Jump to content
IGNORED

Brexit...


Hafnia

Referendum  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

A google directed me to the Sun website which surprised me as I do not read the Sun. However, if your comment is meant to infer that as its the Sun it must be bollocks, then it is also in the Telegraph today, which I do read. The interpretation by both papers is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A google directed me to the Sun website which surprised me as I do not read the Sun. However, if your comment is meant to infer that as its the Sun it must be bollocks, then it is also in the Telegraph today, which I do read. The interpretation by both papers is the same.

 

Happy to read you don't read the Sun. I was just appalled by the tone and content of the Sun article. (I've read up on Rod Liddle and apparently he's an idiot on a wide variety of topics).

 

But you don't have to be alarmed; both the Telegraph and the Sun are wrong if they write that Juncker himself can sanction any country just because they have an extremist government.

 

Look at Hungary for example; they've had crazy Victor Orban as president for 6 years now; he regularly clashes with Juncker, but as of today: no sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Happy to read you don't read the Sun. I was just appalled by the tone and content of the Sun article. (I've read up on Rod Liddle and apparently he's an idiot on a wide variety of topics).

 

But you don't have to be alarmed; both the Telegraph and the Sun are wrong if they write that Juncker himself can sanction any country just because they have an extremist government.

 

Look at Hungary for example; they've had crazy Victor Orban as president for 6 years now; he regularly clashes with Juncker, but as of today: no sanctions.

 

Its not an issue whether Junker himself can sanction any country because they have an extremist government. Its the fact that he made the statement at the G7. He was also backed up by his chief of staff, Martin Selmayr. Wherever the policy was designed is irrelevant, it exists. As the Telegraph says: 'Mr Selmayr's demand that 'populism' be combated also betrays the EU's instinctive distrust of democracy'. The only option to this is that Junker and Selmayr were making personal statements which do not represent EU policy, but I find that hard to believe. I should also point out that the Telegraph piece wasn't an article it was an Editorial where extra care is taken that facts are correct.

Edited by johnh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought though, I noticed when I am in here just a moment ago, I am with Bill, Johnh and MikeO. Made me suspect that age has an important effect on the voting. Not which way of course as I want out and Mike wants in. I was curious as to how important folks feel about the subject and the age they are at.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36396710

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its not an issue whether Junker himself can sanction any country because they have an extremist government. Its the fact that he made the statement at the G7. He was also backed up by his chief of staff, Martin Selmayr. Wherever the policy was designed is irrelevant, it exists. As the Telegraph says: 'Mr Selmayr's demand that 'populism' be combated also betrays the EU's instinctive distrust of democracy'. The only option to this is that Junker and Selmayr were making personal statements which do not represent EU policy, but I find that hard to believe. I should also point out that the Telegraph piece wasn't an article it was an Editorial where extra care is taken that facts are correct.

 

Honestly, I would not object to giving younger people a greater say in the country's future. I understand that "older and wiser" is true, because we old fogies have learned some life lessons the hard way; however, the younger generation will be affected more greatly by the outcome of the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I would not object to giving younger people a greater say in the country's future. I understand that "older and wiser" is true, because we old fogies have learned some life lessons the hard way; however, the younger generation will be affected more greatly by the outcome of the vote.

true, we younger folk have to live with the result of the referendum that that tosspot in charge has forced upon us, but we need the experience of everyone, young and old.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make that two of us.

i missed 1 registration (the only one available to me) because I was 19 heading to uni and completely lost at the time. Because of that, I can never again vote on anything to do what affects me.

 

I've said before, that missing out on the vote for parliament is fine; I don't live there, don't intend to live there if it can be helped and I pay no taxes - on the leadership I don't deserve a voice. But this affects me and I should have a voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its not an issue whether Junker himself can sanction any country because they have an extremist government. Its the fact that he made the statement at the G7. He was also backed up by his chief of staff, Martin Selmayr. Wherever the policy was designed is irrelevant, it exists. As the Telegraph says: 'Mr Selmayr's demand that 'populism' be combated also betrays the EU's instinctive distrust of democracy'. The only option to this is that Junker and Selmayr were making personal statements which do not represent EU policy, but I find that hard to believe. I should also point out that the Telegraph piece wasn't an article it was an Editorial where extra care is taken that facts are correct.

 

Missed this post.

 

I'm willing to assume that the Telegraph-journalist genuinely believes that Juncker or his chief of staff said that populism should be combated by sanctions imposed by the Commission. But if he was taking extra care that the facts are correct, he maybe should have investigated if Juncker actually can sanction any country just because they have an extremist government.

 

I also believe populism should be combated, as it exploits the broader (uninformed) public, but that in no way implies that I have an instinctive distrust of democracy. Actually the better informed the public is, the better democracy works.

 

Quite frankly, stating that the EU has an instinctive distrust of democracy is a very populist statement. But as you stated you got your info from an Editorial and you can definitely tell this journalist is leaning towards Leave.

 

In any case, people voting Leave because they dislike Juncker have a very shortsighted view on things. Juncker will be gone in a few years and in no way personifies the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Missed this post.

 

I'm willing to assume that the Telegraph-journalist genuinely believes that Juncker or his chief of staff said that populism should be combated by sanctions imposed by the Commission. But if he was taking extra care that the facts are correct, he maybe should have investigated if Juncker actually can sanction any country just because they have an extremist government.

 

I also believe populism should be combated, as it exploits the broader (uninformed) public, but that in no way implies that I have an instinctive distrust of democracy. Actually the better informed the public is, the better democracy works.

 

Quite frankly, stating that the EU has an instinctive distrust of democracy is a very populist statement. But as you stated you got your info from an Editorial and you can definitely tell this journalist is leaning towards Leave.

 

In any case, people voting Leave because they dislike Juncker have a very shortsighted view on things. Juncker will be gone in a few years and in no way personifies the EU.

The same could be said about any leader, but it is the damage they can do while in power that is the problem, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I saw this in the comments section of the FT some weeks ago and it made me smile.
'Leaving the EU should not be feared or overcomplicated :-
It's very simple - There will be NO negotiating. The UK simply sends the EU bureaucrats and the heads of state of Germany and France our biggest trading partners a single A4 sheet. On it is written, thank you for the recent cooperation - now that the UK has left the EU, we wanted to show our appreciation for past endeavours and set out the future which should be a smooth interaction on trade.
The UK will trade with all EU member states on the same terms as before.
The trade is on goods and services and clearly there will be no further discussions regarding immigration, legal matters, foreign policy, climate change or anything regarding fiscal or internal economic policy, as these are matters for the British government and the people of Britain.
We don't expect that any of these omissions will affect trade, as equal trade terms are in the best interest of all EU nations concerned and Britain.
Should barriers to trade be erected by any state, then a reciprocation will take place, but clearly this is in no one's interests.
We wish you all well with your continued EU experiment.'
There are idiots on both sides of the campaign who you never think you'd align yourself with.

 

 

I think you're forgetting that import tarifs aren't the only thing that can inhibit trade. British products exported to the EU would still have to comply with EU regulation. A common European market can only be achieved if European countries accept uniform regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you're forgetting that import tarifs aren't the only thing that can inhibit trade. British products exported to the EU would still have to comply with EU regulation. A common European market can only be achieved if European countries accept uniform regulation.

 

Uniform regulation on what? The comment from the FT suggests all trade agreements stay in place. What regulation on 'immigration, legal matters, foreign policy, climate change or anything regarding fiscal or internal economic policy' would we need to comply with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 reasons to vote 'leave' and 3 reasons to vote 'remain' - from the local pub.

 

Leave:

1. Winston (Winnie) Churchill always gave two fingers to Europe. (His nickname 'Winnie' didn't mean he was gay as there were no such thing as gays then).

2. In the 1960's when Harold Wilson devalued the pound, he said that this doesn't mean the value of the pound in your pocket is devalued. This proves that our pound is magic and we should keep out of the euro.

3. We have never won the World Cup since we have been in the EU.

 

Remain:

1. If aliens invade from space then we don't want to be fighting them alone. We need back-up from countries like Brussels.

2. We will still be able to enter the Eurovision Song Contest.

3. Since we have been in the EU an English team has won the League and FA Cup every year. (except one year when Wigan won the cup).

 

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Uniform regulation on what? The comment from the FT suggests all trade agreements stay in place. What regulation on 'immigration, legal matters, foreign policy, climate change or anything regarding fiscal or internal economic policy' would we need to comply with?

 

Sorry, I interpreted the comment wrong. I thought it simply meant that there should be no trade tariffs or that they would be countered. But if you're fine with that trade-off (complying with EU regulation on goods and services without getting any say in what that regulation is in order to achieve autonomy on immigration etc.) then that's fine.

 

I think that's how Switzerland and Norway operate as well, isn't it?

Edited by Steve_E
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, I interpreted the comment wrong. I thought it simply meant that there should be no trade tariffs or that they would be countered. But if you're fine with that trade-off (complying with EU regulation on goods and services without getting any say in what that regulation is in order to achieve autonomy on immigration etc.) then that's fine.

 

I think that's how Switzerland and Norway operate as well, isn't it?

 

Come to think of it, no, it isn't, right? Because they also comply with EU laws on free movement. And really, isn't that necessary in order to optimalise access to the EU internal market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Come to think of it, no, it isn't, right? Because they also comply with EU laws on free movement. And really, isn't that necessary in order to optimalise access to the EU internal market?

is that not linked with the Schengin agreement, which the UK isn't part of. Or am I mixing things up here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still in two minds about this, and it seems much of the population is. I understand the strategic benefits of remaining in the EU and the importance of strong ties with neighboring countries. The idea of war within Europe these days is almost unthinkable, for example. EU countries constitute a large percentage of our trade as well. We're all free countries, and our values are shared.

 

But security would not be a threat should we leave. Trade would increase with Commonwealth countries, an asset we retain that others don't. The quagmire of bureaucracy and regulation is becoming a huge drag on the economy. Free migration within the EU is a source of significant problems, and no-one has been honest about numbers (always underestimated). There's no doubt that the EU is moving toward a United States of Europe, and I for one don't want that. And you have to worry about the power of the propaganda machine that's trying to convince everyone to stay: What does that say about our future?

 

My principal concern, which is clearly very much a minority issue, is that, without the EU, the English will once again walk all over the other British nations. The EU has recognized the Cornish people as an official minority, something the English would never have done, but Westminster cut all funding for the Cornish language initiative. Surely the same concern would exist for the Scottish and the Welsh: The more Europe is involved, the more respect and autonomy they could expect. For Scotland and Wales, though, they could realistically break from England and rejoin the EU, meaning that it actually makes sense for them to vote to leave: Cornwall doesn't have that option.

 

It must seem odd to many that an issue like this would tip the balance. With all else being equal, though, it's an important factor for me.

 

How will this play out? I think it might depend on what happens between now and the vote. We know the EU is planning to issue a report, just days in advance, that will try to terrify everyone about the financial impact on Britain should we leave. Will voters take that seriously or view it as propaganda? Will the striking workers in France do something obnoxious that could influence the electorate's thinking? Might ISIS carry out its threat against the Euros in France, leading to a backlash against more EU migrants entering Britain? The outcome of the vote might well depend on something unexpected happening in the next few weeks.

Edited by Cornish Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still in two minds about this, and it seems much of the population is. I understand the strategic benefits of remaining in the EU and the importance of strong ties with neighboring countries. The idea of war within Europe these days is almost unthinkable, for example. EU countries constitute a large percentage of our trade as well. We're all free countries, and our values are shared.

 

But security would not be a threat should we leave. Trade would increase with Commonwealth countries, an asset we retain that others don't. The quagmire of bureaucracy and regulation is becoming a huge drag on the economy. Free migration within the EU is a source of significant problems, and no-one has been honest about numbers (always underestimated). There's no doubt that the EU is moving toward a United States of Europe, and I for one don't want that. And you have to worry about the power of the propaganda machine that's trying to convince everyone to stay: What does that say about our future?

 

My principal concern, which is clearly very much a minority issue, is that, without the EU, the English will once again walk all over the other British nations. The EU has recognized the Cornish people as an official minority, something the English would never have done, but Westminster cut all funding for the Cornish language initiative. Surely the same concern would exist for the Scottish and the Welsh: The more Europe is involved, the more respect and autonomy they could expect. For Scotland and Wales, though, they could realistically break from England and rejoin the EU, meaning that it actually makes sense for them to vote to leave: Cornwall doesn't have that option.

 

It must seem odd to many that an issue like this would tip the balance. With all else being equal, though, it's an important factor for me.

 

How will this play out? I think it might depend on what happens between now and the vote. We know the EU is planning to issue a report, just days in advance, that will try to terrify everyone about the financial impact on Britain should we leave. Will voters take that seriously or view it as propaganda? Will the striking workers in France do something obnoxious that could influence the electorate's thinking? Might ISIS carry out its threat against the Euros in France, leading to a backlash against more EU migrants entering Britain? The outcome of the vote might well depend on something unexpected happening in the next few weeks.

 

 

Why would trade with other Commonwealth countries increase after a Brexit? Is consumer demand (for British products) in those countries suddenly going to rise after a Brexit or is EU membership inhibiting British trade with Commonwealth countries?

 

Also, there is a reason for EU regulation: to replace 28 sets of rules with harmonised ones, allowing companies to trade throughout the EU, so it's not exactly a drag on the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why would trade with other Commonwealth countries increase after a Brexit? Is consumer demand (for British products) in those countries suddenly going to rise after a Brexit or is EU membership inhibiting British trade with Commonwealth countries?

 

Because trade right now is negatively impacted due to EU bickering and regulation - as mentioned here and elsewhere.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, there is a reason for EU regulation: to replace 28 sets of rules with harmonised ones, allowing companies to trade throughout the EU, so it's not exactly a drag on the economy.

 

There's a difference between standards and regulation. The GSM standard, for example, allowed us to use cellphones around the world. That's good. But defining in minute detail what constitutes this, or what can or cannot be done in combination of that, and requiring reams of documents, which no one will ever read, to prove it, is a huge drag on the economy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because trade right now is negatively impacted due to EU bickering and regulation - as mentioned here and elsewhere.

 

 

To trade with the EU our goods and services would still have to meet EU standards, and we trade more with them that we do with the Commonwealth. Unless you are saying firms should have multiple production lines for different countries?

 

 

 

There's a difference between standards and regulation. The GSM standard, for example, allowed us to use cellphones around the world. That's good. But defining in minute detail what constitutes this, or what can or cannot be done in combination of that, and requiring reams of documents, which no one will ever read, to prove it, is a huge drag on the economy.

 

In order to ensure quality there needs to be agreement on what constitutes each item, otherwise you end up with products that are not fit for purpose. Its not a drag on the economy, far from it, imagine the cost to the economy of numerous law suits because items people bought were not what people expected them to be.

 

Using the Euro Sausage for example allot of farmers use high quality meat and nothing but great ingredients, imagine their anger if any old company then created a product with bear hardly any meat and lots of water and it also able to be called a sausage!

 

I'm not saying there isn't excessive regulation and that everything they use is perfect, its not. It is not however an excessive burden, just look at the success of European companies like BMW, Rolls Royce, and Renault.

Edited by London Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To trade with the EU our goods and services would still have to meet EU standards, and we trade more with them that we do with the Commonwealth. Unless you are saying firms should have multiple production lines for different countries?

 

 

In order to ensure quality there needs to be agreement on what constitutes each item, otherwise you end up with products that are not fit for purpose. Its not a drag on the economy, far from it, imagine the cost to the economy of numerous law suits because items people bought were not what people expected them to be.

 

Using the Euro Sausage for example allot of farmers use high quality meat and nothing but great ingredients, imagine their anger if any old company then created a product with bear hardly any meat and lots of water and it also able to be called a sausage!

 

I'm not saying there isn't excessive regulation and that everything they use is perfect, its not. It is not however an excessive burden, just look at the success of European companies like BMW, Rolls Royce, and Renault.

 

And VW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To trade with the EU our goods and services would still have to meet EU standards, and we trade more with them that we do with the Commonwealth. Unless you are saying firms should have multiple production lines for different countries?

 

 

In order to ensure quality there needs to be agreement on what constitutes each item, otherwise you end up with products that are not fit for purpose. Its not a drag on the economy, far from it, imagine the cost to the economy of numerous law suits because items people bought were not what people expected them to be.

 

Using the Euro Sausage for example allot of farmers use high quality meat and nothing but great ingredients, imagine their anger if any old company then created a product with bear hardly any meat and lots of water and it also able to be called a sausage!

 

I'm not saying there isn't excessive regulation and that everything they use is perfect, its not. It is not however an excessive burden, just look at the success of European companies like BMW, Rolls Royce, and Renault.

 

Companies are great because they know what customers want. BMW are crap right now (unreliability ratings), so their sales are plummeting in the US. Renault are so crap they don't even try to sell in the US (they used to, but the cars were terrible). And economies thrive when upstarts challenge the status quo. Small business owners will tell you just how much of a handicap excessive regulations can be. They can't afford the cost of lawyers and document writers. The big companies can and, once small innovative companies are pushed aside, get away with producing crap products. Regulations push up prices and thwart competition. (Again, standards are something different.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regulations can and do push up standards and help create a level playing field.

 

US car market is very different to Europes, yet BMW, Mercedes, Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Aston Martin etc trade successfully around the world, both suffering now due to VW's emission scandal, but that will fade.

 

Small companies can and do compete with larger ones in some markets, depending on the barriers of entry to that market. Its easier for a small innovative company to compete in markets where they can out maneuver bigger competitors, in industries as diverse as software, renewable energy, finance, food shopping, fashion and communication. Where they struggle to compete are in industries like pharmaceuticals and car production where there are huge barriers to entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure we've heard them all before, but here are some typical outlandish EU regulations - some of which were withdrawn after the understandable outcry:

 

- Eggs cannot be sold by the dozen. They must be sold by the kilogram.

- Cucumbers cannot be sold if their curvature exceeds 10mm for every 10cm in length.

- The angle on bananas cannot exceed a prescribed maximum.

- A jam with less than 50% sugar must be called a preserve.

- Producers of bottled water cannot claim that it helps prevent dehydration.

- Sellers of prunes cannot claim they promote bowel movement.

- A swede cannot be labled a turnip - unless it's in a Cornish pasty.

- Those suffering from diabetes may not drive.

- A child under 8 cannot blow up a balloon without adult supervision.

- Horses may be eaten, but not pet horses.

- It's illegal to use barley straw to clear garden ponds of algae.

- Restaurants cannot serve customers with dishes of olive oil for their bread.

- A child under 14 cannot use blow-out party poppers.

- A kiwi fruit cannot be sold if it weighs less than 62 pgrams.

 

How can anyone justify this level of regulation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President of the European Council - Donald Tusk has warned the European Union leaders in the bluntest terms that their 'utopian' illusions are tearing Europe apart, and that any attempt to seize on Brexit to force through yet more integration would be a grave mistake.

In a passionate plea to the continent's leading conservatives, he accused the EU elites of living in a fool's paradise and provoking the Eurosceptic revolt now erupting in a string of countries. 'It is us who today are responsible' he said. 'Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm'....................

He called on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, and other leaders, to change strategy and abandon their reflexive push for an ever more centralised Europe.

 

Telegraph today. At last some sense coming out of Europe. They are terrified of a Brexit and is our best way of getting major reforms to the 'European project'. We can think about rejoining when its all sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...