Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crabbycanary3

So, Brexit - who's for it, and who's against it?

Recommended Posts

I can''t see how we are going to obtain the benefits of being in trading bloc (customs union) without paying the price of freedom of movement. The argument that "they need us more than we need them" and so will give us better terms than they have given others seems infantile. In any case, I welcome immigration: I think it enriches our culture and is beneficial to the economy.Sovereignty? Not really that bothered whether the faceless bureaucrats are in Brussels or London, my nationalism ends at football matches. I''m fiercely parochial, but once outside Norfolk, Manchester or Madrid makes no difference to me.Democracy? Illusory - but like the idea that we can appeal to a power (supranational) higher than our national government, when they play a bit fast and loose with the rule of law.Personally, I plan to buy a house in Spain and bi-locate when my wife retires and spend significant parts of the Winter there (organising it around home games of course) - so need the freedom of movement.The only argument that has any weight as far as I can see are those put forwards by 93vintage with regards transnational neoliberalism but as (s)he accepts leaving the EU would not "guarantee reversal" of this. I would assess the impact upon corporations far more negatively than that and would assess it as non existent. There are plenty of faults in the EU (not least 93v''s) but can''t see leaving the EU as an answer to any question that is important to me and a backwards step in several areas.Definitely remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the 5th biggest economy in the World, would us leaving weaken the bargaining powers of the EU? We could renegotiate trade deals, as people will still want to trade with us. That isn''t arrogance, just plain common sense, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user=" Badger"]

Personally, I plan to buy a house in Spain and bi-locate when my wife retires and spend significant parts of the Winter there (organising it around home games of course) - so need the freedom of movement.Definitely remain.[/quote]So actually you are a rich Marxist, Badger.[Y][:D][;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user=" Badger"]I can''t see how we are going to obtain the benefits of being in trading bloc (customs union) without paying the price of freedom of movement. The argument that "they need us more than we need them" and so will give us better terms than they have given others seems infantile. In any case, I welcome immigration: I think it enriches our culture and is beneficial to the economy.Sovereignty? Not really that bothered whether the faceless bureaucrats are in Brussels or London, my nationalism ends at football matches. I''m fiercely parochial, but once outside Norfolk, Manchester or Madrid makes no difference to me.Democracy? Illusory - but like the idea that we can appeal to a power (supranational) higher than our national government, when they play a bit fast and loose with the rule of law.Personally, I plan to buy a house in Spain and bi-locate when my wife retires and spend significant parts of the Winter there (organising it around home games of course) - so need the freedom of movement.The only argument that has any weight as far as I can see are those put forwards by 93vintage with regards transnational neoliberalism but as (s)he accepts leaving the EU would not "guarantee reversal" of this. I would assess the impact upon corporations far more negatively than that and would assess it as non existent. There are plenty of faults in the EU (not least 93v''s) but can''t see leaving the EU as an answer to any question that is important to me and a backwards step in several areas.Definitely remain.[/quote]I was going to make some similar points.As far as trade goes, there are two linked trends. One is towards multi-national/trading bloc deals. The other is to deals with the countries, and particularly China, that represent the future. But such deals are enormously complicated, and take ages. The EU and China started talking in 2013, and are nowhere near finished. And China has other potential deals to occupy its mind. It is hardly going to prioritise an individual agreement with a country that has walked out of the talks it already had going with the EU. Obama''s warning was essentially correct.Sovereignty/democracy? Real sovereignty has been diminished by the conquest (whatever one thinks about it) of neo-liberal global capitalism. We are hardly masters in our own house anymore. And if the French, the most fiercely proud (one might almost say arrogant...) people in Europe can stomach some limits on sovereignty I do not see why we cannot. Leaving aside the point, and this applies to a common southern English view of the EU, that people seem quite happy to accept the benefits of the EU that flow from it acting as a bloc but rail at the supposed disadvantages that are a necessary part of that.There is an argument that the EU has grown, and will get bigger still, and that was not what Britain signed up to (this ties in with the idea that economic benefits are fine but we don''t want our sovereignty touched). Well, actually it was, even if most voters in the referendum back in 1975 didn''t realise it. The aim of the EU''s founding fathers was always as much political as economic, with the dream of a united Europe. They would have approved of the current expansion, although - to be fair - the collapse of the Soviet Union''s mini-empire, and its fragmentation, has created  many more countries as potential members than they could have envisaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user=" Badger"]I can''t see how we are going to obtain the benefits of being in trading bloc (customs union) without paying the price of freedom of movement. The argument that "they need us more than we need them" and so will give us better terms than they have given others seems infantile. In any case, I welcome immigration: I think it enriches our culture and is beneficial to the economy.Sovereignty? Not really that bothered whether the faceless bureaucrats are in Brussels or London, my nationalism ends at football matches. I''m fiercely parochial, but once outside Norfolk, Manchester or Madrid makes no difference to me.Democracy? Illusory - but like the idea that we can appeal to a power (supranational) higher than our national government, when they play a bit fast and loose with the rule of law.Personally, I plan to buy a house in Spain and bi-locate when my wife retires and spend significant parts of the Winter there (organising it around home games of course) - so need the freedom of movement.The only argument that has any weight as far as I can see are those put forwards by 93vintage with regards transnational neoliberalism but as (s)he accepts leaving the EU would not "guarantee reversal" of this. I would assess the impact upon corporations far more negatively than that and would assess it as non existent. There are plenty of faults in the EU (not least 93v''s) but can''t see leaving the EU as an answer to any question that is important to me and a backwards step in several areas.Definitely remain.[/quote]I was going to make some similar points.As far as trade goes, there are two linked trends. One is towards multi-national/trading bloc deals. The other is to deals with the countries, and particularly China, that represent the future. But such deals are enormously complicated, and take ages. The EU and China started talking in 2013, and are nowhere near finished. And China has other potential deals to occupy its mind. It is hardly going to prioritise an individual agreement with a country that has walked out of the talks it already had going with the EU. Obama''s warning was essentially correct.Sovereignty/democracy? Real sovereignty has been diminished by the conquest (whatever one thinks about it) of neo-liberal global capitalism. We are hardly masters in our own house anymore. And if the French, the most fiercely proud (one might almost say arrogant...) people in Europe can stomach some limits on sovereignty I do not see why we cannot. Leaving aside the point, and this applies to a common southern English view of the EU, that people seem quite happy to accept the benefits of the EU that flow from it acting as a bloc but rail at the supposed disadvantages that are a necessary part of that.There is an argument that the EU has grown, and will get bigger still, and that was not what Britain signed up to (this ties in with the idea that economic benefits are fine but we don''t want our sovereignty touched). Well, actually it was, even if most voters in the referendum back in 1975 didn''t realise it. The aim of the EU''s founding fathers was always as much political as economic, with the dream of a united Europe. They would have approved of the current expansion, although - to be fair - the collapse of the Soviet Union''s mini-empire, and its fragmentation, has created  many more countries as potential members than they could have envisaged.[/quote]
So why was the original proposition (in 1975) dishonestly presented as a trade bloc?
And, if it has become abundantly clear since then that a political union was the raison d''etre, why hasn''t any politician put that proposition to the country?  Even now, with Cameron''s bullying, it is hardly being presented as that choice.
And how does political union fit with the Euro- and the non-Euro countries?  With all new members having to adopt the Euro I can only see the non-Euro countries being marginalised to the point where they are forced to leave or join the currency.
I think the choice that is being presented is a snapshot of the situation now and little consideration is being given to what this might look like in due course.
I also think that if there is a resounding in vote we can expect some expensive decisions (to us) to be foisted upon us, as there will be little chance of any kickback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"As the 5th biggest economy in the World, would us leaving weaken the bargaining powers of the EU? We could renegotiate trade deals, as people will still want to trade with us. That isn''t arrogance, just plain common sense, surely? "

Why would they give us preferential trade deals over the ones that already exist with Europe? Suddenly we''re a smaller number of consumers as opposed to part of a huge number. This FT article points to a recent deal the Swiss did with China, where "a recent Swiss free-trade agreement with China opens up all of the Swiss market to China immediately, while maintaining tariffs on exports of Swiss watches to China in perpetuity."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d1b3-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz47133kRNU

We don''t know what will happen if we leave economically, but given we''re the worlds 5th largest economy (by GDP) I cannot help but feel that we''re likely punching above our rate already (and this isn''t being defeatist, it''s being realistic) so leaving is only likely to damage our position, not strengthen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="woostercanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user=" Badger"]I can''t see how we are going to obtain the benefits of being in trading bloc (customs union) without paying the price of freedom of movement. The argument that "they need us more than we need them" and so will give us better terms than they have given others seems infantile. In any case, I welcome immigration: I think it enriches our culture and is beneficial to the economy.Sovereignty? Not really that bothered whether the faceless bureaucrats are in Brussels or London, my nationalism ends at football matches. I''m fiercely parochial, but once outside Norfolk, Manchester or Madrid makes no difference to me.Democracy? Illusory - but like the idea that we can appeal to a power (supranational) higher than our national government, when they play a bit fast and loose with the rule of law.Personally, I plan to buy a house in Spain and bi-locate when my wife retires and spend significant parts of the Winter there (organising it around home games of course) - so need the freedom of movement.The only argument that has any weight as far as I can see are those put forwards by 93vintage with regards transnational neoliberalism but as (s)he accepts leaving the EU would not "guarantee reversal" of this. I would assess the impact upon corporations far more negatively than that and would assess it as non existent. There are plenty of faults in the EU (not least 93v''s) but can''t see leaving the EU as an answer to any question that is important to me and a backwards step in several areas.Definitely remain.[/quote]I was going to make some similar points.As far as trade goes, there are two linked trends. One is towards multi-national/trading bloc deals. The other is to deals with the countries, and particularly China, that represent the future. But such deals are enormously complicated, and take ages. The EU and China started talking in 2013, and are nowhere near finished. And China has other potential deals to occupy its mind. It is hardly going to prioritise an individual agreement with a country that has walked out of the talks it already had going with the EU. Obama''s warning was essentially correct.Sovereignty/democracy? Real sovereignty has been diminished by the conquest (whatever one thinks about it) of neo-liberal global capitalism. We are hardly masters in our own house anymore. And if the French, the most fiercely proud (one might almost say arrogant...) people in Europe can stomach some limits on sovereignty I do not see why we cannot. Leaving aside the point, and this applies to a common southern English view of the EU, that people seem quite happy to accept the benefits of the EU that flow from it acting as a bloc but rail at the supposed disadvantages that are a necessary part of that.There is an argument that the EU has grown, and will get bigger still, and that was not what Britain signed up to (this ties in with the idea that economic benefits are fine but we don''t want our sovereignty touched). Well, actually it was, even if most voters in the referendum back in 1975 didn''t realise it. The aim of the EU''s founding fathers was always as much political as economic, with the dream of a united Europe. They would have approved of the current expansion, although - to be fair - the collapse of the Soviet Union''s mini-empire, and its fragmentation, has created  many more countries as potential members than they could have envisaged.[/quote]
So why was the original proposition (in 1975) dishonestly presented as a trade bloc?
And, if it has become abundantly clear since then that a political union was the raison d''etre, why hasn''t any politician put that proposition to the country?  Even now, with Cameron''s bullying, it is hardly being presented as that choice.
And how does political union fit with the Euro- and the non-Euro countries?  With all new members having to adopt the Euro I can only see the non-Euro countries being marginalised to the point where they are forced to leave or join the currency.
I think the choice that is being presented is a snapshot of the situation now and little consideration is being given to what this might look like in due course.
I also think that if there is a resounding in vote we can expect some expensive decisions (to us) to be foisted upon us, as there will be little chance of any kickback.
[/quote]Those are good questions, but really you would need to ask the politicians (then and now) why that was! But anyone back in 1975 who studied the history of the EU, and why it was formed, would have realised there was a strong geo-political element to the organisation. I imagine then - and now - pro-EU UK politicians decided that painting it as much more than just an economic grouping would drive voters away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple Canary wrote: ".........if the French, the most fiercely proud (one might almost say arrogant...) people in Europe can stomach some limits on sovereignty I do not see why we cannot."
There is a very good reason why the French "can stomach some limits on sovereignty", namely the strength of the Franco-German axis which in reality exercises largely unfettered control over every important aspect of the EU. In the case of France and Germany, any apparent erosion of sovereignty is an illusion. Why are the French in favour of removing  or greatly restricting individual countries'' power of veto? Because such a move would largely emasculate countries, such as (or particularly) the UK, of the ability to thwart French interests. The French do not fear majority voting because they know that, between them, they and Germany exercise de facto control over the majority. In the context of the EU, the old saying "Beware Greeks bearing gifts" needs to be rewritten as "Beware France dangling so-called concessions". I''d go so far as to say that, for the French, the entire project is about the aggrandisement of France, a major element being the subjection of France''s historic enemy across the channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the leavers want to leave so they can spend years faffing around to the detriment of the economy in the vague and implausible hope that they can negotiate a better deal as an ousider than a insider. And all based on its fear of the outside world. Globalisation is here and shutting yourself off will only leave you behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]So the leavers want to leave so they can spend years faffing around to the detriment of the economy in the vague and implausible hope that they can negotiate a better deal as an ousider than a insider. And all based on its fear of the outside world. Globalisation is here and shutting yourself off will only leave you behind.[/quote] Globalisation is indeed here, which is precisely why we, the fifth largest economy in the world, do not need to be inside the EU. Are the benefits of globalisation dependent on us being in the EU? Of course not; we are a global economy in our own right, and the EU is simply another major global economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as regards "fear of the outside world", who is the more fearful: those who say we can''t stand on our own two feet or those who say "the world is OUR oyster, not just the EU''s"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wanting out can also be as basic as not wanting to be told what to do by the French and the Germans.I am still staggered that Germany has effectively taken charge of Dutch tank divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have some sympathy for those who state that they never voted for "European Union" in the previous referendum - although I was too young to vote it was always referred to as the Common Market.However, the direction of travel was pretty clear and people seemed very happy with it. The Labour "left" and sections of the right were very clear about this and promoted the point strongly. Labour ran in the 1983 election as an "Out" party - it was the main reason for the split that formed the SDP. There was a massive shift from Labour towards the pro Europe SDP and Conservatives.Shortly after this, Mrs Thatcher signed up for the free movement of Labour (Capital, Goods etc) in the Single European Act and was overwhelmingly re-elected in 1987. It always amuses me how Mrs T is still painted as anti-EU when she gave away more power than any other single leader - clever media manipulation at the time has proven to be very long lived.Rightly or wrongly, political parties drew the conclusion that having an anti-Europe stance was political suicide until relatively recently.  So whilst claims that we never voted for an European Union in the referendum may be technically correct, the support for it was pretty clear up until the last crisis of capitalism starting in 2007 (still to be resolved). After the crisis, populations around the world became more strongly nationalistic as they always do at times of crisis as they seek scapegoats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will be voting to leave but have a query for those on here with greater expertise than me.

There has been so much focus on trade deals in the campaign so far and whilst I accept that we have more leverage in terms of trade quantities as part of a larger block, I would also think that negotiating as a single nation and therefore not having to keep 27 other states happy would be advantageous so its perhaps swings and roundabouts in terms of ability to speedily negotiate deals. However, my query is do we actually need to have all these trade deals or at least do we need to have them in place quickly?

We have no trade deal with the US now and nor does the EU. therefore our levels of trade and EU levels of trade will not be effected by whether we have a trade deal with them? Unless we therefore intend to start imposing tariffs on them or they impose tariffs on us what difference does a trade deal make? Is the concern that once there is a trade deal with the EU if we are outside it and don;t have an equivalent deal then the EU will have better terms than us so will be able to poach trade from us? genuine question as it just seems to me that its all a bit of a red herring.

I may be naive but i would think that the likes of India, China, Japan, Australia, Canada and Australia would be very keen to see increased trade links and (if necessary) trade deals with the UK. The Chinese in particular have been making significant investment in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="woostercanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user=" Badger"]I can''t see how we are going to obtain the benefits of being in trading bloc (customs union) without paying the price of freedom of movement. The argument that "they need us more than we need them" and so will give us better terms than they have given others seems infantile. In any case, I welcome immigration: I think it enriches our culture and is beneficial to the economy.Sovereignty? Not really that bothered whether the faceless bureaucrats are in Brussels or London, my nationalism ends at football matches. I''m fiercely parochial, but once outside Norfolk, Manchester or Madrid makes no difference to me.Democracy? Illusory - but like the idea that we can appeal to a power (supranational) higher than our national government, when they play a bit fast and loose with the rule of law.Personally, I plan to buy a house in Spain and bi-locate when my wife retires and spend significant parts of the Winter there (organising it around home games of course) - so need the freedom of movement.The only argument that has any weight as far as I can see are those put forwards by 93vintage with regards transnational neoliberalism but as (s)he accepts leaving the EU would not "guarantee reversal" of this. I would assess the impact upon corporations far more negatively than that and would assess it as non existent. There are plenty of faults in the EU (not least 93v''s) but can''t see leaving the EU as an answer to any question that is important to me and a backwards step in several areas.Definitely remain.[/quote]I was going to make some similar points.As far as trade goes, there are two linked trends. One is towards multi-national/trading bloc deals. The other is to deals with the countries, and particularly China, that represent the future. But such deals are enormously complicated, and take ages. The EU and China started talking in 2013, and are nowhere near finished. And China has other potential deals to occupy its mind. It is hardly going to prioritise an individual agreement with a country that has walked out of the talks it already had going with the EU. Obama''s warning was essentially correct.Sovereignty/democracy? Real sovereignty has been diminished by the conquest (whatever one thinks about it) of neo-liberal global capitalism. We are hardly masters in our own house anymore. And if the French, the most fiercely proud (one might almost say arrogant...) people in Europe can stomach some limits on sovereignty I do not see why we cannot. Leaving aside the point, and this applies to a common southern English view of the EU, that people seem quite happy to accept the benefits of the EU that flow from it acting as a bloc but rail at the supposed disadvantages that are a necessary part of that.There is an argument that the EU has grown, and will get bigger still, and that was not what Britain signed up to (this ties in with the idea that economic benefits are fine but we don''t want our sovereignty touched). Well, actually it was, even if most voters in the referendum back in 1975 didn''t realise it. The aim of the EU''s founding fathers was always as much political as economic, with the dream of a united Europe. They would have approved of the current expansion, although - to be fair - the collapse of the Soviet Union''s mini-empire, and its fragmentation, has created  many more countries as potential members than they could have envisaged.[/quote]
So why was the original proposition (in 1975) dishonestly presented as a trade bloc?
And, if it has become abundantly clear since then that a political union was the raison d''etre, why hasn''t any politician put that proposition to the country?  Even now, with Cameron''s bullying, it is hardly being presented as that choice.
And how does political union fit with the Euro- and the non-Euro countries?  With all new members having to adopt the Euro I can only see the non-Euro countries being marginalised to the point where they are forced to leave or join the currency.
I think the choice that is being presented is a snapshot of the situation now and little consideration is being given to what this might look like in due course.
I also think that if there is a resounding in vote we can expect some expensive decisions (to us) to be foisted upon us, as there will be little chance of any kickback.
[/quote]Those are good questions, but really you would need to ask the politicians (then and now) why that was! But anyone back in 1975 who studied the history of the EU, and why it was formed, would have realised there was a strong geo-political element to the organisation. I imagine then - and now - pro-EU UK politicians decided that painting it as much more than just an economic grouping would drive voters away.[/quote]
And that seems dishonest to me - presented as political union I''m sure the majority (in the UK) would vote against.  
So politicians misrepresent things and then say: 
"...anyone who studied the history of the EU, and why it was formed, would have realised there was a strong geo-political element to the organisation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user=" Badger"]Unfortunately not Ricardo - property in Spain is relatively cheap![/quote]

Relatively Cheap and still dropping. Have a friend who has an American style restaurant and bar plus separate house near Malaga in one of the more up market area''s f Spain that they cannot sell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]Surprising so many for leaving when economics 101 and every economic forecast says uk would be worse off to exit.

Working internationally I see all the time that Europe economy suffers from lack of intergration compared to the federal set up of the US or the large economies of Asia. It is economic madness to leave especially when the economy is still struggling

The polls are clear. Those who paid attention in school and the young are pro Europe. Not sure why people are so scared about a land mass 20 odd miles away because of a little stretch of water. If people are not scared of other people and care about a fragile economy and the future of their children them it is clear to stay in. Without cooperation Europe and the U.K. Will fall further behind the us and Asia.

The us has significantly greater wealth per head. I like to think it is because they have a larger intergrated economy rather than that they are brighter. But perhaps that is not the case if the uk votes for a less intergrated economy. That does not mean that beauracy should not be avoided or that decisions should not be made locally wherever it makes sense.

Man emerged from the cave and progressed by cooperating not by isolating themselves. Let us not go backwards because of fear and ignorance.[/quote]

Strange we didn''t join the Euro then as every economic forecast said it would be crazy to be out !!

I was always anti-euro for commonsense reasons and am ''OUT'' similarly.

BTW Greece hits the buffers again in May. Get ready to bail the EU out yet again !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="westcoastcanary"]Purple Canary wrote: ".........if the French, the most fiercely proud (one might almost say arrogant...) people in Europe can stomach some limits on sovereignty I do not see why we cannot."
There is a very good reason why the French "can stomach some limits on sovereignty", namely the strength of the Franco-German axis which in reality exercises largely unfettered control over every important aspect of the EU. In the case of France and Germany, any apparent erosion of sovereignty is an illusion. Why are the French in favour of removing  or greatly restricting individual countries'' power of veto? Because such a move would largely emasculate countries, such as (or particularly) the UK, of the ability to thwart French interests. The French do not fear majority voting because they know that, between them, they and Germany exercise de facto control over the majority. In the context of the EU, the old saying "Beware Greeks bearing gifts" needs to be rewritten as "Beware France dangling so-called concessions". I''d go so far as to say that, for the French, the entire project is about the aggrandisement of France, a major element being the subjection of France''s historic enemy across the channel. 
[/quote]Westcoast, yes there is a powerful Franco-German axis, but then if the UK had been in from the start, or even bought into the whole politico-economic project when it did belatedly join, instead of just haggling about the price of fish*, perhaps we would now be an equal part of a triple alliance running the show. I don''t agree that France''s aim is to do us down. De Gaulle had that as an objective, but then he had never really forgiven us for liberating his country. De Gaulle is long gone.As to your point later on, yes the UK is the world''s fifth largest economy, but would it still be if we hadn''t joined the EU? And would it still be in a decade or two''s time if we left. Not being an economist I don''t know the answers to those questions (although I suspect if you asked six economists you would get 12 answers).* Rhetorical exaggeration for dramatic effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Against it...the Tory party should sort out their petty squabbles elsewhere or using a different vehicle.

Apples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Purple Canary
Re. our economic health had we not joined the Common Market, we were already part of a global economic unit better known as the Commonwealth. Our joining the CM involved a narrowing of our conception of our place in the world rather than an expansion of it. We were never "Little Britons" but became "Little Europeans".
As for France, de Gaulle may have gone but La Gloire unquestionably has not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@ Purple Canary
Re. our economic health had we not joined the Common Market, we were already part of a global economic unit better known as the Commonwealth. Our joining the CM involved a narrowing of our conception of our place in the world rather than an expansion of it. We were never "Little Britons" but became "Little Europeans".
As for France, de Gaulle may have gone but La Gloire unquestionably has not.  
[/quote]You are not serious? We were, not surprisingly, so

unconvinced by the Commonwealth as a global trading partner (since it

was nothing of the kind) for the future that was heading our way that we

hastily helped set up the European Free Trade Association as an

alternative. And we jumped ship from that to join the EU once we

realised that grouping was the best bet for that future. And while dear

old France revels, misty-eyed, in La Gloire, as it does, in the real

world its modern-day politicians have Thatcher and Blair, and Reagan

(and Merkel) as role models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Thatcher, Blair, Reagan, Merkel"

Which of these would be described as the role model of Marine Le Pen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''ll be voting out.

For me the economic arguments hold no weight. Some people will benefit and some will lose out. It all depends on where you sit in the economy. The extent of any effect is unknown and all economic analysis presented is basically guesswork based on initial model assumptions. Remember these are the people who all accurately predicted the 2008 credit crunch (there is an amazing forecast from the Bank of England predicting UK growth rate in 2008 and the actual growth rate was outside their entire probability distribution, so much for an economics PhD).

My reason for voting out is purely for democratic reasons. I cannot tolerate the unaccountable elected people at the top of the EU on the commission making all the decisions. If I think they are cretins (and I do) then how do i remove them? Oh I can''t as they aren''t elected. And when I think of the men and women who fought and died to give us accountable lawmakers I the UK over history, who am who has risked nothing to give up my freedom for a few extra pennies in my back pocket? It seems immoral to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely agree with full accountability for all our lawmakers. Would you like to join my protest outside the House of Lords?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Herman "]I completely agree with full accountability for all our lawmakers. Would you like to join my protest outside the House of Lords?[/quote]

Herman, I agree the House of Lords is a disgrace and has no place in our modern democracy. But arguably since Blair trashed it by removing the old peers (the old 1% if you like, ie the aristocracy and rich of yesteryear (who have been losing their relevance for years and wealth)) he arguably replaced them with the new 1% failed politicians and rich businessmen. The 1% have to make sure they do okay off the backs of us peasants. But yes I would prefer to see it elected. But we''re not voting on that this year. We''re voting on the pigs In The EU commission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canary P

"We''re voting on the pigs In The EU commission. "

I trust they all meet the appropriate directives for hygiene, husbandry, girth of loin and length of tail.😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please listen to this Spectator debate with Kate Hoey, Nigel Farage, Nick Clegg etc, hosted by Andrew Neil two days ago:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/watch-the-spectators-brexit-debate/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...