planetf1.com

The topic title says everything, just interested in a PF1 poll.

You beat me to it Woody. Was going to start a similar thread

I'm still undecided. I need to listen to the various debates & understand more fully the ramifications & the pros & cons involved. ...

aice wrote:Beat me to it Woody. Was going to start a similar thread

I'm still undecided. I need to listen to the various debates & understand more fully the ramifications & the pros & cons involved. ...

Unfortunately no one will be able to say with any certainty what the consequences of leaving will be, therefore people are either going to have make an emotional decision, or one based on hope / speculation.

Politicians dont like not having free runs at whatever they want. The days when a monarch had check on them are gone, it is only the EU now.


Quite apart from that, IN.

What has the EU ever done for us Brits?

Well......

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

I like our little political debates. Always good to get the opinions and basis for other people's decisions.

I'm leaning heavily towards IN.

I'm just leaning towards out but my mind could be changed.

I always find a small business can be much more flexible and agile than a large one. I appreciate the list of "what the EU has done for us" that someone has put up here, and I no doubt in some ways it has improved life for us but even with pulling out of the EU there is no reason why we can't continue with most of those things.

I think we would suffer some short term pain though. The value of the £ would probably fall for example.

Jimbox01 wrote:

aice wrote:Beat me to it Woody. Was going to start a similar thread

I'm still undecided. I need to listen to the various debates & understand more fully the ramifications & the pros & cons involved. ...

Unfortunately no one will be able to say with any certainty what the consequences of leaving will be, therefore people are either going to have make an emotional decision, or one based on hope / speculation.

Doesn't seem like we can say with any great certainty the consequences of staying in either.

OUT.

Asphalt_World wrote:What has the EU ever done for us Brits?

Well......

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

Devil's advocate mode: ON

providing 57% of our trade; As non-EU member states both within and without Europe show, you don't need EU membership to have strong trade with Europe.
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline; the funding comes from us (and other big payers), though. As things stand we spend more than we receive, so we're subsidising such funding in other nations
clean beaches and rivers; cleaner air; lead free petrol; restrictions on landfill dumping; a recycling culture; can it be shown that such steps forward will be undone by exiting? Can it be shown we couldn't do a better job on these issues with freedom to tailor more specific solutions to our specific issues?
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives; subjective benefit and the above
cheaper mobile charges; cheaper air travel; improved consumer protection and food labelling; better product safety again, can it be shown these would change for the worse if we exited? How valuable are these in exchange for what membership costs?
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance; subjective and hard to demonstrate. Some business say Euro red tape hamper their growth
break up of monopolies; is this dependent on EU membership?
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection; yippee
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market; individual deals have been struck by other non-EU members
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone; costs just hidden elsewhere
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe; I think this is the main reason why half the country want to leave
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad; great for a few dozen people. Do we not subsidise such foreign students studying here though?
access to European health services; The extra NHS traffic negates this advantage by a factor of many
labour protection and enhanced social welfare; EU dependent?
smoke-free workplaces; irrelevant and subjective (we'll never have smoking in normal work places if we leave, and as many people semm to object to the ban as support it)
equal pay legislation; that's working really well
holiday entitlement; I'll get less holiday if we leave? If true it's the most compelling argument I've yet heard to stay.
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime; I work in post production, where a mere 48 hour week is as rare as overtime, so not sure how effective this is
strongest wildlife protection in the world; even the devil's advocate is on board with this one!
improved animal welfare in food production; Halal butchery is more prevalent now than ever before
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration; funded by the money we give them
EU representation in international forums; is being an unpopular junior partner a stronger position that standing on our own?
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO; as above
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; this will happen with or without our membership
European arrest warrant; Is it really worth much?
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence; European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa; dependent on full EU membership?
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond; this will happen with or without our membership
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital. I'm not sure that spending money on other countries is vote winner in this referendum
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed. it's impossible to demonstrate that our membership of the EU has prevented a war, or will prevent a future war
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980. again, do voters care?

I really am playing devil's advocate in most (not all) cases, I'm not anti-EU. But so many arguments for staying can be addressed with variations on:

-That won't change just because we leave
-That's a worst case scenario
-Just because it benefits international businesses it doesn't mean it benefits us
-Could we not do just as well, or better, on our own?
-Yes, but we get to ditch X, Y or Z, which may be a worthwhile sacrifice

I'm in favour of staying because I like the concept of a closer Europe and to me it seems the benefits outweigh the costs (not because I see great benefits but because the main 'cost' people object to - immigration - doesn't bother me). Though the benefits have been explained appallingly by those in favour of staying. I'm one of those people who are uncomfortable with what I deem to be excessive legislation in terms of what we can and can't do/buy/say etc. But that's about it for the negatives (and, to point my own argument at myself, would this be any better if we left?) apart from one crucial thing: middle Englanders (or UKIP voters or whoever) who resent immigration have a right to be heard, and without lazy accusations of racism. There are genuine and valid concerns that need to be listened to and are well beyond simple racism. If half the country is seriously upset about something, it should be addressed, whether you or I share the concern or not. Blair tagging all these people as racists who should be ignored is what lead to UKIP and widespread feelings of alienation. I was convinced Scotland would be better off as part of GB but fully respected that if they wanted to leave anyway, then they should. The mental health of a nation is vital. I know ordinary, otherwise progressive people who are in no way racist in the 'traditional' sense, but who object to the perception (at this point it doesn't even matter if it's accurate) that there are hundreds of thousands of foreigners in the UK either not working and sending benefits home, working but sending their income out of the country or working and not paying tax. Those concerns are not automatically racist.

I'll vote to stay in but I despair of the arguments I see from Cameron and business leaders etc. Nobody knows the reality in terms of the impact on jobs, taxes or anything else. So I'd like the question to be more esoteric, something like: do you want to Britain to be a forward thinking, open minded, welcoming country? Or do you want it to be a traditional, independent, personally responsible country?

ALESI wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:

aice wrote:Beat me to it Woody. Was going to start a similar thread

I'm still undecided. I need to listen to the various debates & understand more fully the ramifications & the pros & cons involved. ...

Unfortunately no one will be able to say with any certainty what the consequences of leaving will be, therefore people are either going to have make an emotional decision, or one based on hope / speculation.

Doesn't seem like we can say with any great certainty the consequences of staying in either.

OUT.

The consequences of staying in are pretty clear, we just carry on as normal - what ever normal is.

From a personal perspective, we live in France but 100% of our income is paid in Sterling (mostly taxable in the UK but some in France), so just having the Brexit debate is going to cost us several hundred Euro per month (the pound has already bombed), and I'm almost too scared to even think about the possible consequences if the UK votes to leave! What happens to all the treaties and agreements e.g. tax, healthcare etc.? Will we even have a right to remain in the country?

That's why understanding the full consequences of a Brexit is important to me - and the other 1,999,999 UK citizens living in the EU who might be directly effected by the vote.

So, the only way I could possibly consider voting out is:
* I need to know how leaving the EU is going make everyone's lives better.
* I need to be 100% convinced that leaving the EU won't mean we end penniless and forced to return to the UK against our will.
* I need to understand how an out vote is going to immediately benefit the economy - my business doesn't do any work directly in or with Europe, but it relies on companies that do, so if they suffer, we suffer, which means all our employees (and their families) suffer too.
* I want to know specifically which laws / rules / regulations would be changed if we vote out. Are we talking about employment rights (minimum wage, working hours etc.), human rights, weights & measure, health & safety?

It's all very well and good having wish washy arguments (from both sides) about sovereignty, security, immigration, the economy, blah, blah, blah, etc., but what is going to be the immediate impact for me of an out vote, and how is it going to effect me in the short and medium term?
If no one can satisfactorily answer my questions, then my default position is to vote to stay in - I have no other choice.

Jimbox01 wrote:I want to know specifically which laws / rules / regulations would be changed if we vote out. Are we talking about employment rights (minimum wage, working hours etc.), human rights, weights & measure, health & safety?

Me too. I presume that this will be set out by the government before hand, otherwise I really don't understand how people can be expected to vote. They'd effectively be voting away those rights.

Of course that sort of thing will continue in some capacity, but without the specifics of how rights that are currently covered by EU legislation will be replaced I don't even consider voting out to be a valid option.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:I want to know specifically which laws / rules / regulations would be changed if we vote out. Are we talking about employment rights (minimum wage, working hours etc.), human rights, weights & measure, health & safety?

Me too. I presume that this will be set out by the government before hand, otherwise I really don't understand how people can be expected to vote. They'd effectively be voting away those rights.

Of course that sort of thing will continue in some capacity, but without the specifics of how rights that are currently covered by EU legislation will be replaced I don't even consider voting out to be a valid option.

The chances of us actually finding out anything concrete about what would happen are probably zero. It will all be the usual political fighting with nobody actually being able to confirm anything.

I'll vote to be In, but only because I think if the rest of the UK vote No, it's Scotland's best chance of getting Scottish Independence otherwise I would have voted No.

scotlandforever wrote:I'll vote to be In, but only because I think if the rest of the UK vote No, it's Scotland's best chance of getting Scottish Independence otherwise I would have voted No.

The referendum result - will it have region numbers or will we just get the UK-wide total?

It would be very interesting to know the regional, by which I really mean Scottish, voting on it. I do think that an EU exit would be enough of a substantial change that we might see another Indy referendum, as you have mentioned.

worth a read?
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... eal-danger

scotlandforever wrote:I'll vote to be In, but only because I think if the rest of the UK vote No, it's Scotland's best chance of getting Scottish Independence otherwise I would have voted No.

Hmm... you do know the oil industry in Scotland is probably f**ked, don't you?

This article on Norways' EEA membership written by a former Norwegian foreign minister, is pretty much say the same thing as the Economist.

I get the impression that most people who want out are going to vote either on principal (e.g. "we don't want Johnny Foreigner telling us what we can and can't do"), or because they think it's the best way of controlling immigration (just the eastern Europeans?), and there's very little chance anyone who's already made their mind up is going to change it, so articles like the one above are a bit of a waste of time.

What I find amusing is that 'Out' campaigners can dangle as many carrots as they like (better economy, proper immigration controls etc.), but at the end of the day, they do not have the power or authority to put any of their promises into action - that will still be up to parliament to decide.
However, being able to make promises about a better future, without any pressure whatsoever to deliver, means the Out campaign will probably come across much more positively than the 'In'. All the 'In' campaign can do really is point out the possible consequences of leaving, which is probably going to seem pretty negative to most people.

Just a thought, but if we decide to stay in and can't prevent unwanted immigrants, then perhaps the 'In' crowd should put together proposals to deal with the effects of immigration, e.g. how can we provide practical help and support to communities that feel like they're being overwhelmed - what do they want? what do they need? how can we restore a bit more balance?

I know people who live in areas of Derby that feel like they've been overrun, and they can't simply move away from the problems because they can't sell their houses (no one want to live there anymore) and to be completely honest, if I lived in a street that had effectively been taken over by Romanians, I'd probably be first in line to vote Out, and blow the consequences.

Having a completely open door policy to immigration (from the EU) might be of benefit to the overall economy, but maybe it shouldn't be at the expense of individual communities and areas. If immigration from the EU is helping boost the economy, they why not use some of that extra cash to mitigate the problems it causes.

A very well written post.

I have to say though, that Michael Howard seems to hit the nail on the head that we need a bit of self belief. As the fifth largest economy in the world, the notion that the rest of Europe will not want to trade with us is laughable at best, whether our politicians are capable of negotiating the deal we 'could' get however, remains open to debate. If we stay in though, the EU knows it's got us by the short and curlies and will continue to take the Michael.

Jimbox01 wrote:This article on Norways' EEA membership written by a former Norwegian foreign minister, is pretty much say the same thing as the Economist.

I get the impression that most people who want out are going to vote either on principal (e.g. "we don't want Johnny Foreigner telling us what we can and can't do"), or because they think it's the best way of controlling immigration (just the eastern Europeans?), and there's very little chance anyone who's already made their mind up is going to change it, so articles like the one above are a bit of a waste of time.

What I find amusing is that 'Out' campaigners can dangle as many carrots as they like (better economy, proper immigration controls etc.), but at the end of the day, they do not have the power or authority to put any of their promises into action - that will still be up to parliament to decide.
However, being able to make promises about a better future, without any pressure whatsoever to deliver, means the Out campaign will probably come across much more positively than the 'In'. All the 'In' campaign can do really is point out the possible consequences of leaving, which is probably going to seem pretty negative to most people.

Just a thought, but if we decide to stay in and can't prevent unwanted immigrants, then perhaps the 'In' crowd should put together proposals to deal with the effects of immigration, e.g. how can we provide practical help and support to communities that feel like they're being overwhelmed - what do they want? what do they need? how can we restore a bit more balance?

I know people who live in areas of Derby that feel like they've been overrun, and they can't simply move away from the problems because they can't sell their houses (no one want to live there anymore) and to be completely honest, if I lived in a street that had effectively been taken over by Romanians, I'd probably be first in line to vote Out, and blow the consequences.

Having a completely open door policy to immigration (from the EU) might be of benefit to the overall economy, but maybe it shouldn't be at the expense of individual communities and areas. If immigration from the EU is helping boost the economy, they why not use some of that extra cash to mitigate the problems it causes.

What does concern me is not so much the people coming here but what to do with them. Everyone has to live somewhere.

Last year, In total, 122,590 new homes were started, the largest number since 2007 ( and a rise of 23% on the previous year )
Also last year, NET immigration was 323,000. (both figures from BBC)

(I am pro "stay" btw)

ALESI wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:I'll vote to be In, but only because I think if the rest of the UK vote No, it's Scotland's best chance of getting Scottish Independence otherwise I would have voted No.

Hmm... you do know the oil industry in Scotland is probably f**ked, don't you?

The Westminster Government in London needs the oil industry more than Scotland, the Westminster government needs Scottish oil to fund the likes of Trident or London, oil is just a luxury that Scotland was blessed with, Scotland has other resources we can rely on, but as the advert say's every little helps.

Mind you just a horrible thought has crossed my mind Scottish votes could keep the UK in Europe.

Someone I spoke to last night gave me a good reply as to why he is pro Europe.

"look at which politicians want out"

We’re being asked to make a massive decision and pick the least worst option based on incomplete, skewed and plain false information – oh and threats too. British democracy at its best!

I’ll be voting IN because I think the one of the biggest threats facing the UK’s poor and working class is Westminster itself.

Anyway, the cynic in me thinks that the result will be IN regardless of the vote – too many vested interests for it to be otherwise.

I'm really not sure still. There are many good things that the EU has done for us and Europe as a whole, but there are also many really irritating things as well.

The main thing I'm thinking right now is kind of what biffa said, the irritating things are just that, irritating but not life altering bad things. Where as I simply do not out government right now to run their own country without being kept in check by someone else.

Honestly? I think we'll get stuffed if we stay and wrecked if we go... I really believe this decision should have been taken back when Labour were in power.

minchy wrote:I'm really not sure still. There are many good things that the EU has done for us and Europe as a whole, but there are also many really irritating things as well.

The main thing I'm thinking right now is kind of what biffa said, the irritating things are just that, irritating but not life altering bad things. Where as I simply do not out government right now to run their own country without being kept in check by someone else.

This is the most common reason I've heard for staying in the EU... the fear of our own government without shackles of any sort. Makes you wonder who the hell votes for this government in the first place.

Know what guys?

I have gone from 100% stay in to thinking harder about it. I am still leaning heavily to stay in, but it is not as cut and dried as I first thought.

Which ever way I see things, having someone to keep a leash on this government will figure high on my list of desirables.


(kidding here) If we are out, one of the first things they will do is invade France and wall up the entry to the tunnel for secure entry and exit only

Stay in... I'd quite like to be able to move freely in Europe... And I'm not scared of foreigners.

Ennis wrote:

minchy wrote:I'm really not sure still. There are many good things that the EU has done for us and Europe as a whole, but there are also many really irritating things as well.

The main thing I'm thinking right now is kind of what biffa said, the irritating things are just that, irritating but not life altering bad things. Where as I simply do not out government right now to run their own country without being kept in check by someone else.

This is the most common reason I've heard for staying in the EU... the fear of our own government without shackles of any sort. Makes you wonder who the hell votes for this government in the first place.

That's not a reflection on the current government, it applies to all parties and all future governments.

The UK is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a written constitution, and the only document that goes any way towards it is the Magna Carta - the rest has been pretty much made up as we go along and relies on legal presidents or unwritten assumptions.

Disentangling UK law from EU law should be a hugely complicated and long process - or they (parliament) could pass sweeping and unconstitutional (?) acts that would remove all the protection we currently get under EU law and basically resets things to back to the 70's.

Current EU laws work in conjunction with UK laws and cover everything from environmental protect to employment right, human rights etc. etc.. If we decide to leave, first we'd need to work out the actual mechanics of changing the existing legal system, then either someone has to go through every single piece of legislation and decide which bits to keep, which bits to get rid of, which bits to change, etc., or we simply scrap the lot and start again.
Bearing in mind we don't have a constitution to act as a guide, who do we trust to make all these changes?
And who makes the decisions on Scottish law?
Is that up to the UK parliament to decide?
Would Scotland be forced to change it's laws too?

I'm not suggesting any current or future government would immediately run riot or turn the UK into a police state, but with no checks or balances in place, over time our rights and liberties will inevitably be eroded.

Jimbox01 wrote:

Ennis wrote:

minchy wrote:I'm really not sure still. There are many good things that the EU has done for us and Europe as a whole, but there are also many really irritating things as well.

The main thing I'm thinking right now is kind of what biffa said, the irritating things are just that, irritating but not life altering bad things. Where as I simply do not out government right now to run their own country without being kept in check by someone else.

This is the most common reason I've heard for staying in the EU... the fear of our own government without shackles of any sort. Makes you wonder who the hell votes for this government in the first place.

That's not a reflection on the current government, it applies to all parties and all future governments.

The UK is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a written constitution, and the only document that goes any way towards it is the Magna Carta - the rest has been pretty much made up as we go along and relies on legal presidents or unwritten assumptions.

Disentangling UK law from EU law should be a hugely complicated and long process - or they (parliament) could pass sweeping and unconstitutional (?) acts that would remove all the protection we currently get under EU law and basically resets things to back to the 70's.

Current EU laws work in conjunction with UK laws and cover everything from environmental protect to employment right, human rights etc. etc.. If we decide to leave, first we'd need to work out the actual mechanics of changing the existing legal system, then either someone has to go through every single piece of legislation and decide which bits to keep, which bits to get rid of, which bits to change, etc., or we simply scrap the lot and start again.
Bearing in mind we don't have a constitution to act as a guide, who do we trust to make all these changes?
And who makes the decisions on Scottish law?
Is that up to the UK parliament to decide?
Would Scotland be forced to change it's laws too?

I'm not suggesting any current or future government would immediately run riot or turn the UK into a police state, but with no checks or balances in place, over time our rights and liberties will inevitably be eroded.

The Magna Charter is the act that gives power to the people who are now the Lords and the wealthy.

Politicians often use it as some sort of flag giving "common people" rights, which it never was. It was to give Lords rights against the King. Later, the counter balance was put in which allowed the monarch to over rule acts put through by parliament, but this has been all but neutered thanks mostly to Blair. ( the very party who should have strengthened it, but just happens that he and his wife are in the legal profession who make a LOT of cash out of it)

I'll be the first to admit - no idea!

The EU has made the UK think twice about reducing employee rights to a level they'd prefer, but is v expensive and wastes one hell of a lot of money. It doesn't seem to be accountable at all and staff (politicians) expenses are, I gather, way OTT.

Or perhaps I'm too cynical about the Euro 'gravy train'.

LKS1 wrote:I'll be the first to admit - no idea!

The EU has made the UK think twice about reducing employee rights to a level they'd prefer, but is v expensive and wastes one hell of a lot of money. It doesn't seem to be accountable at all and staff (politicians) expenses are, I gather, way OTT.

Or perhaps I'm too cynical about the Euro 'gravy train'.

It costs a lot less than a war, which we had every few years before the club was formed.

I've got to laugh at these politicians who want out the EU are screaming their heads about project fear and all the scare stories what would happen if we left the EU.

These are the same politicians and that were using project fear and scare stories and welcoming all the backing from the likes of the USA, Canada, Australia and business leaders etc against Scottish Independence, some of us were not fulled by project fear and voted for Scottish Independence.

To all these politicians in the No EU campaign, remember " Better Together" What goes around comes around.

scotlandforever wrote:I've got to laugh at these politicians who want out the EU are screaming their heads about project fear and all the scare stories what would happen if we left the EU.

These are the same politicians and that were using project fear and scare stories and welcoming all the backing from the likes of the USA, Canada, Australia and business leaders etc against Scottish Independence, some of us were not fulled by project fear and voted for Scottish Independence.

To all these politicians in the No EU campaign, remember " Better Together" What goes around comes around.

But is it any worse than the hypocrisy being shown by the SNP?

Endlessly extolling the virtues of being independent from the UK, yet strongly in favour of being a much smaller part of an even bigger political union?

The goings on between Boris and Osborne is truly pathetic and sums up politics perfectly. Their claims about being in or out are so extreme that it's simply a joke. I wish someone on either side would put a more genuine example of how it could change the UK if we opted out.

Sadly I'm passed listening to be honest.

Remember though. The people telling you we would be better off in/out, mean THEY would be not YOU would be.

j man wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:I've got to laugh at these politicians who want out the EU are screaming their heads about project fear and all the scare stories what would happen if we left the EU.

These are the same politicians and that were using project fear and scare stories and welcoming all the backing from the likes of the USA, Canada, Australia and business leaders etc against Scottish Independence, some of us were not fulled by project fear and voted for Scottish Independence.

To all these politicians in the No EU campaign, remember " Better Together" What goes around comes around.

But is it any worse than the hypocrisy being shown by the SNP?

Endlessly extolling the virtues of being independent from the UK, yet strongly in favour of being a much smaller part of an even bigger political union?

No it's not, we (The Scots) were told as part of Project Fear that IF Scotland became Independent we would not be aloud in the EU and that we were better remaining apart of the UK and that EU membership would be safe.

So what happens if the rest of UK wants out of the EU and Scotland votes to remain apart of the EU, so much for another broken promise from the "Better Together Team"

No wonder why the SNP are going to romp the Scottish Elections in a few weeks, tick tock, Scotland could be leaving as well, but not the EU?

I think leaving the EU will result in a few years in the breaking of Scotland from the Union. I'm with scotlandforever on that front. Unless the Scottish Elections change the makeup of the Scottish Parliament sufficiently, which I don't foresee happening. I think projections are still SNP as largest party though possibly not majority (or is that mistaken?)

I'm pro-UK and honestly, the belief that this will occur probably motivates my voting more than anything else.


I'm a little confused by the notion that region of a country is against it we'll get that region going Independent. So then if Glasgow voted for something after Indy but the rest of the Scottish Empire didn't, Glasgow would become Indy. Then my neighbours vote for something and I don't and I'll end up my own sovereign nation. Obviously, I have taken this to absolute ludicrous extremes, but really where is the line? I'm a Brit, but I'm also Scottish and also Glaswegian. At what point do we go "I'm against it but the general population isn't so I'll accept that I'm in the minority" and what points do we go "Screw that, everyone around here is for this, everyone elsewhere is against so this region will leave the Union"?

I'm not trying to take the gherkin or make a point there other than trying to establish where the boundaries are to that logic. This isn't (intentionally anyway) a loaded question.

Asphalt_World wrote:The goings on between Boris and Osborne is truly pathetic and sums up politics perfectly. Their claims about being in or out are so extreme that it's simply a joke. I wish someone on either side would put a more genuine example of how it could change the UK if we opted out.

Sadly I'm passed listening to be honest.

I agree, but they can't tell us because they don't know - no one does.

If they went through the process of negotiating in principal exit agreements, agreed exactly what rights would be protected under the Vienna Convention, secured binding agreement with all other EU members regarding future trade, security, etc., etc., figured out how to disentangle our entire legal system from EU law (which bits to keep, what to change, how to change it), negotiated new agreement with non-EU countries, and then held a referendum, at least we'd have a rough idea of the likely consequences - except the politicians would still twist the facts to suit their agendas.

From a purely selfish perspective, I don't want things to change because it could potentially screw up my entire life. We only moved to France last year, and our decision to move, life, income, and future were all based around the current/existing situation, so we could really do without any massive bombshells.

From a non-selfish perspective, the European Parliament exists to protect the rights and welfare of individuals - and the interests of member states. They can very often make decision our government can't or won't make because they're not subject to the same political pressures our governments are under. Our current government's (plus past and future governments) main priority is the health of the economy, not the welfare or interests of the people - the assumption is that a healthy economy benefits the people, but we all know that isn't necessarily the case.
Having an independent extra tier of government is wasteful, and possibly doesn't benefit the economy directly, but I'm not a millionaire or billionaire for whom normal laws don't apply, so I rather like the idea of having someone watching my back - even if it is just making sure I'm not overcharged for eggs, or the TV's not going to explode because of faulty electrics.


Evening Standard

I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”

Isn't this on its' own a good enough reason to vote to stay in?

mac_d wrote:I think leaving the EU will result in a few years in the breaking of Scotland from the Union. I'm with scotlandforever on that front. Unless the Scottish Elections change the makeup of the Scottish Parliament sufficiently, which I don't foresee happening. I think projections are still SNP as largest party though possibly not majority (or is that mistaken?)

I'm pro-UK and honestly, the belief that this will occur probably motivates my voting more than anything else.


I'm a little confused by the notion that region of a country is against it we'll get that region going Independent. So then if Glasgow voted for something after Indy but the rest of the Scottish Empire didn't, Glasgow would become Indy. Then my neighbours vote for something and I don't and I'll end up my own sovereign nation. Obviously, I have taken this to absolute ludicrous extremes, but really where is the line? I'm a Brit, but I'm also Scottish and also Glaswegian. At what point do we go "I'm against it but the general population isn't so I'll accept that I'm in the minority" and what points do we go "Screw that, everyone around here is for this, everyone elsewhere is against so this region will leave the Union"?

I'm not trying to take the gherkin or make a point there other than trying to establish where the boundaries are to that logic. This isn't (intentionally anyway) a loaded question.

A good post, but Scotland is a NATION not a region, as a Edinburgh man myself if Glasgow votes one-way and Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland votes another way it makes no difference we are a nation not a region.

Also England never defeated Scotland to create the United Kingdom, it was a joint Union of the crowns, in layman's terms a joint agreement, mind you would never have thought it how most things are based in the English South East that's for another day.

Also I think you will find that Labour are finished in Scotland and look like they could be 3rd behind the Conservatives which will be a disaster for Corbyn and his Labour cronies in London.

IF the polls are correct it will be a total utter and complete SNP landslide in a few weeks, then let's wait for the EU vote.

scotlandforever wrote:
A good post, but Scotland is a NATION not a region, as a Edinburgh man myself if Glasgow votes one-way and Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland votes another way it makes no difference we are a nation not a region.

Also England never defeated Scotland to create the United Kingdom, it was a joint Union of the crowns, in layman's terms a joint agreement, mind you would never have thought it how most things are based in the English South East that's for another day.

Is Scotland really a nation? Is a constituent country actually a country or is only the larger country a country? [Again, not trying to trick or bait you or anyone else into anything with this, I'm genuinely not sure] My passport says (paraphrasing, don't have my acutal passport handy) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Going by Pointless definition of a country, the U.N. recognises the UK. I fully acknowledge Scotland is a historic nation. But we're currently part of the UK. A Union which we entered into of our own volition, not by being conquered or the like. But the current nation is the UK. This might be the crux of the matter for the purposes of our discussion. To me, the nation that made sure I was safe, educated me, has afforded me no short list of civil liberties and has generally given me a good standard of living is the UK, not Scotland. I love Scotland, and I have a deep love of Glasgow as my home city, but if you asked me what nation I represented, I'd say UK. For these reasons, to me, the analogy of one region disagreeing and fracturing off stands and what stops this occuring breaking down further and further until it's just me in my flat living under the rule of law I want, with my neighbours having the rule of law they want.

If Scotland was historically not a nation but was more along the line of how counties in England are, would you still be in favour of it going Indy if they disagreed with the governance of the whole nation? Or if Cornwall or Essex or Cumbria wanted it and you lived there should that go ahead?

Given the historical importance of London, and the nature of it as a transit, trade and financial hub along with the population of the surrounding area, having a lot of government and companies with headquarters there makes a lot of sense. Having Parliament either there due to population or Manchester-ish (and I use that very loosely) area to make it more centralised seem like the two best places for it. But I don't really have any issues with that aspect.

Again, just for anyone else who wades in - I'm not trying to bait or troll or be a general dick here. I'm just curious about the viewpoint. Since this is the internet, it might be hard for that to be clear. I'm not trying to taunt or provoke scotlandforever either, I fully respect whatever viewpoints he has.