|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 29, 2015 9:18:00 GMT
since there's to be a national vote (Referendum) on if we should stay in the Europeam Union or not in 2017, I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread for us all to benefit from positive and negative facts and resources in one single place for us to all make an informed decision to be ready for when we cast our votes to stay or leave the EU. A good start I felt was this article in the Guardian. Another source with a discussion underneath is Richard Branson's own opinion on the matter here.
|
|
|
Post by chaoticwitch on Jun 29, 2015 9:41:18 GMT
Although I agree with the points regarding the economy and growth that Richard Branson makes, I find it hard to comprehend that decisions made outside of this country could affect us.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 29, 2015 9:51:54 GMT
I agree with you @chaoticwitch there.
From some of the comments I am thinking that it's kind of 50-50 on what will really happen if we did leave.
I think it's almost a certainty that there is to be a greek eu exits, which will have to mean that the other member states will should the burden of the huge ECB debt left by Greece. If I had to guess, it would probably be underwritten by China, so ECB borrowing will probably be decided by the Chinese government, as much of the United States' debt is also owed to China.
I think that if we left and things got bad, we could always join it again?
If we left and had a trade deal, the additional costs to SME businesses could be reimbursed by the Government from the £500 million it pays to be a member state and most likely still have lots left over for the NHS, Essential services, etc.
I recall Kraft buying Cadburys and making thousands redundant and moving production to Poland. If we had not of been an EU member state, this would have been less likely perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 29, 2015 13:22:24 GMT
I found this article explaining why Greece is in so much trouble, in case anyone wants to know. It's a couple of years old, but it's clear why they are where they are now.
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Jul 2, 2015 21:22:45 GMT
That explanation about Greece is too simplistic and doesn't explain about the banks' involvement in its debt in the run up to them joining the euro, and how these austerity measures are actually all about the banks' interests. I don't have a good link, but you should listen to Mark Blyth (put his name and austerity into You Tube) or read Paul Krugman.
I like a thread about politics, but I can't comment on this one because I just don't know enough about it. (I've not read your link yet.).
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 3, 2015 9:01:21 GMT
It is expected that the EU referendum will be the end of next year (2016), although this has not yet been confirmed.
I am thinking that the arguement to stay in the EU is based on the market being worth £500 million, but can anyone say if this is the whole EU, as it is unlikely that everyone in the EU will all buy from the UK, meaning that we will all see this additional revenue appear in the UK economy.
It would be nice to see what our share of this market has been and to compare this figure next to what it costs us to be a member state in the EU.
I know it's not only about trade, and it is also a matter of job and business ,etc. So, if a company decides to build a base here and employ UK workers, then what impact does the fact of us leaving the EU have?
We can still trade with the EU member states, we can still import & export within Europe, people working in the UK can still work in the UK, can't they?
Hopefully, we will have all the information beofre us to make an informed decision.
Personally, I am thinking that the EU is a bit like a boat out at sea with a slow leak... eventually the bost will sink if that hole's not plugged up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 12:01:01 GMT
Cards on table - I am strongly pro EU.
I am not considering the financial benefits (or not) but the political philosophy - I want to see a federal Europe somewhat like the USA.
This doesn't mean that I am happy with the status quo; fiascos such as the Euro were imposed due to political dogma rather than any sense.
I oppose exit for several reasons - if we're going to have things imposed on us we should at least have a say...which is 'The Norwegian Problem' (they're in EFTA but have to conform to pretty much every EU edict without being a member because they have little dealing with anything outside Europe. Canada has a similar issue with the USA, which is why they drive on the wrong side). There is also the economy of scale - some things are best achieved via single bodies, others are not.
In the long term I would like to see defence, foreign policy and trade governed by a European government - but not the current model (which I think is a bloated bureaucracy and not very representative).
My other worries are that creating such a behemoth is beyond politicians - governments usually evolve with checks built in by unruly citizens, creating one (such as we now have) is creating government by politicians. As a republican I despise the monarchy but am loathe to see it replaced by politicians electing more politicians.
I'm just scratching the surface here - I'm sure to be back.
In some ways I'd like the whole thing dismantled and starting again.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 4, 2015 13:00:48 GMT
@planetdave,
I'm on the fence about the whole EU thing.
Although, given the Greece situation (regardless of how or why they got in this situation) the handling of it is really making me think it's not a good idea to tie myself to this sinking ship.
The calls in recent days to provide more sanctuary to thousands of refugees to me suggests it would be more cost effective if every single EU country offering asylum to refugees all went to that country and made it safer, rather than people haing to leave their homes and families and friends.
The whole EU referendum to me was added to the tory manafesto because of the UKIP pressure, which came about from the shortage of affordable housing that a mass increase in the population of the UK being a member of the EU created.
It's self defeating really, if we had a surplus of affordable housing, no one would mind if we can more migrants I don't think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 21:28:19 GMT
If it's a sinking ship it should be abandoned. I don't think it is - the performance of recent entrants (eg Poland) says that it's better to be in.
The Euro is a huge howler that was politically driven - PIGS should never have been allowed in until taxation is harmonised and that's still many years away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 13:00:02 GMT
.......... The whole EU referendum to me was added to the tory manafesto because of the UKIP pressure, which came about from the shortage of affordable housing that a mass increase in the population of the UK being a member of the EU created. It's self defeating really, if we had a surplus of affordable housing, no one would mind if we can more migrants I don't think. It appears to be self generating (I'm going to have a pop at the Cons now). Right to buy has removed lots of social housing. The Cons argue that it makes no difference because the occupants are the occupants ie everyone needs somewhere to live. BUT the requirement for housing has increased due to changes in social behaviour - we are richer, so want more space, more families are fractured (where do you put the kids at weekend?) and we have a generally expanding population - some of it due to immigration (we absorbed nearly 1,000,000 Poles ten years ago - maybe half of them stayed permanently). Right to Buy legislation forbade using the receipts for new housing and is soon to be expanded to housing associations (who rely on loans taken out against their portfolio to build new - but their assets are being stripped). In the long term that has played into the hands of the anti immigration crowd (whipped up by the hatemongering press) - infrastructure takes forever to expand and things like water supply can't keep up due to long lead times...and at some point there will be a saturation (no pun intended) where it is unfeasable to supply more water/waste management/roads/etc. There is little incentive for private developers to build suitable housing for the bottom end of the market and the usual suppliers are now hamstrung by legislation. So now we have a housing crisis - which, in turn, reflects on attitudes to taking in refugees. We take in refugees. Huguenots, East European Jews, Ugandan Asians etc etc etc. It makes us who we are - one of the most diverse, forward thinking and least hidebound nations. Or we were.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 7, 2015 8:15:53 GMT
@planetdave,
I agree with everything you're saying, but in terms of leaving or staying with the EU, what would it do if we left and the same if we stayed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 9:36:44 GMT
If I could predict outcomes I'd pick winning numbers for the lottery.
Remember that my choice is driven by the desire to see a unified Europe. My aim isn't going to be served by leaving.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Oct 19, 2015 10:25:27 GMT
After watching this week’;s BBC Question Time from Dover (BBC iplayer), I listened to the discussions on Europe and I am more than ever, leaning towards voting to leave the EU.Hearing some facts about it’s history and how it came up out of the ashes after the war was interesting and the idea was a great one. But for 43 years there has been a need for change and reform of the European Union and it hasn’t come yet, but there have been promises made that it is coming, but never delivered on. Don’t mistake me for a UKIP supporter, I think UKIP have done so well because we in the UK are fed up with the big cost of living (namely rent), although that’s not all of it, I just think if everyone paid the Local Housing Allowance for their area in rent each week or month, it would solve several problems in one single hit (there are lots of details to this, but this is a risky tangent as it is ). The lack of democracy in the European Union to me means that there is no accountability, an example of this situation would be another large organisation without democracy … FIFA, and we all know how that’s going . I would still like to see those numbers crunched for what it costs the UK to be a part of the EU a year and what the UK gets back a year. I think it would be beneficial to us all to know prior to the Referendum.
|
|
hoppimike
Member's not posted much yet
Posts: 6
|
Post by hoppimike on Nov 5, 2015 0:07:08 GMT
I want out. I think they're too controlling and this makes us vulnerable. I think we'd do better and be happier outside of the EU
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Nov 5, 2015 16:17:55 GMT
I agree with you Mike.
I would also want the EU nationals living here to be granted visas to continue working here in essentials areas, such as the NHS and for us to make deals with other EU countries where there are UK nationals living and working there to treat them the same way we would treat each countries nationals living and working here.
|
|
hoppimike
Member's not posted much yet
Posts: 6
|
Post by hoppimike on Nov 5, 2015 22:28:21 GMT
I agree with you Mike. I would also want the EU nationals living here to be granted visas to continue working here in essentials areas, such as the NHS and for us to make deals with other EU countries where there are UK nationals living and working there to treat them the same way we would treat each countries nationals living and working here. The ones that came here legally too? I think I agree, but that's a tricky one for sure. Even UKIP are saying they'd just let them stay due to the law at the time allowing it. For post-EU migrants I definitely agree with you though It would make sense though to have open door policies maybe with certain countries of a comparable economic level, such as say France. But that's optional and some way in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Nov 6, 2015 15:54:10 GMT
Yes, I'm no expert on negotiating visas, etc. but the idea is to allow those who want to stay and work, stay, just like the UK nationals in other countries who want to stay where they are. Some Brits are retired abroad but they can financially support themselves and I would argue that this can also be out policy too. The idea being that if we have EU nationals who are here to claim, that they return to the nearest member state and claim there.
I should point out that I don't have a problems with EU claimants, this is just to calm the masses that voted for UKIP. The entire number of people claiming benefits is less than 5% of the UK population, according to the last report I read (although I am open to corrections if I am mistaken).
I suspect the announcement of the French tyre maker in Ireland is perhaps linked to the delicate negotiations in the EU for Cameron's demands, etc. In the same way the the British government attempted to influence (and successfully by the way) the voters in Scotland on the referendum through supermarkets announcing that basic goods would double in price if they voted yes to independence, etc.
|
|
hoppimike
Member's not posted much yet
Posts: 6
|
Post by hoppimike on Nov 14, 2015 17:54:22 GMT
Yes, I'm no expert on negotiating visas, etc. but the idea is to allow those who want to stay and work, stay, just like the UK nationals in other countries who want to stay where they are. Some Brits are retired abroad but they can financially support themselves and I would argue that this can also be out policy too. The idea being that if we have EU nationals who are here to claim, that they return to the nearest member state and claim there. I should point out that I don't have a problems with EU claimants, this is just to calm the masses that voted for UKIP. The entire number of people claiming benefits is less than 5% of the UK population, according to the last report I read (although I am open to corrections if I am mistaken). I suspect the announcement of the French tyre maker in Ireland is perhaps linked to the delicate negotiations in the EU for Cameron's demands, etc. In the same way the the British government attempted to influence (and successfully by the way) the voters in Scotland on the referendum through supermarkets announcing that basic goods would double in price if they voted yes to independence, etc. It's just a bit tricky when it comes to people who originally came here legally before the law changed. I must admit though that I would probably be quite hard-nosed lol Because otherwise people take advantage and things can get out of hand. I definitely think there is a balance and I think that the path to a happy society comes in social unity, adequate but not excessive benefits, and immigration that is fair but not more than the country can handle. As well as all the usual stuff like good jobs, nice town centres, etc. I am tempted to vote UKIP I must admit. It would be nice to have someone take the reins for once o.O
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Nov 14, 2015 22:32:11 GMT
Hi Mike,
There would be no tricky about it for anyone who came here before he EU membership, they can choose to stay or leave. Anyone who came here during the EU membership will be assessed as either an asset or not to the UK. It is quite hard, but anyone wanting to stay without work, will be sent home, but we'd gladly pay for their one way travel, first class even.
I understand your leanings towards UKIP, I have thought of them myself and I did some enquiring of my own. UKIP is made up of the more extreme, Anti-Euro Conservatives who broke away form the main party to form their own Party. So, once the EU referendum has come and gone, they are just another band of Tories who think that migration issues can solve problems.
What are the main complaints of a typical UKIP supporter?
1. No/not enough jobs for UK nationals. 2. No/not enough housing for UK Nationals. 3. Too many EU citizens coming her to claim.
If you take away the EU member ship, you only solve no. 3, and even then it's not really solved, just limited to UK passport holders claiming.
This Government have the lowest unemployment rates since 2008. Why? because 1 million people had no choice but to find work, no matter no difficult it is for then, while the rest of them have run up debts, living on borrowed money while they wait for their legal battle with the DWP to be resolved.
The jobs that have been created are not the kind of jobs you can provide for a family, start a career in or rely on for a steady income, as they are zero hour contracts, Government apprenticeships and trainee work programmes.
The apprenticeships provide vocational qualifications that only seem to offer the potential to earn below a living wage, and the same goes for their new trainee program.
I know 4 adults in my area who all have families and who are all working through zero hour contracts and when they aren't given any hours, they are claiming housing benefit, council tax benefit and ESA.
My point is, that the Government will blow a loud trumpet stating that they have created thousands of jobs and removed all those leeches who were claiming state benefits, but what they won't tell you is that through their schemes they are the ones responsible for increasing the DWP annual budget by selling of social housing, not building enough council/social housing and when people were moved from one benefit to Universal Credit, claimants got less money, which the Government will say is positive as it reduced the amount they pay these claimants on the new universal credit. The sad thing is here, that people now qualify for another benefit, such as housing benefit and council tax credit as this is run by each local council, not the DWP.
Voting UKIP, you are voting for Tories like the ones we have now, who will continue to rob the poor to pay the rich.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 23:29:04 GMT
I think you're being kind on the Kippers.
I accidentally got myself involved in an election campaign - if you saw the BBCs documentary (which showed then in a good light!)
then you'd get why I have it in for them.
The number of times I was threatened (in writing!) was ridiculous - I frequently did a trace on them and the number of ex BNP/NF and current EDL/Britain First + more unsavoury organisations supporters/members was scary.
You see many examples around the world - charismatic leaders with half baked, but populist, agenda.
The result is always good news for barbed wire manufacturers.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Nov 15, 2015 10:28:14 GMT
Hi @planetdave, Yes, I am being very kind to the kippers! I am in Devon, and many of them are pensioners who think they are getting change, not the extremist views from other groups that you mentioned. This short video explaining why our 2015 general election was so bad is also applicable to why we need to leave the EU.
|
|
aldedah
Member's posted somewhat
Posts: 57
|
Post by aldedah on Nov 25, 2015 0:01:10 GMT
Even though Europe is in chaos I don't think leaving it will help.
The UK is probably the country with the best position in Europe. Doesn't have to implement the Euro, isn't part of Schengen, and has good relations with Europe and the US.
Leaving the EU wouldn't suddenly create a utopia. We'd still be controlled by the EU in a lot of ways. Countries like Norway still have to contribute a lot financially to the EU but have no say.
The main problem is the European Commission. It needs to become democratic. However we'll have a better chance at changing the EU from within than outside.
The view UKIP sets out is not based on any real world experience. No country has left the EU so it would be a high risk experiment. One thing business doesn't like is uncertainty, so if a vote to leave happened we'd have years of uncertainty hanging over us which would affect jobs considerably. The UK may eventually be better off out of the EU, but it's not something that'd happen overnight, probably be 10-20 years before the effects are really felt.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Nov 25, 2015 11:49:55 GMT
I think our National UK referendum is a big enough threat to the European Union, or at least I hope so. I do not see remaining a part of a corrupt organisation as beneficial at all. Whilst Norway and Denmark do have no say and contribute to enable trade within the European Union, they can choose if they wish to trade within the EU.
It will most definitely be the first, but no one can say if it will be a huge failure or a resounding success, as it hasn't happened before.
I am happy for us to be in the same position as other European countries that are not member states, it may even be worth while for the UK, Norway, Denmark and other countries to form our own global trade deal to compete with the high costs of the EU, this could place even more pressure on the EU to change after 43 years of broken promises.
It may even be a bigger market than the €500 billion we are all force fed whenever this topic comes up, without anyone giving us an ideal of how how of that market the UK gets right now in trade, as I doubt it's more than 15%.
The one thing I am 80% certain of at the moment is, the National Vote to stay or leave is leaning about 65% in favour of leaving.
|
|
aldedah
Member's posted somewhat
Posts: 57
|
Post by aldedah on Nov 26, 2015 0:12:38 GMT
Last survey I saw was about 55/45 to leave, previously was the opposite. I suspect closer to the date it will lower as people fear change.
Denmark is part of the EU, they just get to keep their currency although I believe it is somewhat pegged to the Euro. Can fluctuate a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2015 2:03:30 GMT
I am happy for us to be in the same position as other European countries that are not member states, it may even be worth while for the UK, Norway, Denmark and other countries to form our own global trade deal to compete with the high costs of the EU. EFTA consists of Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein - if Norway didn't have oil/gas it'd be driven by Toblerone. The UK joining EFTA would be like me joining the local under 5 football team. The EU contains four of the world's top ten economies (Germany, France, GB, Italy) with China, India and Brazil members of that club partially due to their huge populations (the others being USA, Japan and Russia) which demonstrates that not only do you need plenty of people but also a high per capita income to be truly influential. China will overtake the USA to become the world's biggest economy soon - but in terms of real power the USA will hold out because China has a population four times the size (which means their tax revenues are much lower). One of the problems with EFTA is that the peoples of those countries are disproportionately rich due to exploitation of niche markets (Swiss banking, Norway's oil/gas/fish, Iceland's fish (ex banking), Liechtenstein's offshore registration of companies) which do not scale up to countries the size of the UK, which has a more mixed economy. We are not a Mickey Mouse country. We can't become an economy dependant upon a niche product, look what happened to Iceland when their niche collapsed (and nearly us too). To be a leading economy you need two things 1) A large population (50 million+) 2) A high per capita income (cleverness and productivity). The large population is a given but we're falling behind on productivity. It can be sorted. Why are the above important? Because size matters. Canada and Australia are both independent but desperate to become members of EU like groups. They can only respond to the world, not make decisions that they have to dance to (Canada is, de facto, the 51st state and a good example of why you don't want to be outside). And that's the entire argument, and it might appear a bit subtle to some. If you have economic power YOU decide which way the world goes, to suit your strengths. The rest of the world watches and has to follow what the powers decide. Think 'Apple'. The products can, and are, made anywhere but where does their real money reside? Where the power is. Power = wealth. Try to name a world class company that doesn't work out of a powerhouse economy. 'Anyone' can cut hair (it has to be done but doesn't generate anything more than wages). Not many can build aircraft/spacecraft or anything else that requires huge resources and employs hundreds of thousands of well paid people. Big economies matter.
|
|
aldedah
Member's posted somewhat
Posts: 57
|
Post by aldedah on Nov 26, 2015 21:33:22 GMT
What he said. Although there is a place in the world for smaller countries, I don't think Australia/Canada necessarily want to be part of something bigger.
But the UK is a big country. It can't just depend on one or two major industries like Australia/Canada do.
Australia for instance was able to avoid a recession because it was small and independent but also because it was exporting to China which propped it up.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Nov 27, 2015 19:16:24 GMT
I am happy for us to be in the same position as other European countries that are not member states, it may even be worth while for the UK, Norway, Denmark and other countries to form our own global trade deal to compete with the high costs of the EU. EFTA consists of Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein - if Norway didn't have oil/gas it'd be driven by Toblerone. The UK joining EFTA would be like me joining the local under 5 football team. @planetdave, well written and well laid out, nice and easy for me to understand. I am slightly confused as when we talk about the UK, we are talking about England, Northern Ireland & Scotland and we have our own oil & Gas - the North Sea fields are still there? During the Scottish referendum for independence, Alex Salmon said that they could be producing triple the amount of oil that they produce now if they were independent, bringing the price of oil down considerably, so it's not like we've got a puddle and Norway have a ocean, we could supply more oil and Gas than they do if we increased our productions of both of these fossil fuels, the point is that should be a strong enough rod for our economy on it's own. I didn't know much of the things we've discussed about economies and other countries situations, etc so I feel this has been a great thread, especially when you're like me and have no clue where to start Speaking of where to start, if leaving is so bad, and staying is also so bad, then what's the answer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2015 1:27:07 GMT
If Scotland had achieved independence then they'd be financially ****** because the price of oil has tanked, a point that I alluded to (not relying on niche products).
Selling triple the amount of oil gets you where?
The oil is going to be there till it's extracted - selling it at a cut rate makes no sense and screams I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SELL (niche product). It's a finite resource - so you really should not sell it at fire sale prices.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Nov 28, 2015 10:07:22 GMT
I didn't say to sell it at cut prices? I just meant that with these resources, it puts our economy on a level pegging with Norway, or at least it should do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2015 14:05:55 GMT
You can't sell above market rate so, without upping production, how do you maintain income?
There is a great lesson in what happened to Greece (and the other PIGS, Ireland and Iceland) - tax income is vital.
Any comparison with Norway is ridiculous - they have a tiny population and massive natural resources; we have a massive population and moderate resources. Apples and oranges there.
|
|