti-European”.

But, in my book, to oppose the EU excesses makes you pro-European. If Europe is its people and cultures then it is surely better that France, Greece, Poland and every other member state becomes a proper democracy again?

If the main legacy of the European Enlightenment was the collectivisation of political power in the hands of the masses, then the EU model is the antithesis of this: centralising decision-taking in the hands of an unaccountable technocratic elite.

What happened to Greece at the hands of the EU was appalling.

It should worry us all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33503330

(and yes - I do know that the BBC is biased )

[MSS]

Here's my view on the whole matter.

1. The shape of the EU will change as time progresses - that is not in doubt. I suspect that a number of counties such as Sweden will most likely end up leaving the EU at some stage. However, they will ultimately regret the decision, because the world is a hard place to survive in business. Anyone remember what happened to SAAB?

2. A shrunken EU will actually be stronger because the main powerhouses in the form of Germany and France will remain, as will many of the 2nd tier countries. It would be even stronger with the UK within.

3. The burden of the former East European states on the UK will remain regardless of whether the UK is in or out of teh EU. UK policy towards these states is heavily influenced by the US and the burden on the UK is due to the desired influence and strategic reach in the form of missile bases closer to the Russian border. These states have in fact taken place of the former West Germany during the cold war days and they will secure the maximum return from this position.

4. Whilst France has short-term difficulties, it will come out of these with some strength due to the ongoing investment in industry. France still designs the majority of its own fighters, aircraft carriers, missiles etc. It also retains an indigenous car manufacturing base, nuclear plant manufacturing, energy supply and so on.

5. The opportunity for the UK population is to be part of the residual stronger EU by voting to remain, or to be amongst the countries that really don't matter much e.g. Greece, Spain...in terms of the ongoing wellbeing of teh EU(as confirmed by other posters in response my question above about Spain and Greece). I feel that this status will be secured if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Remember gents, this is my opinion, and as such, by definition it cannot be wrong. My "twaddle" is here to stay. Others may have alternative and equally valid opnions!

Originally Posted by Darcydog

And your sources are ................................................ what exactly?

I offer my own opinions rather than regurgitating material from biased sources in the form of frustrated politician would be types.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by mss

I offer my own opinions rather than regurgitating material from biased sources in the form of frustrated politician would be types.

So previously, when you demanded I provide information regarding economic predictions of the UK's likely success post Brexit - this was your usual standard of "Don't do as I do - do as I say?"

Forgive me whilst I have a slight chuckle

[topman]

Originally Posted by wraymond

I wonder if it's a case of the younger demographic being used to nothing but EU rule. All born into the system, they are without history. Certainly they have only been subject to the sanitised version designed to produce Orwellian subjects and to develop into Pavlovian dogs.

Rather than thinking they've somehow been conditioned, do you think it's possible that they think it's just a good idea?

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by mss

Here's my view on the whole matter.

1. The shape of the EU will change as time progresses - that is not in doubt. I suspect that a number of counties such as Sweden will most likely end up leaving the EU at some stage. However, they will ultimately regret the decision, because the world is a hard place to survive in business. Anyone remember what happened to SAAB?

Yes I do - great shame - GM pulled the plug because its parent company in the US was losing money.

Contrast that to LR/Jaguar who when rescued by an Indian company goes from strength to strength.

Originally Posted by mss

2. A shrunken EU will actually be stronger because the main powerhouses in the form of Germany and France will remain, as will many of the 2nd tier countries. It would be even stronger with the UK within.

So you think the EU will become smaller? - so some countries should leave? but not the UK?

Originally Posted by mss

3. The burden of the former East European states on the UK will remain regardless of whether the UK is in or out of teh EU. UK policy towards these states is heavily influenced by the US and the burden on the UK is due to the desired influence and strategic reach in the form of missile bases closer to the Russian border. These states have in fact taken place of the former West Germany during the cold war days and they will secure the maximum return from this position.

The way I see it - it is not so much the old soviet states that are the problem - tho migration from these countries is an issue - No, I see the issue as the debacle of the Euro and how the richer states in the Eurozone that you seem to admire so much have shafted the PIGS

Originally Posted by mss

4. Whilst France has short-term difficulties, it will come out of these with some strength due to the ongoing investment in industry. France still designs the majority of its own fighters, aircraft carriers, missiles etc. It also retains an indigenous car manufacturing base, nuclear plant manufacturing, energy supply and so on.

Hmmmm - France has had "short term difficulties" for some years - even decades now. - Mind you - so have we.

Originally Posted by mss

5. The opportunity for the UK population is to be part of the residual stronger EU by voting to remain, or to be amongst the countries that really don't matter much e.g. Greece, Spain...in terms of the ongoing wellbeing of teh EU(as confirmed by other posters in response my question above about Spain and Greece). I feel that this status will be secured if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Sorry - but I really do feel you are seriously missing the point. Or are you actually saying that the EU needs to/should/will lose members? And that this will be to the advantage of those that remain?

And THIS is your reason why you think the UK should Stay In??

We would be a bigger fish in a smaller pond?

My goodness - I am tempted to use the T word................

Originally Posted by mss

Remember gents, this is my opinion, and as such, by definition it cannot be wrong. My "twaddle" is here to stay. Others may have alternative and equally valid opnions!

[Polly]

Originally Posted by bobthebuilder

I would have thought the pro union side are hacked off because the SNP said this was a once in a generation event and yet are now trying to renege on this. Similarly as I pointed out earlier, Farage is saying he will demand a second referendum if the vote goes narrowly against him.



That's the trouble with referenda, if you allow them, the loosing side just wants another one until it gets the result it wants.

But you are missing the point entirely. You can hold a referendum every week if you want, but if it is conducted fairly in the first place, then the result will be the same. However the Scottish referendum suffered the exact same problems this one suffers, namely, that if the government have a plan, and I would sincerely hope they do, they have not disclosed it to anyone. Now this is a deliberate ploy, because if the "opposition" dare to mention any possible policy direction, the government will immediately just move the goalposts a little, just by saying we wouldn't get those terms, or perhaps as they have done again here, promised changes if we vote to stay, although we have no idea what these changes might be.
It's a bit like voting in a darkened room, because you have no idea what you are voting for.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[trebor]

This is a great thread and I hope it continues past the vote so the result can also be discussed, I have nothing fantastic to add to the debate at present other than I agree more older people do turn out to vote so I guess the turnout could be significant for the result , personally I am an " out " as I think the immigration issue is totally out of hand and I can only see it getting worse. It is said that Turkey can not meet the conditions at present to join and we have a veto anyway but that doesn't mean it will never happen and we certainly won't be given another vote on it if it does. Nothing against Turkey or any other country but we simply cannot cope with over 300,000 a year and we won't stop free movement if we stay in as its a fundemental part of the EU

On a lighter note if I may for a moment , if we stay in I hear Sepp Blatter is looking for employment , imagine him as president !

[bobthebuilder]

Originally Posted by Polly

But you are missing the point entirely. You can hold a referendum every week if you want, but if it is conducted fairly in the first place, then the result will be the same. However the Scottish referendum suffered the exact same problems this one suffers, namely, that if the government have a plan, and I would sincerely hope they do, they have not disclosed it to anyone. Now this is a deliberate ploy, because if the "opposition" dare to mention any possible policy direction, the government will immediately just move the goalposts a little, just by saying we wouldn't get those terms, or perhaps as they have done again here, promised changes if we vote to stay, although we have no idea what these changes might be.
It's a bit like voting in a darkened room, because you have no idea what you are voting for.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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?

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

So previously, when you demanded I provide information regarding economic predictions of the UK's likely success post Brexit - this was your usual standard of "Don't do as I do - do as I say?"

Forgive me whilst I have a slight chuckle

Let's not twist words. I did not demand, I asked ploitely!

I assumed that you had mistakenly not maintained your usual approach of providing links to support your views. And we got a link to a Spectator article as the independent authoritative source.