Brexit? A quick poll

[That bald headed Geordie]

I agree that the future might change-no one can predict with certainty-the city and CBI might have an edge-and it is not "out".

 

What exactly is the advantage of the Norway deal- 2/3 of the membership price just to deliver at the trades door, round the back-no favours.. and don't assume a next delivery-cancelled anytime.

 

Spot on.....spot off! I am not a conservative nor a Cameron man,but he has achieved a better deal than most antis can bring themselves to acknowledge.

Why does the EU need us more than we need them-non sense in economic terms,but I agree the EU is much the better if UK is in,and a stronger EU is

Now,just what is the case against-spell it out,in actual /factual detail, not "get out/well said that man' -that's not good enough.

The opposite is just as easy said,and deserves the same disregard.

gbal

Although I am slightly to the right of Genghis Khan and my initial gut feeling is to say to come out of the EU, I would still like to have all of the facts in front of me so I can make a reasoned decision and not one based upon any soundbites from Mr Cameron and the opposite camp. It is an important decision for us all, but can we get an unbiased truthful and non skewed answer from anyone to weigh up the pros and cons? I doubt it!

[maximus otter]

...can we get an unbiased truthful and non skewed answer from anyone to weigh up the pros and cons? I doubt it!

 

And the EU and its sock puppets here in the UK will be allowed tens of millions of pounds (of our tax money!) to instil fear in voters and sell the case for staying in.

 

maximus otter

[les]

I agree that the future might change-no one can predict with certainty-the city and CBI might have an edge-and it is not "out".

 

What exactly is the advantage of the Norway deal- 2/3 of the membership price just to deliver at the trades door, round the back-no favours.. and don't assume a next delivery-cancelled anytime.

 

Spot on.....spot off! I am not a conservative nor a Cameron man,but he has achieved a better deal than most antis can bring themselves to acknowledge.

Why does the EU need us more than we need them-non sense in economic terms,but I agree the EU is much the better if UK is in,and a stronger EU is

Now,just what is the case against-spell it out,in actual /factual detail, not "get out/well said that man' -that's not good enough.

The opposite is just as easy said,and deserves the same disregard.

gbal

 

Just what, exactly, are the benefits of staying in the EU? I'm not talking about a benefit for one or two trades or professions, etc. I'm talking about a benefit for EVERYBODY in the UK.

 

The only thing the government is putting forward as a reason to stay is a fear that the world will end if we leave. Rubbish. The world will not end, and we won't all be living on the streets when we leave the EU.

 

The people who trade with us now will continue to trade with us. I don't buy from european businesses because they are in europe. I buy from them because they have what I want, and the reverse is true.

 

The IN camp have absolutely NOTHING in their locker that will be a loss to the average resident of the UK, and ridiculous claims of doom and gloom just show how scared the fatcats are of losing their cream.

[gbal]

Les (and Les Khan :-)

much earlier in this thread there were at least a couple of refences to fairly balanced coverage of most of the issues (BBC and Economist-maybe? BASC on shooting matters).

 

Anyhow,quite readable,free of name calling etc, more information than propaganda;so a better basis to think on the main issues.

 

No-one knows the exact consequences of an exit,even in ecomomic terms.

 

The general positive case for stay in seems to be we are doing well ,compared even to other EU states.

 

But do read the cited source summaries,and any others.

[bowji john]

Listening to the arguments from big business - they seem to be along the lines of:

 

(and I am parodying - a bit)

 

''Please vote to stay in so we can employ cheap labor from abroad rather than you''

 

.

[Lashendei]

(Slightly against my better judgement) might I offer another way of looking at the situation? The key question that underlies all others - sovereignty, national self-determination, identity, wealth creation - must be 'what will constitute power in the next 50-100 years, and who, or what institutions, will be able to dispose that power?' Self-evidently, everywhere on the planet, nation-states appears to be losing power because a) they are less powerful and less wealthy than global corporate entities that increasingly ignore, challenge or side-step representative governments the nation-state has little ability to control global migration - of which migration into the UK is a tiny proportion - because migrants are 'pushed' by poverty and war, and 'pulled' by wealth inequality. c) the business 'heroes' of the present are all companies who attempt to monopolise information - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. while encouraging d) the internet as a social revolution in which previously invisible social groups - nationalists, religious fundamentalists, minority gender groups, etc, etc, can live entirely in their own reality and are increasingly intolerant of those who disagree with them (note the possible correspondence between the spike in firearms sales and political polarisation in the current US presidential election).

Can either the single nation-state or a confederation of disparate and mutually-distrustful states offer their citizens stability and protection from arbitrary violence in such circumstances?

[OSOK]

les is spot on and if the worst happens and we are forced by the EU to take thousands of migrants then maybe the first family can go and live with gbal ?

[brown dog]

(Slightly against my better judgement) might I offer another way of looking at the situation? The key question that underlies all others - sovereignty, national self-determination, identity, wealth creation - must be 'what will constitute power in the next 50-100 years, and who, or what institutions, will be able to dispose that power?' Self-evidently, everywhere on the planet, nation-states appears to be losing power because a) they are less powerful and less wealthy than global corporate entities that increasingly ignore, challenge or side-step representative governments the nation-state has little ability to control global migration - of which migration into the UK is a tiny proportion - because migrants are 'pushed' by poverty and war, and 'pulled' by wealth inequality. c) the business 'heroes' of the present are all companies who attempt to monopolise information - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. while encouraging d) the internet as a social revolution in which previously invisible social groups - nationalists, religious fundamentalists, minority gender groups, etc, etc, can live entirely in their own reality and are increasingly intolerant of those who disagree with them (note the possible correspondence between the spike in firearms sales and political polarisation in the current US presidential election).

 

 

Interesting points!

 

les is spot on and if the worst happens and we are forced by the EU to take thousands of migrants then maybe the first family can go and live with gbal ?

 

That's a little unfair.

Perhaps just a very large migrant housing solution nearby?

They'll all integrate with the locals. It'll be fine.

 

(There won't be a problem based on a total mismatch between western liberal values and a mass concentration of individuals with an intolerant, misogynistic and generally medieval value set! )

[baldie]

I well remember new years eve 1999.

 

i sat there with my fingers in my ears waiting for the world to end.

 

5 minutes into the new year, it was a fresh beer and the world was still the same. Nothing had crashed, no one had died , and nothing had changed, despite all the doom and gloom, and all the millennial bug b ollocks [ and its associated costs ]

[ds1]

Ass hat Tony Blair already had a policy to integrate immigrants without the British public being aware. There will be plenty of free homes on council estates after existing tenants are removed (3 year leases). Everyone can learn to play new games too like barrel bombs. Guess there will be a 100% grant from the Eu for every new mosque built.

 

Any housing estate in Glasgow would be well suited to show the new people's from Syria and Iran the full richness and joy of celtic love and friendship. Now where did I put my rose coloured spec's

[gbal]

For those who want more facts-or as close as we are likely to get (no one can accurately predict the future) :

 

Economist: A trade off between sovereignty and economics ? one of a series (immigration to follow-though also in this one)-it's quite complex,because all the deals etc are complex,but there are clear short summaries-and throughout, a balance -given future uncertainlies.

 

Unpredictability underlies the current refugee/immigrant problem. NO-one saw tthe scale,and no-one has met it well.

It will clearly be for many a driver in the referendum.BBC news website has a oiece on :"Schengen-the controversial EU free movement deal",which might help a bit,but it's also clear that increasingly EU members countries are firming up on borders etc,and that includes most on the route up through Greece and on. Germany too,and Sweden,with the highest intakes upto now.

It isn't a great credit to anyone,but would probably have been much nastier without some kind of european policy.No shots fired is something. War isn't good for civilians.

 

OK,I don't mind a bit of reasonably fair banter,but I have not expressed a view on immigration.( I don't like violence to children,in any context.) I am broadly liberal (ie not a fascist nor marxist). I don't buy into (nor can be bribed into) any one political party on every issue.

I hope the UK (and other countries) can somehow manage immigration better (and I think Cameron's 'make their own country a decent place again' is the long term answer;but it does not address urgent humanitarian needs right now-at least decent accomodation/facilities while it gets sorted out-the richest set of counties in the world can easily do that). I can see a good case for a 'points system'- imigrants need to be matched to the host countries needs-though the general idea needs quite a bit of fine tuning. It might be prudent to work on it.I think the EU will have to amend Shengen again-more radically-and the EU is clearly considering the whole issue. France has even said the special private dealFrance has with UK (Calais) may change...no detail of course,no-one knows. The same applies to Irish and especially Scottish borders in some scenarios-unknown.

 

OK,-and thanks for the "bit unfair',BD. Thee is a case for lightening up,but not when it then degenerates again into unfairness. I don't need to leave the UK to find enclaves of intolerance,and mysogeny,or different value systems. I do agree that "medieval value systems" exist,in much more distant cultures,and some are migrating in our direction.

As above,I don't think you will find much enthusiasm from me to embrace the latter. I am not too keen on ignorance and prejuduce either,one reason for my lifein education-and in a subject which includes such issues.

One part of the refined 'points system'- should be at least potential for good citizenship.

 

Now,I don't see the refugee/immigration issue as a total deal beaker (in EU terms,probably changing) but it is one issue,among others,that will have to be sorted,in or out.The decision remains complex-though I'm minded to "in",any vote would be the better cast if based on decent balanced information.

 

atb

 

gbal

[ds1]

George, the problem is that the government is not trying to present balanced information. It is scaremongering. That is how they have chosen to run their campaign and should expect ridicule for it.

 

It makes more sense to listen to the likes of the British Chamber of Commerce director for an informed opinion than a government spin doctor. Even the Independent Newspaper found itself supporting Boris.

 

If the government wanted to be taken seriously it should not have started a negative spin policy.

[gazzarM1]

Cameron promised us a referendum ,we now have it. He has his opinion as to which he is fully entitled . The point in time when he started his silly childish scaremongering tactics,treating Joe public as if we were stupid enough to believe his nonsense, is when he lost all credibility as a leader of this country.

In my opinion he should resign/be sacked for his antics.

I mean standing there smirking whilst Hollande utters veiled threats about BREXIT is not the behaviour you would expect or desire from a Britsh prime minister.

[MJR]

To the contrary Gazza I think the televising of Hollande's threats is a good thing, no wonder Cameron was smiling, the French leader was televised for all to see. No behind the doors secret deals, no spin doctoring just live Tv for all to see and reach their own conclusions.

For me it is just another demonstration of the general EU contempt for the UK. We are a cash cow, little more, and our leaving of the EU would cause major problems for the economic stability of the whole system - exactly why the main players are happy to negotiate.

Immigration I do not have a problem with. But I do have a problem with blatant economic migration. There is temporary and reasonably comfortable accommodation in Calais for migrants yet they refuse to inhabit it. Why? Because in doing so they effectively accept relocation to French soil. They don't want that because they don't receive the same benefits that they would in the UK so choose to live in the 'jungle'. Why if we are all applying the same EU rules do we pay higher benefits than France?

[dannywayoflife]

MJR I agree imigration can be a great thing but that imigration needs to be controlled. We ain't got that at the present time either from within the EU or the rest of the globe. We are a soft touch,

[gbal]

Guys,I have not anywhere said that if the Government present a 'scare' campaign,that I think it the right strategy. Most reviews so far,though not all,conclude a risk in leaving,with uncertainty about the (mainly economic) position the UK would be in. They agree the UK will do OK,there is not much to suggest better than in the EU,and some risk especially short term. There will be more in the months to come,not all agreeing.

 

I hope the information is valid and reliable,and not reduced to name calling,and unsupported generalities. It cuts both ways- just 'scaring' lacks full honesty,just saying 'it's scaremongering' is equally limited.

Te migrant queue in Calais want to come to UK,not particularly a UK in the EU; problem issue,yes-in all sorts of ways- but solved by in/out -no. Its solved by removing the motive to leave their war torn homes whether in Syria,Afganistan,Ethiopia and other conflict zones-but that is long term.

I understand emotions are involved-name calling and denigration and pejoratives are not for me. There are 'personalities' on each side I might dislike,but that is not the best way to decide. Each to their own. There are 45 million voters.

 

Seems so far the easy 'scare' is on both in/out sides.It's the easy option,though hopefully enough voters will look deeper,to decide on the real/likely substance of these 'scare' issues."Export jobs will be at risk" is no different from " Euro judges will pervert the true course of justice",both 'scare' claims; to some extent checkable with some evidence-though the economic is by far the best evaluated.

 

To be clear,negative or scare campaigning will occur-being 'scared'/'concerned' isn't always wrong-but surely balanced by a full presentation of the positives should be welcomed too.

 

I'm saying let's have (all) the relevant material,as impartially presented on both sides,as possible.It would be well to get this one right.

 

gb

[bowji john]

What is it about the shooting fraternity (as indicated by this & other forums) that makes it overwhelmingly in support of leaving, whilst the polls (if they can be trusted) indicate that the greater support is to remain?

 

Is it because we are independent pioneering souls who by our very nature detest institutionalised control?

 

Or is it just that the rest of the country is thick

[brown dog]

An excellent reminder of 'PC' versus 'real-world':

 

[dannywayoflife]

Amen to that!!!!

[gbal]

I read about 10 or so accounts of Sgt FC Martland's case,and appeals. The best,because the fullest,and has extensive lucid and cogent quotes from the Sergeant himself about what he did,and why:

 

Stars and Stripes:"Green Beret compares the US Military machine in Afghanistan to Penn State rapes scandal" Oct 8 2015.

[gbal]

I read about 10 or so web accounts of Sgt FC Martland's case,and appeals. The best,because the fullest,and has extensive lucid and cogent quotes from the Sergeant himself about what he did,and why:

Stars and Stripes: 8 Oct 2015: "Green Beret compares the US Military machine in Afghanistan to Penn State rapes scandal

Oops,sorry double post,just noticed. So let me add,it seems the military have got themselves between a rock and a hard place (administratively,not operationally) -sometimes that is reality; seems tough on Sgt Martland,though ( he himself has very clear perceptions of moral v legal ,and what the synoptic mission was/should be). Is there a case in appeal for synoptic morality-despite the rules,mostly good from time to time there is a higher criterion-human decency and justice? (psychologists have found this exists,though not commonly-nor should it need to be.(Medievals score real low on this,Matt).

[6.5 shooter]

Changed my mind, im voting out!

[gazzarM1]

Out please

[banus02]

out thanks

[justin credible]

Definitely OUT.

 

 

By the way does any one else on here think that slimey Sturgeon looks remarkably like Wee Jimmy Crankee?