|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 22, 2015 16:38:56 GMT
I 'get' the 'Out' side of it, buddy. I just don't get what benefit it is to me to vote 'In'. I was expecting a rather long list of benefits/pro's to appear in responce to my post, but as of yet no-one has come up with a single reason to convince me that 'In' is the way to go. That's because you're doing what Patrick says I'm doing.....not listening........staying in gives you the basic right to vote out something/ someone you don't like.........a right you will soon have to forfeit to stay in........basic democracy Where did I say you're not listening?
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Oct 22, 2015 17:38:55 GMT
That's because you're doing what Patrick says I'm doing.....not listening........staying in gives you the basic right to vote out something/ someone you don't like.........a right you will soon have to forfeit to stay in........basic democracy Where did I say you're not listening? Here we go again
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 17:52:43 GMT
The overriding one is removal of barriers to trade. Freedom of movement of everything: labour, capital, the lot. If you don't think free trade is the be all and end all, there's probably not much value in it to you. So what happens to all this trade if we vote 'Out'? Do Germany, France etc... Suddenly stop trading with us? How much trade do we actually have with the EU Countries? Surely we benefit them as much as they benefit us, so why would they cut off their nose to spite their face if we vote 'Out'? If they do all stop trading with us (Or even if they don't) wouldn't voting 'Out' mean we could do our own trade deals with whoever we please? We would be hampered from trading with Europe certainly. I'm guessing this is the motivation behind Kate Middleton smiling for humans rights abusers. There is a degree of legislation imposed on us (very weakly) to offset the threat of low wage migration, but it's very easy to avoid. If a gun was held to my head and I had to vote now, I'd say stay in. The EU is facilitating wage stagnation in the wealthier states, largely as a result of eastern expansion and free movement. I think if we were to leave, we would be even worse off though. A Conservative led govt would go about dismantling barriers to trade to create a completely libertarian style economy in order to compete on the world stage. Think abolition of the minimum wage and employment contracts at will. A Labour govt would attempt to counter the race to the bottom, but also leave us less able to compete with Europe on things like labour costs, seeing us lose investment to the eurozone. Add in the sudden spike in the cost of food and the like from southern Europe and suddenly you're seeing increased living costs as well as a stifled economy. The above case is arguably extreme, and in reality the risk may be small. I suppose I feel that it's better to stay in and tolerate the negative effects as i suspect the alternative is worse. I say that as someone that can't be replaced by an eastern European on half the wage (for now at least). I'm also not necessarily adverse to a political Europe that is more democratically participative. I suspect that in spite of intentions of ever closer integration that it is not plausible though.
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 22, 2015 21:00:15 GMT
So what happens to all this trade if we vote 'Out'? Do Germany, France etc... Suddenly stop trading with us? How much trade do we actually have with the EU Countries? Surely we benefit them as much as they benefit us, so why would they cut off their nose to spite their face if we vote 'Out'? If they do all stop trading with us (Or even if they don't) wouldn't voting 'Out' mean we could do our own trade deals with whoever we please? We would be hampered from trading with Europe certainly. I'm guessing this is the motivation behind Kate Middleton smiling for humans rights abusers. There is a degree of legislation imposed on us (very weakly) to offset the threat of low wage migration, but it's very easy to avoid. If a gun was held to my head and I had to vote now, I'd say stay in. The EU is facilitating wage stagnation in the wealthier states, largely as a result of eastern expansion and free movement. I think if we were to leave, we would be even worse off though. A Conservative led govt would go about dismantling barriers to trade to create a completely libertarian style economy in order to compete on the world stage. Think abolition of the minimum wage and employment contracts at will. A Labour govt would attempt to counter the race to the bottom, but also leave us less able to compete with Europe on things like labour costs, seeing us lose investment to the eurozone. Add in the sudden spike in the cost of food and the like from southern Europe and suddenly you're seeing increased living costs as well as a stifled economy. The above case is arguably extreme, and in reality the risk may be small. I suppose I feel that it's better to stay in and tolerate the negative effects as i suspect the alternative is worse. I say that as someone that can't be replaced by an eastern European on half the wage (for now at least). I'm also not necessarily adverse to a political Europe that is more democratically participative. I suspect that in spite of intentions of ever closer integration that it is not plausible though. Like I said earlier, we're fucked either way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2015 7:28:37 GMT
We would be hampered from trading with Europe certainly. I'm guessing this is the motivation behind Kate Middleton smiling for humans rights abusers. There is a degree of legislation imposed on us (very weakly) to offset the threat of low wage migration, but it's very easy to avoid. If a gun was held to my head and I had to vote now, I'd say stay in. The EU is facilitating wage stagnation in the wealthier states, largely as a result of eastern expansion and free movement. I think if we were to leave, we would be even worse off though. A Conservative led govt would go about dismantling barriers to trade to create a completely libertarian style economy in order to compete on the world stage. Think abolition of the minimum wage and employment contracts at will. A Labour govt would attempt to counter the race to the bottom, but also leave us less able to compete with Europe on things like labour costs, seeing us lose investment to the eurozone. Add in the sudden spike in the cost of food and the like from southern Europe and suddenly you're seeing increased living costs as well as a stifled economy. The above case is arguably extreme, and in reality the risk may be small. I suppose I feel that it's better to stay in and tolerate the negative effects as i suspect the alternative is worse. I say that as someone that can't be replaced by an eastern European on half the wage (for now at least). I'm also not necessarily adverse to a political Europe that is more democratically participative. I suspect that in spite of intentions of ever closer integration that it is not plausible though. Like I said earlier, we're fucked either way. If you were to express a preference one way or the other, which way would you go?
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 23, 2015 8:05:50 GMT
Like I said earlier, we're fucked either way. If you were to express a preference one way or the other, which way would you go? Out. Democracy is more important to me than economic uncertainty. I suspect that I will be in a minority. The status quo/inertia/economic uncertainty will result in a yes vote unless something radical occurs. I happened in the Labour Party, so I guess it's not impossible for people to wake up to the fact that we are treated like the sheep we are.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 23, 2015 8:07:00 GMT
If you were to express a preference one way or the other, which way would you go? Out. Democracy is more important to me than economic uncertainty. I suspect that I will be in a minority. The status quo/inertia/economic uncertainty will result in a yes vote unless something radical occurs. I happened in the Labour Party, so I guess it's not impossible for people to wake up to the fact that we are treated like the sheep we are. If the country decides to vote to stay within the EU, which it probably will, democracy will have won then. Presumably. Unless the goalposts get moved. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2015 8:19:41 GMT
Out. Democracy is more important to me than economic uncertainty. I suspect that I will be in a minority. The status quo/inertia/economic uncertainty will result in a yes vote unless something radical occurs. I happened in the Labour Party, so I guess it's not impossible for people to wake up to the fact that we are treated like the sheep we are. If the country decides to vote to stay within the EU, which it probably will, democracy will have won then. Presumably. Unless the goalposts get moved. Again. Yes it would.....TEMPORARILY As that would be us being democratic.....once fully integrated you'll lose that
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 23, 2015 8:20:58 GMT
Out. Democracy is more important to me than economic uncertainty. I suspect that I will be in a minority. The status quo/inertia/economic uncertainty will result in a yes vote unless something radical occurs. I happened in the Labour Party, so I guess it's not impossible for people to wake up to the fact that we are treated like the sheep we are. If the country decides to vote to stay within the EU, which it probably will, democracy will have won then. Presumably. Unless the goalposts get moved. Again. I have two children, and if there is a choice of where we should go out for the day, I sometimes put the choice to a vote. Before the vote is cast, I will go through the pros and cons of each destination, if I have a preference for one of the places, I make sure it sounds better than the other one. When it comes to the vote, my preference usually wins. A similar form of democratic decision is being given to us by the Government. I don't know which form of democracy you prefer, but I prefer the decisions that directly affect the people of this country, to be made by the people of this country, whether I agree with them or not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2015 9:14:22 GMT
If the country decides to vote to stay within the EU, which it probably will, democracy will have won then. Presumably. Unless the goalposts get moved. Again. I have two children, and if there is a choice of where we should go out for the day, I sometimes put the choice to a vote. Before the vote is cast, I will go through the pros and cons of each destination, if I have a preference for one of the places, I make sure it sounds better than the other one. When it comes to the vote, my preference usually wins. A similar form of democratic decision is being given to us by the Government. I don't know which form of democracy you prefer, but I prefer the decisions that directly affect the people of this country, to be made by the people of this country, whether I agree with them or not. Very good you cunt
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 25, 2015 10:09:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 29, 2015 15:14:33 GMT
I've just seen summat on the Mail website saying summat about Cameron is saying even if we left the EU we'd still have to give them millions. What's that all about then? I know it's him being a dick & trying to scare us into voting to stay, but would we really have to pay even if we left? Pay for what? Is it just a complete load of bullshit or is there any truth in it?
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 30, 2015 16:11:22 GMT
All the political experts on here & not one of you could give an answer?
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 30, 2015 21:45:23 GMT
All the political experts on here & not one of you could give an answer? Giz us a link, and I'll have a go at working out what level of disingenuousness he's spouting this time.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 30, 2015 21:53:46 GMT
I've just seen summat on the Mail website saying summat about Cameron is saying even if we left the EU we'd still have to give them millions. What's that all about then? I know it's him being a dick & trying to scare us into voting to stay, but would we really have to pay even if we left? Pay for what? Is it just a complete load of bullshit or is there any truth in it? Norway (outside the EU but in the EEA) is the model cited by UKIP and those on the extreme right-wing of the Conservatives. Norway has to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and, more importantly, has to pay to gain access to the EU's single market. Negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement could take years and there's no guarantee that those tariffs paid by the UK would be equal to, more or less than those paid by Norway. There is also the matter of the US warning Britain to stay in EU or risk trade restrictions and would have to pay trade tariffs - www.rt.com/uk/320051-brexit-eu-trade-us/
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 30, 2015 22:21:01 GMT
I've just seen summat on the Mail website saying summat about Cameron is saying even if we left the EU we'd still have to give them millions. What's that all about then? I know it's him being a dick & trying to scare us into voting to stay, but would we really have to pay even if we left? Pay for what? Is it just a complete load of bullshit or is there any truth in it? Norway (outside the EU but in the EEA) is the model cited by UKIP and those on the extreme right-wing of the Conservatives. Norway has to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and, more importantly, has to pay to gain access to the EU's single market. Negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement could take years and there's no guarantee that those tariffs paid by the UK would be equal to, more or less than those paid by Norway. There is also the matter of the US warning Britain to stay in EU or risk trade restrictions and would have to pay trade tariffs - www.rt.com/uk/320051-brexit-eu-trade-us/I get why the US and China want us to stay in, but I don't see why it's in Russia's interest too, unless they're practising a little cognitive dissonance. As for paying money to the EU as well as following some rules set out by the EU to maintain access to the single market, I'd like to see those claims quantified, because the claims are currently meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Oct 30, 2015 22:23:00 GMT
I've just seen summat on the Mail website saying summat about Cameron is saying even if we left the EU we'd still have to give them millions. What's that all about then? I know it's him being a dick & trying to scare us into voting to stay, but would we really have to pay even if we left? Pay for what? Is it just a complete load of bullshit or is there any truth in it? Norway (outside the EU but in the EEA) is the model cited by UKIP and those on the extreme right-wing of the Conservatives. Norway has to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and, more importantly, has to pay to gain access to the EU's single market. Negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement could take years and there's no guarantee that those tariffs paid by the UK would be equal to, more or less than those paid by Norway. There is also the matter of the US warning Britain to stay in EU or risk trade restrictions and would have to pay trade tariffs - www.rt.com/uk/320051-brexit-eu-trade-us/The US warning ?. The US can fuck itself off. It needs to sort its own fucked up country before telling us how to sort ours. I'm not against a trading group but Im fiercely opposed to an anti democratic monstrosity being able to do what it wants without accountability. One thing is almost certain though is that the political will will end up swinging seriously to the right in time and by then it will be too late. The government here are like a lot of the population. Too fucking lazy to try and make something better by hard graft.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 30, 2015 22:47:35 GMT
Norway (outside the EU but in the EEA) is the model cited by UKIP and those on the extreme right-wing of the Conservatives. Norway has to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and, more importantly, has to pay to gain access to the EU's single market. Negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement could take years and there's no guarantee that those tariffs paid by the UK would be equal to, more or less than those paid by Norway. There is also the matter of the US warning Britain to stay in EU or risk trade restrictions and would have to pay trade tariffs - www.rt.com/uk/320051-brexit-eu-trade-us/I get why the US and China want us to stay in, but I don't see why it's in Russia's interest too, unless they're practising a little cognitive dissonance. As for paying money to the EU as well as following some rules set out by the EU to maintain access to the single market, I'd like to see those claims quantified, because the claims are currently meaningless.Fair enough. But those claims are far from meaningless. The EU single market is a free trade area which is "free" to member states. Norway (the example cited by UKIP) has to pay to trade with the EU because it is not inside the EU and, in addition, has to pay the EU to be inside the European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Area (EFTA). Here's how. The EEA EFTA Agreement includes an obligation to reduce social and economic inequality in the European Economic Area. The EEA EFTA states Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have to contribute to European cohesion efforts and the total contribution between 1994 - 2014 was around €3.27 billion. For the period 2009 - 2014, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein had to contribute toward reducing social and economic disparities in Europe and to strengthening bilateral relations with 16 countries in Central and Southern Europe through the EEA Grants. A total of €1.79 billion was set aside and Norway provided around 97 per cent of the funding. The beneficiary states were Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, Latvia, Greece, Portugal, Estonia, Spain, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Croatia. Now, Norway participates in a number of EU programmes and agencies through obligations in the EEA Agreement and on the basis of bilateral agreements with the EU. The EEA EFTA Agreement does not cover the EU common agriculture and fisheries policies, the customs union, the common trade policy, the common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs or the monetary union. Norway (and its EEA partners Iceland and Liechtenstein) has to contribute to the budget of the EU programmes and agencies it participates in. Norway has to pay separately to participate in each of these areas. In 2013, Norway’s contribution was around €296 million. Crucially, when the EEA agrees to include programmes ( such as common trade policy) into the EEA Agreement, Norway has to make annual contributions to the relevant EU budget. EEA EFTA states have to fund their participation by an amount corresponding to the relative size of their GDP compared to the GDP of the whole EEA. The EEA EFTA states participation in EU programmes ( such as common trade policy) are therefore on an equal footing with EU member states. So, essentially, if you want to trade with the EU through the EEA EFTA you still pay the EU. Norway contributes around 200 million Norwegian kroner annually for its contribution in the regional cooperation programmes. Norwegian participation in cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, including participation in the EU Schengen cooperation and agreements on cooperation in various areas, also entails financial contributions. If you want the piper to play for you, you have to pay. Whichever way. Norway's contribution to the EEA www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.VjPwUnrfWK0The EEA www.eu-norway.org/eeaforside/#.VjP0U3rfWK0
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 31, 2015 6:22:32 GMT
Good links on Norway.
The latest data I had on them is they pay €340 million to the EU. It's worth remembering that they get nothing back for this - unlike member states who get, at least, part of their cash back through stuff like European Structural Funds.
I can't be arsed doing the per capita cost for net or gross payments, but it's going to be way more than the UK's. Norway's population is an order of magnitude plus a bit less than the UK. So, the Norway model espoused by the likes of UKIP, is an expensive one. But they can afford it. They invested their North Sea Oil money wisely. (Cue hair pulling and gnashing of teeth up here in Scotland). Or have I got that wrong - the Norway bit, not the Scottish angst.
And let's not forget Norway signed up to Schengen. Mind you, their geography may have reassured their immigration sceptics. That sea journey is hellish in a big boat at the best of times and the overland route has Sweden as a convenient buffer. When you enter the land of ABBA, you never want to leave!
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 31, 2015 8:40:30 GMT
I get why the US and China want us to stay in, but I don't see why it's in Russia's interest too, unless they're practising a little cognitive dissonance. As for paying money to the EU as well as following some rules set out by the EU to maintain access to the single market, I'd like to see those claims quantified, because the claims are currently meaningless.Fair enough. But those claims are far from meaningless. The EU single market is a free trade area which is "free" to member states. Norway (the example cited by UKIP) has to pay to trade with the EU because it is not inside the EU and, in addition, has to pay the EU to be inside the European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Area (EFTA). Here's how. The EEA EFTA Agreement includes an obligation to reduce social and economic inequality in the European Economic Area. The EEA EFTA states Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have to contribute to European cohesion efforts and the total contribution between 1994 - 2014 was around €3.27 billion. For the period 2009 - 2014, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein had to contribute toward reducing social and economic disparities in Europe and to strengthening bilateral relations with 16 countries in Central and Southern Europe through the EEA Grants. A total of €1.79 billion was set aside and Norway provided around 97 per cent of the funding. The beneficiary states were Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, Latvia, Greece, Portugal, Estonia, Spain, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Croatia. Now, Norway participates in a number of EU programmes and agencies through obligations in the EEA Agreement and on the basis of bilateral agreements with the EU. The EEA EFTA Agreement does not cover the EU common agriculture and fisheries policies, the customs union, the common trade policy, the common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs or the monetary union. Norway (and its EEA partners Iceland and Liechtenstein) has to contribute to the budget of the EU programmes and agencies it participates in. Norway has to pay separately to participate in each of these areas. In 2013, Norway’s contribution was around €296 million. Crucially, when the EEA agrees to include programmes ( such as common trade policy) into the EEA Agreement, Norway has to make annual contributions to the relevant EU budget. EEA EFTA states have to fund their participation by an amount corresponding to the relative size of their GDP compared to the GDP of the whole EEA. The EEA EFTA states participation in EU programmes ( such as common trade policy) are therefore on an equal footing with EU member states. So, essentially, if you want to trade with the EU through the EEA EFTA you still pay the EU. Norway contributes around 200 million Norwegian kroner annually for its contribution in the regional cooperation programmes. Norwegian participation in cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, including participation in the EU Schengen cooperation and agreements on cooperation in various areas, also entails financial contributions. If you want the piper to play for you, you have to pay. Whichever way. Norway's contribution to the EEA www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.VjPwUnrfWK0The EEA www.eu-norway.org/eeaforside/#.VjP0U3rfWK0Thank you for taking my "meaningless" comment out of context. That's interesting reading on Norway, and I agree, that what works for Norway, might not work for us. Having said that, the fact remains that Norway considers the maintenance of its sovereignty is a price worth paying. Just as it is too simplistic to quote Norway as an example of going it alone, the same applies for using it as an example of how Britain out of the EU, would be damaging overall.
|
|