Who is in and who is out?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect that if they do vote to leave the EU then Osborne and his mates will make sure there will be an economic price to pay to spite the Brexit camp.
The longer the campaign goes on the more ridiculous the Remain camp sound......surely its if not legally wrong to manipulate/intimidate voters if not morally wrong before ANY vote? they accused the SNP of doing it for the Scottish Independence ref.......if they are willing to come up with so many fairy stories they must be only thinking of their own pockets suffering as they normally don't give a toss about the British public afterall in recent years they have been forcing our sick and disabled to work while letting asylum seekers wander around all day on the rob.......suddenly they are concerned about our poor sick/disabled elderly losing their benefits.......its never bothered them in the past.
 
There's about a week to go until the vote and the vast majority of the 'opinions' I hear from people here and there are based on absolutely nothing. One woman my girlfriend works with is voting out because "Well, something needs to change" although she has no idea what she is unhappy with in her life, or how leaving the EU could possibly change anything for her. Rather it's a vague disappointment and feeling that things could be better, which I think a lot of people suffer from, and the political and media spin doctors are promoting a life changing life or death choice which is magically going to fix everyone's problems.

I'm not necessarily advocating a default to remain for anyone who hasn't taken the time to review the issues, however I don't feel as if the public has been reasonably informed about what they're voting on. Even in thorough research by members on here, ridiculous statistics and downright falsehoods have slipped through because someone somewhere has published lies and manipulations of facts in order to promote their own agenda. This is true on both sides.

I can guarantee that in the days surrounding the referendum the likes of Osborne will push through some vile budget cuts or changes in legislation. They know that most people will just fixate on the referendum and ignore all the B stories, like when the (illegal) student loan sell off was ushered through behind the smokescreen a few weeks ago.
 
Jake":325a3mvs said:
phil.p":325a3mvs said:
The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.

Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?

I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.


Guns or something.......well an EU army would be a start.

Veto? What would that be then? Do you mean the veto that Cameron gave away for the promise that the EU may at some indeterminate point in the future definitely maybe consider to change the way it operates?
If the link in an earlier post wasn't enough, how about this one?
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/18811 ... tions.html

Vote to Remain if you want to, but dont do it on the basis that we have any leverage to change things, nor that we can stop the move to complete union and the Euro.

It is a shame that our prime ministers are so gullible. Blair gave away a chunk of the rebate negotiated by thatcher on the "promise" of a review of the common agricultural policy, and Camoron gave away a veto to get all of the "concessions" in his renegotiations last year. Pathetic.
 
RobinBHM":1vu205cs said:
It is certainly true that leaving the eu is a serious concern and not to be ignored. Staying in is also a major concern economically.

An extract from a blog by Andrew Lillico (Chairman of economists UK):


There are two ideas gaining currency in the EU referendum debate that I want to kill off with this post.

The first is that all serious economists agree that Brexit would be economically harmful to the UK.
The second is that there is no serious economic analysis that has not concluded that Brexit would leave the UK permanently and materially poorer.
On the first point, two of the most illustrious economists in Britain are Roger Bootle, Managing Director of Capital Economics, and Gerard Lyons, Economic advisor to the Mayor of London and former Chief Economist of Standard Chartered Bank. Both favour Brexit. Roger Bootle argues that leaving would be neither economically beneficial nor economically harmful. Gerard Lyons argues that after some initial turbulence the UK would grow faster over the medium- to longer-term outside the EU than within.

Neither Roger nor Gerard can be caricatured as some other-worldly academic ideologue. They are both extremely serious economists whose opinions are sought (at considerable expense) by people across the finance sector across the world. They are by no means the only economists favouring Brexit. I happen to be Chairman of Economists for Britain, affiliated to Vote Leave, including a range of economists from left and right of the political spectrum. There are also various other groups, such as the Economist Friends of Brexit (including Ruth Lea, Warwick Lightfoot, Neil MacKinnon and others)
I'm sorry but sycophantic blogs such as these make me want to run the other way. Using words like 'illustrious'.

Maybe he should have added ' and I thoroughly enjoyed the souffle that Roger's delightful wife Jemima served us up the other day while sipping Pimms on the foredeck of our sloop'.
 
Jake":5eague0m said:
phil.p":5eague0m said:
In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed ...
Most of that was after joining the EEC not before. The EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.

That's not actually true - Britain's economic progress was amongst the worst in Europe post-war prior to joining, and amongst the best post-joining.

But only indirectly as a result of the EU. The reason why it improved was that our industry had to improve their processes etc to survive in the face of increased competitiveness.

That and a certain lady from Finchley - the late Margaret Thatcher, who privatised state-owned companies, took on the unions and deregulated the City of London.
 
From the FT...

"Some aspects of EU membership have not been so good for the British economy. Today one in 20 UK residents was born in another EU country. But numerous studies have shown that most gains from immigration have fallen to the immigrants themselves. Apart from a net benefit to public finances of importing workers, free movement has not itself obviously increased British people’s prosperity."
 
Most of of us curiously enough are not swivel eyed, rabid xenophobes - I just object to a system that allows the indigenous idle to pick and choose what unskilled jobs they don't like the idea of while employers recruit abroad. I neither blame the employer for doing what he thinks best, nor the immigrant for doing likewise - I blame the system we operate that allows it. Incidentally, I spoke to a friend who has over the last few years employed different nationalities for unskilled jobs and asked him if they were better workers. He replied that initially they were until they settled into the system and sorted their child benefits etc. then they discovered back ache and stress the same as everyone else. I do however object to seemingly limitless immigration from the sub continent - and no one can tell me they are all earning £35,000 plus p.a.
I keep hearing that the Australian system doesn't work as they have more immigration per capita than we do, but this ignores inconvenient facts - for one they want to increase their population, for two they have a third of our population and for three they have 32x more space. My sister an b.i.l emigrated to NZ nearly 30 years ago, and their employers had to jump through hoops to prove to the government that they had exhausted all home grown options - which is as it should be.
 
Jake":3iecdtcf said:
phil.p":3iecdtcf said:
The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.

Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?

I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.

A common currency, a common army ... sorry, defence force, a central government and a lack of internal borders are the core beliefs of the EU - does it not occur to you that the option to sit on the periphery for ever doesn't exist?
 
How to get the required answer.
I asked my daughter (just finished second year Russell group uni, heading for a first) if she thought the current immigration levels were necessary she said of course they are - the economy needs them. I asked her on a different occasion if we should be building a new city the size of Sheffield every year just to house immigrants and said that was quite obviously ridiculous.
 
Inoffthered":3iczwlo2 said:
It is a shame that our prime ministers are so gullible.
That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible.
They're probably the most well informed and briefed people in the UK. They're the people that have sat on the top tables and know what other leaders around the globe think/want/expect/would like.
Most importantly they are acutely aware of the consequences of their actions. Read their autobiographies and learn how much impact their first meeting with the heads of defence staff when they told of their responsibilities of our nuclear arsenal are brought home to them.
They can't further their own political careers as they've already been at the top.

It's telling that everyone of them is now saying exactly the same thing, remain.
 
Jake":21tjksg0 said:
RobinBHM":21tjksg0 said:
The economic case for exit is very tenuous at best. The sovereignty and immigration arguments are at least based in some fact (although massively exaggerated by playing on people's fears of German rule, and johnny-foreigner generally, respectively). I think the exit campaign would be a lot more honest if it accepted there would be an economic price, but argued that what they see as the benefits of leaving outweighed it.

I did some economics at university. I'm a convinced "Brexiteer" and have spent 20 years or so working hard for us to escape the EU. I have done a great deal of research on the EU in the past and have a bookshelf (well, one shelf!) full of EU-related topics. I believe there IS a strong economic case, but it is trumped by issues of democratic accountability and sovereignty.

Obviously nobody can predict the future - stupid to try in any detail - but certain things are very apparent. If we stay in the EU these things will badly affect our country.

First of all, Cameron got NOTHING from his 'negotiation' other than empty promises. He knows this, as does anyone who understands how the EU operates, whichever side of the issue they come down on.

This is not rhetoric on my part: almost everything he claims to have achieved actually requires either a majority in the Council of Ministers (very, very unlikely for most of it), or treaty change (absolutely impossible - there is complete certainty that this will NOT happen in the near future). Do not take my word for this, nor that of other pro-Brexit commentators. Read what the leaders of continental Europe and the EU have said, for example about treaty change after Lisbon: it ain't gonna happen.

Regarding the Council, things are less clear, it's true. But, simply by calling a referendum, Cameron has infuriated many of his European peers, and REALLY peesed-off the EU top brass (they have made that very clear). There will be consequences. There is ZERO chance that he can go to another IGC and in essence say, "I want you to approve these measures that are solely in Britain's interests." The next time there is an IGC, he is going to get a dressing-down and be hauled back into line, to support the Project.
. . .

Meanwhile, let's consider the existential threats to the EU, IRRESPECTIVE of our vote, and the effect they might or might not have on the UK.

I regret that I have to refer to and quote Amsterdam, but it's the only treaty I can quickly lay my hands on this morning. You'll have to dig out the relevant clauses in Lisbon yourself (yes it's all been renumbered yet again <sigh>!).

Note the not-so-small matter that we have been signed-up to all this below since 1997 (nineteen years). It's not as if this stuff is particularly hidden nor dead, just that most of the pro-EU lot don't want to talk about it, or even in some cases admit these clauses exist. That's characteristic of the whole EU Project. Various European and EU leaders have even made mention (in somewhat louche speeches) of the need to conceal the true nature of the Project from the peoples of Europe (ere they reject it). Again don't take my word for it, but Google some speeches of the likes of Schumann, Monnet (at the start) and people as recent as Giscard D'Estaign (who masterminded the EU Const... er, the Lisbon treaty). And the Treaties matter as they are the fundamental law underpinning everything that happens in the EU. Cameron can blather on about what has or has not been agreed, but it matters not a jot if it conflicts with them.

And no, I don't misunderstand these things. In the ninteen years, I have been in correspondence (and face-to-face conversation) with several QCs and barristers and at least two constutional lawyers, (one based in Rome): I've put these points to them, and had confirmed that the way the European Court works is that you DO (and should) leap from Treaty "lily pad" to lily pad as I am doing below. The treaties themselves contain huge numbers of cross references to other sections, for exactly this reason.

1. The eurozone is collapsing and we ARE on the hook for this, no matter what Cameron and Osborne say about the matter. Anyway, let's start with the dreaded Articles 98 & 99:

"Member states shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Article 2,..."

and,

"Member states shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall co-ordinate them within the Council."

Which raises the awkward bits of Article 2:

"... the establishment of economic and monetary union... implementation of a common foreign and security policy... progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence... to maintain in full the acquis communautaire... the objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty...

So what are those objectives? That takes us back to good old Article 1:

"... the process of creating an ever closer union..."

That's the bit that all the Remainers deny we need to worry about, but it IS at the very heart of all EU treaties, always had been and always will be.

But what about propping up the Euro? Surely we have exemptions because we're not in the eurozone?

This causes us to skip daintily over to Title VII ("Economic and Monetary Policy"). First off there are two authorities involved in European financial matters, the ECB (European Central Bank), and the less-well-known ESCB (European System of Central Banks). You'd think the latter simply refers to a co-ordinating council of central banks in Europe, until we read Article 107: "(2) the ECB shall have legal personality" and "(3) The ESCB shall be governed by the decision-making bodies of the ECB..."

Now the nub of the matter - Article 119. I'll skip quoting the whole thing, but basically it's about currency union (the Euro), and what happens when countries get into difficulties with their "balance of payments" (in this case an euphemism for "can't pay their creditors"):

119/2: "The Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall grant such mutual assistance..."

That's the Council of Ministers, and the "mutual assistance" means loans or grants. And the QMV (emphasis mine) means we can't get out of it. So on this one, Osborne is simply lying - it's there in the treaties and has been for two decades*.

2. Migration and immigration. I won't bang on about this, suffice it to say:

The free movement of people and capital is so fundamental to the EU we can NEVER alter it. Merkel told Cameron this during his humilia- "negotiation", but he ignored her and refused to explain this to the British people (for obvious reasons).

Read Title 1, Article 2 of Amsterdam and note its language (its tone). Here's just an excerpt:

"... maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external borders, immigration, asylum and the combating of crime;... "

Shengen is irrelevant (it simply refers to the area where border checks have been physically removed). We have a treaty obligation to accept EU citizens wishing to live here. So when John Major said last week in a headline-grabbing BBC interview that we would never join Shengen it was as important as saying we'd never make Baseball our national game Major, of course, knew that. [Aside] I am sick and tired of people like him using conjurors' tricks (distraction) to try to convince people of a lie. Major became very wealthy after forcing Maastrict through the Commons, and his masters are calling in his markers.[/]

The point of the quote above is that the EU claims for itself the right to determine border policies for EU countries. It is NOT something we can opt out of. On the way, it also claims our lawmaking, our policing and our defence policy and actual assets. That's one "justification" for the putative EU army.

. . .

The devil is now, and always has been, in the detail.

If you want those things -- to give up the last vestiges of our self determination to qualified voting in a Council of 29 countries (including Romania, for example), and to accept any and all who wish to settle here as long as they are clutching an EU passport, and to bail out the eurozone even if we don't want to -- and you are comfortable with the direction of travel, e.g. British soldiers wearing EU uniforms (operating here to suppress anti-EU activity?), then there is nothing I can write that would persuade you. The treaties, incidentally, hint at the possibility of conscription too.

The real Federalists have always said openly what they intend. It hasn't been some dirty, obscure secret at all. It HAS been something that British federalist politicians, from Heath and Wilson onwards, have known would be unacceptable to the British people (more so in the 1960s, when the war generations were still around and knew personally what was at stake). They have always tried to downplay it, knowing they'd never succeed if they openly told the truth here.

Read Lord Kilmuir's advice to Heath from 1960. If I am wrong, given what it contains, why did Heath feel the need to lie about it to Parliament and the people a decade later? Kilmuir was writing as a government law officer, so Heath would not have taken his view as some after-dinner note scribbled on a napkin. Kilmuir told him what he suspected but didn't want to hear, so he simply ignored the inconvenient truth.

. . .

It's not a question of the risks of us leaving, but the dangers inherent in us remaining.

Note how the Remain camp are NOT arguing about the projections for immigration numbers - they cannot. Do you really think we can cope with millions of immigrants in the next decade without fundamental changes to the way the country looks, behaves, and its quality of life? We can't feed them, house them, educate their children (nor teach them English even), provide medical services for them, nor water, nor power and light. Forget any "contribution to the economy" we do not have the resources to accommodate them, yet we are treaty-bound to do so.

I have no idea how the euro will play out, except that it CANNOT succeed. Greece and the rest are killing it right now, as I type. The collapse will be horrible, and we can't stop it, only throw good (borrowed!) money after bad, if we stay in.

We have to escape now, while we still can. That's not racism, nor xenophobia, nor anything else but PRACTICAL and ECONOMIC.

E.

PS: YES this is long, but it just scratches the surface. People who make TL;DR comments are the same type who find their insurance policies don't cover them or the warranty on the new TV doesn't mean a thing -- you have to do due diligence! I'm not going to engage either if someone pickes up on one particular phrase above and calls me out on it. Life is too short.

*Ratified and signed in 1997 but in existence for years prior to that.
 
phil.p":jv85b9le said:
I asked her on a different occasion if we should be building a new city the size of Sheffield every year just to house immigrants and said that was quite obviously ridiculous.
Which is a silly question to ask.
A growing population obviously needs housing, but that's never done by just building new cities. It's about using the housing we already have most effectively and allowing sensible amounts of new housing to be built.
Increasing population isn't a problem caused just by immigration either.

Maybe you should listen more closely to your daughter, she sounds like she's better educated.
 
Rhossydd":2pg0mlpo said:
Inoffthered":2pg0mlpo said:
It is a shame that our prime ministers are so gullible.
That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible.
They're probably the most well informed and briefed people in the UK. They're the people that have sat on the top tables and know what other leaders around the globe think/want/expect/would like.
Most importantly they are acutely aware of the consequences of their actions. Read their autobiographies and learn how much impact their first meeting with the heads of defence staff when they told of their responsibilities of our nuclear arsenal are brought home to them.
They can't further their own political careers as they've already been at the top.

I agree with everything you said above, until the last sentence.

Blair is the most egregious example - amassing a HUGE fortune starting immediately after leaving office. On the way up, he was a not-well-off public sector lawyer, and to some extent needed sponsorship form Labour grandees.

Major immediately joined some highly-paid and influential boards. Clark's association with British American Tobacco and the Bilderberg group is well known. I could go on, but the point is these people have VESTED INTERESTS in remaining in the Euro, as do most of the corporations they are connected to. The EU is nothing if not corporatist.
It's telling that everyone of them is now saying exactly the same thing, remain.
Indeed so.

E.
 
phil.p":16olgxgc said:
Jake":16olgxgc said:
phil.p":16olgxgc said:
The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.

Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?

I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.

A common currency, a common army ... sorry, defence force, a central government and a lack of internal borders are the core beliefs of the EU - does it not occur to you that the option to sit on the periphery for ever doesn't exist?

Given we have a veto, we have control of whether we participate in any such developments. That means it will take guns. If (which is absurd,and demonstrates the unreality of your venting) guns are employed to enforce this, it doesn't actually matter whether we are in or out at the time the attempt to enforce this upon us is made, it just matters who has more guns, better soldiers, nuclear deterrents etc.
 
A good friend of mine came up with a great idea. If you don't have the time/inclination to find out all the facts about the EU referendum (I don't blame you) and are possibly unsure which way to vote, perhaps knowing how other notable people are thinking could help out.

Here are a few that strongly believe the UK should remain a member of the EU:

• Governor of the Bank of England
• International Monetary Fund
• Institute for Fiscal Studies
• Confederation of British Industry
• Leaders/heads of state of every single other member of the EU
• President of the United States of America
• Eight former US Treasury Secretaries
• President of China
• Prime Minister of India
• Prime Minister of Canada
• Prime Minister of Australia
• Prime Minister of Japan
• Prime Minister of New Zealand
• The chief executives of most of the top 100 companies in the UK including Marks and Spencer, BT, Asda, Vodafone, Virgin, IBM, BMW etc.
• Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations
• All living former Prime Ministers of the UK (from both parties)
• Virtually all reputable and recognised economists
• The Prime Minister of the UK
• The leader of the Labour Party
• The Leader of the Liberal Democrats
• The Leader of the Green Party
• The Leader of the Scottish National Party
• The leader of Plaid Cymru
• Leader of Sinn Fein
• Martin Lewis, that money saving dude off the telly
• The Secretary General of the TUC
• Unison
• National Union of Students
• National Union of Farmers
• Stephen Hawking
• Chief Executive of the NHS
• 300 of the most prominent international historians
• Director of Europol
• David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
• Former Directors of GCHQ
• Secretary General of Nato
• Church of England
• Church in Scotland
• Church in Wales
• Friends of the Earth
• Greenpeace
• Director General of the World Trade Organisation
• WWF
• World Bank
• OECD

Here are pretty much the only notable people who think we should leave the EU:

• Boris Johnson, who probably doesn’t really care either way, but knows he’ll become Prime Minister if the country votes to leave
• A former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who carried out a brutal regime of cuts to benefits and essential support for the poorest in society as well as the disabled and sick
• The guy who was Education Secretary and every single teacher in the country hated with a furious passion for the damage he was doing to the education system
• Leader of UKIP
• BNP
• Britain First
• Donald Trump
• Keith Chegwin
• David Icke
 
Eric The Viking":1r5luln1 said:
these people have VESTED INTERESTS in remaining in the Euro, as do most of the corporations they are connected to.
Every one has some sort of 'vested interest' at some level, so that argument doesn't really cut it.

The ex-PMs main vested interest is the continual success of the UK that they've all fought so hard for in office. (Shall we add that regardless of party they were all democratically elected) OK we may not agree with their individual policies and whether they worked well or not, but together their main concern has been the growth and welfare of the UK.
When they ALL say the same thing we should sit up and pay attention.
 
Blair certainly knew what he was doing and was very well briefed yet still attacked Iraq/Sadam even when they knew he had no WMD same goes for 99% of other illegal wars our so-called leaders have got us into......they should all be locked up for war crimes and fraud.
They are all out for themselves NOT for Britain and the British people who pay their wages.
 
Rhossydd":198oyvp1 said:
phil.p":198oyvp1 said:
I asked her on a different occasion if we should be building a new city the size of Sheffield every year just to house immigrants and said that was quite obviously ridiculous.
Which is a silly question to ask.
A growing population obviously needs housing, but that's never done by just building new cities. It's about using the housing we already have most effectively and allowing sensible amounts of new housing to be built.
Increasing population isn't a problem caused just by immigration either.

Maybe you should listen more closely to your daughter, she sounds like she's better educated.

Hmm, playing the ball, or the man?

In WWII we had a population of about 35m. We grew crops on every possible square yard, including in public parks and gardens. Yet, until we defeated the U-boats and restored trade in the Atlantic, the country was slowly starving to death.

A population of 80m is totally unsustainable because the resources required are simply not available, food being but one aspect of this.

The changes to British life, to the countryside, the infrastructure demands, to our energy needs (and foreign dependency thereof), in short the accommodation of everything that such a vast increase in population demands are huge, and, to my mind quite unacceptable.

You are welcome to disagree as to whether they are acceptable, but the effects of mass immigration continuing at the present rate are factual, not debating points.

What would by your plan for this, as we simply cannot continue as we are.

Is it one new house every four or every six minutes (I've heard both)? Will you lay them out end-to-end along the motorways or stack them in residential versions of the Shard? Will you openly say that greenbelt policy is "so last century"?

What will you do with all the sewage, literally? Where will you find the teachers, health service workers, jobs (most immigrants want work and are of working age)? How will you police them? Where will the new reservoirs and power stations be built? Where will the roads go?

It's not remotely trivial.

Well?

E.
 
Eric The Viking":zairgsru said:
In WWII we had a population of about 35m. We grew crops on every possible square yard, including in public parks and gardens. Yet, until we defeated the U-boats and restored trade in the Atlantic........
Move on. It's the twenty first century and we're living in a globalised economy.
 
Every one has some sort of 'vested interest' at some level, so that argument doesn't really cut it? Who has a vested interest in getting out? I can't think of anyone - quite the opposite in many cases. BoJo could be argued, I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top