Current Politics in the United Kingdom - Page 8

**gordian_knot** · March 1st, 2016, 10:15 PM

We may not be in the Euro, but what happens to Eurozone countries must inevitably have an effect on the EU as a whole. It's even possible for Cameron's much-vaunted 'concessions' to be thrown out or watered-down. They can be overridden by the ECJ and some of them require secondary legislation and a vote in the European Parliament and that will happen after the referendum. Not until they've been enshrined in a treaty are they legally binding.

Anyone who thinks our opt-outs are set in stone are deluding themselves. Politicians by their very nature are mendacious, and if a future PM decides he can get away with joining us to the Euro (as Blair wanted to) or giving away more powers to Brussels, there won't be a thing we can do about it, if we spurn this opportunity.

flembo · March 1st, 2016, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunderfly

As you may have seen in the news, Britain will be holding a referendum on the 23rd June on whether to leave the EU or stay in. So how will you be voting?

Personally, I'll be voting to leave.

EVERYONE I know intends to vote to leave with the one exeption of my stepson, but he is a teacher so by definition a lefty.

blueboy199 · March 2nd, 2016, 11:21 PM

Why would anyone want to stay in a corrupt, wasteful, undemocratic organisation? It's a leap in the dark, says Project Fear, if we leave. It's a bloody certain fate if we stay.

**scoundrel** · March 3rd, 2016, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

We may not be in the Euro, but what happens to Eurozone countries must inevitably have an effect on the EU as a whole. It's even possible for Cameron's much-vaunted 'concessions' to be thrown out or watered-down. They can be overridden by the ECJ and some of them require secondary legislation and a vote in the European Parliament and that will happen after the referendum. Not until they've been enshrined in a treaty are they legally binding.

Anyone who thinks our opt-outs are set in stone are deluding themselves. Politicians by their very nature are mendacious, and if a future PM decides he can get away with joining us to the Euro (as Blair wanted to) or giving away more powers to Brussels, there won't be a thing we can do about it, if we spurn this opportunity.

However, since the EU as a body and the Eurozone in particular is our biggest export market. While we also do huge business with the USA, our biggest single export market, and we also sell to China and Latin America more and more, we nevertheless trade with the EU an awful lot, and cannot quarantine ourselves economically from what goes on there. This will remain true regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU, or even in or out of the Eurozone. Globalisation has moved the goalposts considerably since 1975 and the world is a very different place.

Inside the EU, we have a strong voice, and even though we can be overrruled and often are, our voice is heard and does often affect the decisions of others, often to their chagrin at the time. But even the French and Germans openly admitted after the Greek debacle that Britain had warned them something like that could well happen when a shared currency isn't underpinned by a shared fiscal policy; in fact, some French and German politicians blamed Britain for standing aside and not participating, because had we participated we would have banged this drum from a position where the noise could not be ignored, and they would have realised what what going on a lot sooner with Britain sounding the alarm in their ears. I feel no guilt for that myself, but I note that when Britain participates, she gets heard even by partners who do not like what we have to say.

Outside the EU, Britain has no voice concerning what the EU decides to do next, and no right to have a voice. But Britain still lives in the Europe which the EU makes for all of us. We may leave the EU but the EU will not leave our national life. I myself am not in favour of isolationism as a way of being; I think we do better to engage with the world, and that part of this must mean building and improving our relationships with France, Germany and the EU in general.

**DB83** · March 4th, 2016, 06:50 PM

In my original reply in this thread I stated that the In-Campaign would be run on the 'politics of fear'. And that is what we are getting. Dossier after dossier. Speech after speech of what could happen if we voted to leave.

So they play on fear. Fear that jobs will go. Fear that instead of curbing immigration it will get worse etc. etc.

But its a dangerous game. If the electorate have any sense they should see through the charade. Even the negotiations were a charade. Cameron was always going to campaign to stay in whatever he got - he asked for little and got even less.

So wouldn't it be more positive to campaign on the benefits of staying in - spell it out rather than state the reverse logic.

jehuty34 · March 7th, 2016, 01:25 PM

Personally I don't believe in all the scaremongering that's flying about at the moment. I will be voting to leave.

**Wendigo** · March 7th, 2016, 02:08 PM

My heart favours leaving, my head needs more information. The more they scaremonger though the easier it makes my decision. I want the pro staying in the EU side to put forward sensible arguments. There is still quite a long way to go and if we decide to leave what timescale is involved? I understand the exit will be phased over 2/3 years which seems sensible enough.

One bonus to possibly take into account is that quitting the EU would mean the UK would not be part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement.

If the UK leave they can see how that agreement beds in with the EU/USA and whether as many fear businesses will be only too eager to abuse and exploit this before jumping to any rash decision.

**Oswald** · March 7th, 2016, 05:45 PM

Special Guest at Grassroots Out Go campaign launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYFBRMLQacA

This referendum is not about left or right, it's about right or wrong.

**scoundrel** · March 7th, 2016, 08:37 PM

I have not firmly decided whic way I shall vote, but only that I shall be voting. I am inclined to vote to stay in for a variety of reasons, but I have not committed myself to that course and things such as some pox-brained French minister threatening that France will cease to police the Calias freeloaders were Britain to decide to withdraw from EU membership do have a contrarian effect on me. I react badly to threats, menaces or warnings of dire consequences; they make me inclined to feel truculent, stubborn and cross.

As regards trade, Europe has to import an awful lot of stuff and not all of it can be handled at Rotterdam Europort or St Nazaire. Britain will remain a necessary conduit for millions of tonnes of goods entering and leaving the EU. Once the first rush of invidia has died down after Britain votes to leave, the rest of the European countries will look for ways to make the best of it, as Britain will also be forced to do. Our relationships with Europe will change radically but they will remain crucially important to the wellbeing of Britain and of the remaining EU block. I am inclined to think that in the short and medium term Britain and the EU will both be losers economically if Britain leaves, with possibly Russia the gainer; but in the long term the picture will be much the same whether Britain leaves or stays. Geography will have the last word on the routes taken by non-European trade into and out of Europe. Our differing skills sets will make trading between Britain and Europe advantageous and so the exchange of goods and services will remain. Meanwhile, were Britain to leave, the opportunity would be there to protect the British fishing industry and use force to put a stop to overfishing by our EU partners. The economic case for membership is by no means cut and dried.

What British people often overlook though is that EU membership is about politics as well as economics. The politicians know this. The Tories were gungho in favour of joining in 1975, especially Mrs Thatcher, because they saw the EU as a means to the end of thwarting old style British socialism by shackling it to the essentially corporatist EU structures. Ironic, because it is now the British left which looks to Europe as a means of curbing the excesses of the neo-liberal Thatcherite British right wing. Either way, the effect of diluted sovereignty is good or bad depending on whether you think you can use it to your advantage.

What no one seems to ask themselves is whether Britain has gained by pooling sovereignty in Europe. I would argue that we have gained considerably when dealing with superpowers such as America, Russia and China. For example, America could and would bully her old pal Britain over sanctions against British companies which openly trade with Cuba. But collectively the EU nations enforce Regulation 2271/96, which imposes criminal sanctions on US companies and individuals who try to invoke the Helms-Burton Act against EU companies and individuals which trade with Cuba. The property of such US companies and individuals can be seized and used to compensate EU companies and individuals for damages suffered in US law courts. and the US companies and individuals who try to use the Helms-Burton Act in the US to penalise EU entities which do business in Cuba can also be prohibited from trading in EU jurisdiction. The effect of this has been that actions under Helms-Burton are very rarely brought against British companies, because the American plaintiffs would experience very aggressive counter action in places where American law courts could not help them. Politics and trade are linked, and membership of the EU strengthens Britain when dealing with superpowers which would like to bully us.

There is a lot to say on this topic and I am not going to cover it all in one post. My point is that this is a question to reflect on slowly and carefully, and without anger or hot emotions, but with a lot of thought,

**DB83** · March 7th, 2016, 10:15 PM

^^ Relief m8. I just got a headache reading so far

Bear in mind that in 1975 we were not voting to join - we did not have a say in that just thank Mr. Heath - but to stay in. Just like now really.

But 40 years is a long time and I have no recollection of the arguments. And they would have been vastly different since the EU bore no semblance to what it has become.

And only this past week we see the head of The British Chamber of Commerce being virtually forced to resign since he dared to express his personal views. I thought we lived in a country where there was freedom of speech.

Yes. To decide properly one must reflect. But to do that one must also have all the facts at one's disposal. 'Project Fear' do not have to answer the awkward questions with their approach so you will never get the full facts. In many ways for Jo Public it will come down to the opinion of the newspaper he chooses to read and even then with over 3 months to go he could be so fed up of the whole thing that he just goes down the pub.

March 1st, 2016, 10:15 PM	#71
gordian_knot Vintage Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Gordium Posts: 1,225 Thanks: 6,524 Thanked 13,823 Times in 1,209 Posts	We may not be in the Euro, but what happens to Eurozone countries must inevitably have an effect on the EU as a whole. It's even possible for Cameron's much-vaunted 'concessions' to be thrown out or watered-down. They can be overridden by the ECJ and some of them require secondary legislation and a vote in the European Parliament and that will happen after the referendum. Not until they've been enshrined in a treaty are they legally binding. Anyone who thinks our opt-outs are set in stone are deluding themselves. Politicians by their very nature are mendacious, and if a future PM decides he can get away with joining us to the Euro (as Blair wanted to) or giving away more powers to Brussels, there won't be a thing we can do about it, if we spurn this opportunity. __________________ - "The whole of anything is never told." - Henry James "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." - George Orwell

March 7th, 2016, 01:25 PM	#76
jehuty34 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Somewhere in the deepest corners of my mind. Posts: 235 Thanks: 12,155 Thanked 3,090 Times in 226 Posts	EU. UK In or Out? Personally I don't believe in all the scaremongering that's flying about at the moment. I will be voting to leave. __________________ There is no spoon. Last edited by SanteeFats; March 7th, 2016 at 02:16 PM.. Reason: Mod edit after merge

March 7th, 2016, 02:08 PM	#77
Wendigo Former Staff Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Blighty Posts: 113,761 Thanks: 259,868 Thanked 1,139,151 Times in 113,883 Posts	My heart favours leaving, my head needs more information. The more they scaremonger though the easier it makes my decision. I want the pro staying in the EU side to put forward sensible arguments. There is still quite a long way to go and if we decide to leave what timescale is involved? I understand the exit will be phased over 2/3 years which seems sensible enough. One bonus to possibly take into account is that quitting the EU would mean the UK would not be part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement. If the UK leave they can see how that agreement beds in with the EU/USA and whether as many fear businesses will be only too eager to abuse and exploit this before jumping to any rash decision. __________________ RIP Doctor Who To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 23 November 1963 to 25 December 2017, sacrificed on the altar of identity politics. The show is dead to me, but my DVD's live on If you can re-up dead links please consider adding this to your signature. It helps when looking at reports of dead posts. Please PM me re any dead images although it is likely if it is outside Celebs I may no longer have the content

March 7th, 2016, 08:37 PM	#79
scoundrel Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 26,237 Thanks: 162,389 Thanked 278,411 Times in 26,182 Posts	I have not firmly decided whic way I shall vote, but only that I shall be voting. I am inclined to vote to stay in for a variety of reasons, but I have not committed myself to that course and things such as some pox-brained French minister threatening that France will cease to police the Calias freeloaders were Britain to decide to withdraw from EU membership do have a contrarian effect on me. I react badly to threats, menaces or warnings of dire consequences; they make me inclined to feel truculent, stubborn and cross. As regards trade, Europe has to import an awful lot of stuff and not all of it can be handled at Rotterdam Europort or St Nazaire. Britain will remain a necessary conduit for millions of tonnes of goods entering and leaving the EU. Once the first rush of invidia has died down after Britain votes to leave, the rest of the European countries will look for ways to make the best of it, as Britain will also be forced to do. Our relationships with Europe will change radically but they will remain crucially important to the wellbeing of Britain and of the remaining EU block. I am inclined to think that in the short and medium term Britain and the EU will both be losers economically if Britain leaves, with possibly Russia the gainer; but in the long term the picture will be much the same whether Britain leaves or stays. Geography will have the last word on the routes taken by non-European trade into and out of Europe. Our differing skills sets will make trading between Britain and Europe advantageous and so the exchange of goods and services will remain. Meanwhile, were Britain to leave, the opportunity would be there to protect the British fishing industry and use force to put a stop to overfishing by our EU partners. The economic case for membership is by no means cut and dried. What British people often overlook though is that EU membership is about politics as well as economics. The politicians know this. The Tories were gungho in favour of joining in 1975, especially Mrs Thatcher, because they saw the EU as a means to the end of thwarting old style British socialism by shackling it to the essentially corporatist EU structures. Ironic, because it is now the British left which looks to Europe as a means of curbing the excesses of the neo-liberal Thatcherite British right wing. Either way, the effect of diluted sovereignty is good or bad depending on whether you think you can use it to your advantage. What no one seems to ask themselves is whether Britain has gained by pooling sovereignty in Europe. I would argue that we have gained considerably when dealing with superpowers such as America, Russia and China. For example, America could and would bully her old pal Britain over sanctions against British companies which openly trade with Cuba. But collectively the EU nations enforce Regulation 2271/96, which imposes criminal sanctions on US companies and individuals who try to invoke the Helms-Burton Act against EU companies and individuals which trade with Cuba. The property of such US companies and individuals can be seized and used to compensate EU companies and individuals for damages suffered in US law courts. and the US companies and individuals who try to use the Helms-Burton Act in the US to penalise EU entities which do business in Cuba can also be prohibited from trading in EU jurisdiction. The effect of this has been that actions under Helms-Burton are very rarely brought against British companies, because the American plaintiffs would experience very aggressive counter action in places where American law courts could not help them. Politics and trade are linked, and membership of the EU strengthens Britain when dealing with superpowers which would like to bully us. There is a lot to say on this topic and I am not going to cover it all in one post. My point is that this is a question to reflect on slowly and carefully, and without anger or hot emotions, but with a lot of thought, __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

March 2nd, 2016, 11:21 PM	#73
blueboy199 Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Manchester Posts: 27 Thanks: 25,911 Thanked 196 Times in 25 Posts	Why would anyone want to stay in a corrupt, wasteful, undemocratic organisation? It's a leap in the dark, says Project Fear, if we leave. It's a bloody certain fate if we stay.

March 4th, 2016, 06:50 PM	#75
DB83 Vintage Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,472 Thanks: 1,948 Thanked 12,018 Times in 1,458 Posts	In my original reply in this thread I stated that the In-Campaign would be run on the 'politics of fear'. And that is what we are getting. Dossier after dossier. Speech after speech of what could happen if we voted to leave. So they play on fear. Fear that jobs will go. Fear that instead of curbing immigration it will get worse etc. etc. But its a dangerous game. If the electorate have any sense they should see through the charade. Even the negotiations were a charade. Cameron was always going to campaign to stay in whatever he got - he asked for little and got even less. So wouldn't it be more positive to campaign on the benefits of staying in - spell it out rather than state the reverse logic.

March 7th, 2016, 05:45 PM	#78
Oswald Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 13,112 Thanks: 51,073 Thanked 282,461 Times in 13,802 Posts	Special Guest at Grassroots Out Go campaign launch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYFBRMLQacA This referendum is not about left or right, it's about right or wrong.

March 7th, 2016, 10:15 PM	#80
DB83 Vintage Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,472 Thanks: 1,948 Thanked 12,018 Times in 1,458 Posts	^^ Relief m8. I just got a headache reading so far Bear in mind that in 1975 we were not voting to join - we did not have a say in that just thank Mr. Heath - but to stay in. Just like now really. But 40 years is a long time and I have no recollection of the arguments. And they would have been vastly different since the EU bore no semblance to what it has become. And only this past week we see the head of The British Chamber of Commerce being virtually forced to resign since he dared to express his personal views. I thought we lived in a country where there was freedom of speech. Yes. To decide properly one must reflect. But to do that one must also have all the facts at one's disposal. 'Project Fear' do not have to answer the awkward questions with their approach so you will never get the full facts. In many ways for Jo Public it will come down to the opinion of the newspaper he chooses to read and even then with over 3 months to go he could be so fed up of the whole thing that he just goes down the pub.