BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit

Subject: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 11:04 AM

Brits have a vote coming up later this month (Happy June).

Is this a U.K. vote? Scots and all?

Are Yanks allowed to weigh in.

I think those on the East side of the pond should think seriously about staying economically related to the Continent. You've been allowed to keep the Pound note and Special Relationship and all, you might not want to be associated with US should we select "The Donald" as our chief executive.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 11:26 AM

I'm glad you brought it up.

When Trump was asked this question it had to be explained to him at length.

Finally he answered "yep they should leave."

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 11:47 AM

"You've been allowed to keep the pound note..."

Wrong.

1. The pound-note went out of circulation in 1988 (28 years ago!).
2. We weren't "allowed" to stay out of the Euro, it's each nation's right to choose whether to adopt the Euro or retain their own currency.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 12:12 PM

economically related to the Continent.

Europe is failing economically.
The rest of the world is doing better.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 12:28 PM

"Europe is failing economically."
Thanks to Mad Maggie - Britain has nothing to base her economy on - no industries, no natural resources and an employment situation that spirals ever upward.
Ideally, a half-decent, truely democratic political situation might help, but we're further from that than we ever where.
'Bout time Britain swallowed its Xenophobia bullet and made pro[er use of Europe; it really isn't in the position to go it alone.
Just try to imagine a country run by the nice Mr Farrago and another across the Pond run by Despicable Donald, - that should do it.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Megan L
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 12:34 PM

I get really sick of people telling me what to do, what to think and how to act. I am sick of politics there isn't an honest one among them. I wont tell you how to brush your teeth don't tell me how to wash my face and we will get along ok.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 01:31 PM

I'm voting one way and my husband is voting the other. My sister laughed and said, "You may as well both stay at home. Your votes will cancel eachother out!"

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 01:45 PM

I am casting my daughter's vote by proxy. If we vote opposite ways - which I doubt - I will be putting two votes in the same box that cancel each other...

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 01:58 PM

We weren't "allowed" to stay out of the Euro, it's each nation's right to choose whether to adopt the Euro or retain their own currency.

Not true, might have been the case once, but not now. Any country joining now must adopt the Euro as it's currency. That came in with the Lisbon Treaty that wasn't a Treaty because a number of countries raised objections and threatened to use their vetoes, so they called it something else under some sort of backdoor EU scheme and got it through (Gordon Brown could explain it to everybody) - that's the EU for you - about as corrupt, inefficient and unaccountable as can be.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 02:10 PM

Thanks to Mad Maggie - Britain has nothing to base her economy on - no industries, no natural resources and an employment situation that spirals ever upward.

Did you mean unemployment? If so, you were right first time.
Employment is increasing here.
Our economy and employment are much better than the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: EBarnacle
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 02:48 PM

The first time the Isles left the rest of Europe, was when the Romans departed. For about 1000 years they painted themselves with woad and ran about fighting.
When the Normans came in, the first thing they did was attempt to suppress the local feuds and create a country. During the successive reigns of Gloriana and James, it actually happened. If the effects of the continent were not real there would have been no Protestant Reformation, English Rennaissance, etc.
Ultimately, you are probably better off staying in.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 03:37 PM

Most of us can't really grasp all the details of the argument and we vote best we can. One thing that decides me though is the huge amount of money contributed by the uk , much of it used to overpay grossly eu officials.                And there's no reason US posters should,nt chip in, judging by how many Brits comment on US politics !

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 04:36 PM

Interesting article recently you David Mitchell, partially inspired by a statement from Richard Dawkins (yes, him!) saying few if any of us are in a position to *know* one way or the other, because the argument is almost entirely about economic forecasts which are unreliable at the best of times, and completely incapable of addressing what the situation will be in, say, 50 years time any way, when the decision will still be in place.. I hear constant wails that we the voters want "the facts"; sorry, but there aren't any, at least in economic terms.   The immigration question isn't much clearer, to be honest. So we are about to determine the future of the country on a national survey of 'gut feelings', which Mitchell and DWkins felt , as I interpret it, to be a total abdication of the responsibility of the Politician class. And I tend to agree.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 04:42 PM

David Mitchell's article

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 05:01 PM

As I have said before, the whole issue hinges on the horrific and ever increasing rates of immigration from the poorer Eastern European countries.
"Free Movement of Labour", was accepted without recourse to the UK electorate ......"to make us more competitive in the global economy", said Mr Blair. That phrase means exploiting cheap labour to benefit the Exchequer. It is impossible to control, just as the EU is impossible to reform.
The problem with that policy is that it negatively affects the poorest people indigenous to UK.... young and unskilled.
They are priced out of the market by the huge influx of immigrants, who can in the main live much more cheaply, as they are here for a relatively short time and do not have the expense of buying or renting a house, or starting a family. Round this area groups of young male immigrants live communally and send much of their wages back to Eastern Europe.

The policy is not only bad for our untrained young people but for the countries the immigrants hail from, as they are starved of workers to construct their own infrastructure and maintain their own public services. The policy has been ill thought out and has contributed to the debacle we see all over Europe, if we don't leave now, we could tie ourselves to a sinking ship.

The opposition to getting out of the EU, among the so called liberal left is purely ideological.......a mad belief in "equality" under all circumstances, regardless of the long term consequences.....Remind you of anything previously discussed ??

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 06:38 PM

Relinquish sovereignty? Why would anyone do such a thing? Give up the right to hold politicians accountable for their actions? Why would anyone do such a thing? Kowtow to corporations and their political puppets? Why would anyone do such a thing?

My questions are brief but they are to the point.

I don't have a dog in your fight so my opinion doesn't matter in your fight. But, here in Canada, we endure NAFTA and it's a big and vicious dog. Now we face CETA and the TPP. They are even bigger dogs.

Don't let the bastards scare you with gloom and doom bullshit. Get out while the getting is good. Be free of domination from outside your borders. You are Britain. Act like it. Lead the Commonwealth out of these chains.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 06:43 PM

I think E Barnacle is being a bit unfair about the Isles in between the Roman and Norman invasions. The idea that this was just a bunch of disparate peoples continually fighting whilst continental Europe was peaceful surely doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Likewise it ignores the fact that there was art, literature, organised religion and emerging countries way before the Normans arrived. This was the period of St Augustine, the Celtic Church, the Lindisfarne Gospels and Book of Kells, the writings of the Venerable Bede, and of course in particular the emergence of both the Scottish and English kingdoms which were relatively early established European states. European influence in the form of the Danish and Norse invasions were hardly stabilising and the arrival of the Normans hardly brought a civilising force compared with what had been before. The harrowing of the north in particular was savage.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 06:48 PM

Backwoodsman it was only £1 notes issued by the Bank of England that went out of circulation in the 1980s. Not all British £1 notes. I'm not sure when they went out of circulation but Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale £1 notes lasted much later than that - and RBS £1 notes (though you don't come across them often) are actually still in circulation.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 08:26 PM

The people you mostly hear arguing for staying in would convince you to vote out, until you hear the ones arguing for getting out, who would drive you to vote to stay in.

Still, being in the EU guarantees a fair number of workers rights that would be under threat if we get out; and it also guarantees against some future government bringing back capital punishment. And leaving would reinforce Irish Partition by making the border one with the EU as well as with the rest of Ireland. And it looks as if the TTPI may have had its teeth drawn, which would remove one reason for voting to leave.

One personal upside of a vote to leave I suppose would be the likelihood that it might lead to Scotland breaking away, and Great Britain reverting to being an island rather than a nation. But I don't think that's what too many Brexit voters realise is a likely consequence if they win.

So I'll vote to stay, but without much enthusiasm. The EU needs a lot of changes in the direction of greater democratic control - but since they are far far removed from the ones that Cameron was trying to get and failed, we might be able to get them by joining with the people in other countries who would like the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 02:19 AM

Those are great questions, gnu, which people should be thinking deeply about but may not be. But the answers may not be what you expect. Take sovereignty for example. It is relinquishing some rights to self government in exchange for others. It is quite possible to argue we are in large part rules by big businesses rather than parliament. Fighting that requires coordinating effort across Europe and cannot done by the Uk on its own. In that respect, being in the EU increase sovereignty and leaving decreases it.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 02:29 AM

"when the Romans departed. For about 1000 years they painted themselves with woad and ran about fighting."
.,,.

I agree with Mr Conn's demolition of this fatuous comment from one 'Barnacle'. Can just see Alfred the Great or Canute running about covered with woad, can't you!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 02:34 AM

... and what's with this 1000 years? Up to the 1470s eh?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 02:56 AM

Allan Conn - whilst there may still be Scottish £1 notes in circulation, they are not Legal Tender, although they are generally accepted by traders. In fact, Scotland has no Legal Tender, that being restricted to notes and coins issued by The BoE. (Rampant Scotland.com).

Teribus - there's no 'may have been the case' about it, it was the case when the Euro was initially adopted by 11 member-states on 1/1/99. So my point remains true - the UK wasn't 'allowed' by anyone to retain Sterling as its currency, it was its right to choose whether to keep Sterling or adopt the Euro. Fortunately, it chose Sterling.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Acorn4
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 04:24 AM

I have stopped listening to any of the debates as the whole thing has degenerated into farce - a travesty as it's such an important decision.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Mr Red
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 04:26 AM

Are Yanks allowed to weigh in. why not? Obama did.
As long as we can be candid on our opinions about Trump ‽

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 05:33 AM

Remember - only Wetherspoons have the Brexit facts. Whilst hitherto partial to their full-English (especially in the hoary timbered gloom of the Royal Hop Pole in Tewkesbury of a merry May morn) I confess to having lost my appetite of late...

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 07:01 AM

Backwoodsman but they (ie the Scottish notes) are legal currency and anyway Bank of England notes are not themselves legal tender throughout the UK. They are only legal tender in England and Wales!

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 07:07 AM

Ooops sorry and I think the Royal Mint's website takes precedence over the Rampant Scotland site!

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: G-Force
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 07:08 AM

What's the spring-breathing jess'mine and rose,
   What's the summer, with all its gay train,
Or the plenty of autumn, to those
   Who've barter'd their freedom for gain?

Well, we bartered our freedom, but did we get the gain?

Personally, I'm not too bothered whether we'll be tuppence a week better off or tuppence a week worse off, I just want to get out from under the EU jackboot. But then, I voted 'out' in 1975, and was roundly vilified for it at the time.

Now, to (mis)quote Pete Townshend, I hope WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 07:20 AM

And neither MGM Lion or myself even touch on Barnacle's the Gloriana/James creating a country thing! What country would that be that Elizabeth I created? Surely not England! And she didn't create GB either. Her dying meant that a Scottish king succeeded to her throne so hardly her creating any country. And neither did James actually create a new country/state. He wanted to but it didn't happen as neither existing country wanted anything to do with it. One country was created decades later through the Cromwellian conquest but it didn't last more than a few years. GB wasn't actually created as one state until 1707 more than a century after Elizabeth died.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 07:48 AM

Mr. Conn, I bow to your superior Googling-skills, and I withdraw. 😄😎

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 09:27 AM

Actually I did know the info. Just posted the second post and gave the link from an official source as proof. Saves getting into the Yes it is - no it isn't kind of discussion!

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 12:39 PM

Aaaaahh-yup to that, Allan! Leave that to the regulars! 😎

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Mr Red
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 03:56 AM

GB wasn't actually created as one state until 1707 more than a century after Elizabeth died.
Union was the result of greed and lack of due diligence. Scotland was bankrupt and England was happy to step in, just like they did when RBS and Halifax/BoS got greedy and less than diligent.
History repeats itself, it has to, nobody is listening.
There will be other Greeces, I confidently predict.

That is the strength of a Union, and why they have regulations.
Love it or hate it you gotta be careful of who you elect either way.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 06:19 AM

As the fifth wealthiest economy in the world, how can Britain manage without the EU?. We should get out and spend the £50.000,000 a day we pay to the EU on our failing NHS, British steel, our own farms(of which many are being paid NOT to produce cattle or arable products) We can have our troops back to protect us if necessary... and employ more if needed. We can control our own borders re immigration. We will no longer be governed by the powers that be in Brussels.. (name one of them if you can). It might be a little tough at the start but we will prosper eventually as Norway have done... they stayed out and still have the trade... their workers are some of the best paid in the world. The EU needs Britains' money but do we really need their failing economy... I think not. Why should we be governed by an almost secret EU society in Brussels~? I'd like to see us get back to what we know and understand. We had free trade with the world before joining the EU. Why can we not have the same~? We are still mostly allies, not enemies..... why should that suddenly stop. By the way.. this is one Brits view of it all... although many on Facebook agree with me.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 09:14 AM

The latest edition of question time may be a help to you Americans who are struggling to understand what all the fuss is about

Mr Frank Field gives reasoned replies to the questioners.


BBC Question Time.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 07:44 PM

Mr Red the idea that Scotland was bankrupt so England stepped in to help is a very simplistic and Anglocentric view on history which doesn't stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny.

Scotland was in a bad way in the 1690s for various reasons and after Darien the Scottish Parliament came to the conclusion that the regal union simply wasn't working for Scotland as the monarch always favoured the interests of the larger kingdom over the smaller one. Some of the Scottish parliamentarians saw a fuller union as a solution as the situation as it was saw Scotland suffer through loss of normal trading partners because of association with England's wars - without having the benefits of full access to the emerging empire. However the solution the Scottish parliament chose was to distance itself more from England rather than a fuller union.

Various Acts were passed. In 1703 parliament passed the Act Anent Peace And War as well as the Wine Act. The first laid down the rule that the shared monarch could no longer take Scottish troops to war for the benefit of England without the consent of the Scottish parliament. The second declared that Scots retained the right to trade with countries if England was at war with said countries. Basically they were talking about France!

Then in 1704 parliament passed the Act of Security which declared that on the death of Queen Anne the Scots could choose a different monarch from England. Basically they were inviting the Old Pretender to be monarch with the proviso that there was a conversion to Protestantism.

That was when the English parliament started on their plans to secure a full union. The English passed the Alien Act. Basically Scotland was offered full union terms which included compensation payments to certain aristos for their losses at Darien. However if the Scots declined to accept this offer of union then Scotland could be barred from trading with England or anywhere within the empire plus it would be against the law for Scots to inherit property in England. As the royal court was in London many of the Scottish aristocracy also had residences in London hence their property was being threatened.

So rather than jumping in to help Scotland the truth is nearer that the parliament in England did not want a return to there being a second completely separate kingdom on the island so the Scottish parliament was economically pressured into accepting union with the implied threat of military intervention being there too.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 02:16 AM

Allan, where is there any evidence for this "implied threat of military intervention"? I believe that during the period we are talking about here (1690 to 1707) you might have made some sort of passing reference to a group known as Jacobites who did not seem aversed to enlisting the help of France in securing what they wanted. Also no mention of the War of the Spanish Succession in which both Scotland and England were at war with France.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 05:02 AM

Rather than not addressing the Jacobites my post specifically states that the Scottish Parliament was laying the path for the Old Pretender to take the Scottish Crown on the death of Queen Anne. I took it for granted that readers would know this was the Jacobite period. That would have left England with a different totally separate kingdom on its northern border. A kingdom who's monarch felt himself the rightful king of England too and a kingdom which would be at least potential allies of France should relations with England worsen. That was my whole point! The idea that Scotland was needy so England stepped in to offer union because they wanted to help is just nonsense! England turned to wanting full union in the first decade of the 18thC because it wanted to secure control of the whole island and it wanted to protect the Hanovarian Succession which had been secured by an Act in the English Parliament without taking any note of the Scottish Parliament's wishes. My whole post was simply countering Red's simplistic take on history "Scotland was bankrupt so England was happy to step in". Anyone doubting that the Acts I mentioned aren't real just needs to check on the UK Parliament's own website which does not even try to hide the fact that Scotland was pressurised - in fact it openly says it. Link at the bottom.....

As to the implied threat of force. That come from the fact that there was an English military force waiting on the English side of the Border whilst the Scottish Parliament was debating the union proposals. I'm not a historian but I am a keen reader of Scottish history so the knowledge of that fact just comes from reading numerous books on the said subject. I'll give one example from "Scotland's Relations With England - A Survey To 1707" by William Ferguson

"By December the English force lying on the Border had been reinforced by a further 800 cavalry and was ready to move north at Queensbury's call"

Not much use going into what ifs as they can't be proved one way or another but the force was there for two possible reasons. Certainly it was there should the Scottish parliament accept union then need military assistance should there be a popular uprising as the idea of union was deeply unpopular amongst the Scottish population at large - however it was also seen as further pressure on the anti-union side in Parliament not knowing whether the force would cross the border or not should they vote the wrong the way!

My whole post was not trying to make political points in any way as how and why union came about in 1707 is not really relevant to us now 300+ years later. I'm interested in history.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/westminster-

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 05:10 AM

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/westminster-

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Allan Conn
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 05:19 AM

Sorry for some reason the blue clicky not going to the right page. You can navigate there by clicking on......

return to Home Page - click on About Parliament - click on Living Heritage - under the Changes In Legislative Authority list click on Act of Union 1707 - then in the list click on Westminster Passes The Alien Act 1705 and it brings up the page I was trying to post. Cut and past below...................

Westminster passes the Alien Act 1705

At Westminster on 29 November 1704, Lord Godolphin, the Lord High Treasurer, explained to the House of Lords why Queen Anne had approved the Scottish Act of Security - which preserved the Kirk, trade and the gains of the 1688 Revolution in Scotland.

He said the Act contained some undesirable elements, but it was essential that any Scottish threat to England's safety should be neutralised.

Economic pressure

The Tories wanted to censure Godolphin for allowing the Act to pass, but the Whigs said that would antagonise the Scots even more by implying that their legislature was inferior to the English. It was far better, they said, to bring union upon the Scots through economic pressure.

Over the next few days Godolphin was deep in negotiations with the dominant group of Whigs - known as the Junto Whigs - in the English House of Lords, the first step towards the conclusive negotiations of 1706.

Two new Bills

When the Lords resumed their deliberations on Scotland on 6 December, two bills were proposed by Lord Somers, one of the Junto leaders, with Godolphin's support.

One offered fresh negotiations for a full incorporating union, with a single parliament and unified free trade area.

The other, an aliens bill, threatened that unless Scotland agreed to negotiate terms for union and accepted the Hanoverian succession by 25 December 1705, there would be a ban on the import of all Scottish staple products into England.

Scots would also lose the privileges of Englishmen under English law - thus endangering rights to any property they held in England.

Both bills became law early in 1705.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Mr Red
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 05:40 AM

Mr Red the idea that Scotland was bankrupt so England stepped in to help is a very simplistic and Anglocentric view

Hmmm. The nature of communication these days. You can blame the internet, but it has been going on for years. viz. soundbites. But the facts remain:
Scotland was bankrupt. Just like Scottish Banks were. The options open in either case were numerous and all had drawbacks.
The banks thought they were too big to fail. In the event so did the government. The consequences otherwise were too devastating to contemplate. It can be argued that happened with the country in 1707. I am sure there were factions who had championed union since James 1 (aka 6) and before (MQS?), but faced with a crisis the power would shift. History is written by the winners. If you want the real story you had to be alive then. And on both sides.

Brexit/Eurin we are living it, and don't we know it!

As with Berwick on Tweed, the neverendum will leave hanging threads for the loosers to pull at. We are, after all, on the second lap. Ce n'est pas?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 12:33 PM

N'est-ce pas, shurely Jimmy?? :0(

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Acorn4
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 12:35 PM

OK, my take on the EU thing then then! I studied economics up to a point, but it seems to me that people need a degree or beyond to make a reasoned decision on June 23rd, so we are left to rely on the "experts" and this is where the problem starts, and we are bombarded with wave upon wave of bullshit and scare stories, so I've decided to adopt a different approach based on these "experts" and how much trust we can put in them. It makes rather depressing reading, but might encourage some of us who are befuddled by all the facts a figures to take part in the democratic process.

I decided to give them all an "arsehole" rating, which I'll abbreviate to "a rating" for short, and work out which of the two sides has the biggest "arsehole" rating and then vote for the other side.

The "in" side comes off very badly at the moment here with the 3 biggest arseholes, Blair, Cameron and Osborne - I would give Blair an "a rating" of 100, and Cameron and Osborne in the 90s. However, the "in" side aren't having it all their own way, as the "out" side has its own big hitting arsehole in Rupert Murdoch who would also have an "a rating" somewhere in the mid 90s. Some of the "out" people have in fact succeeded in reducing their "a rating" lately, such as Michael Gove now he is not winding up teachers, but I do stress that it is important not to make a decision at this point as some of the big players may dramatically increase their rating as the vote gets nearer including Nigel Farage; also the "in" campaign also has some important players like Jeremy Corbyn who have a very low "a rating" although this is somewhat offset by his lack of overall enthusiasm. It also pays not to be too hasty in lowering an a-rating for people like Ian Duncan Smith, who have suddenly had this "Road to Damascus" moment and now see themselves as the champion of the common man. Caution advised here!

It would however be impossible for Tony Blair to increase his "a rating" as he is already at the top of the scale. It is also important to distinguish those with a high "a rating" from those who are merely irritating like Liz Kendall and Anna Soubry. So, on the day I will probably take the five or six leading campaigners on each side and tot up the "A ratings" before voting - it's all to play for! Hope this makes as much sense as most of the other stuff posted on the subject?

It is important to stress that an overall picture of behaviour be built up based on history before the EU debate began as well as during the debates.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 06:16 AM

I am genuinely undecided. My instinct is to Remain. I voted to join the Common Market, and I think the economic arguments for doing so still stand. The freedom and flexibility to live and work anywhere offer greater opportunities, although personally I have have no plans to take advantage of them. My children might though.

EU has created relationships and a shared mutual interest between countries which were traditionally hostile to one another. It is now unthinkable that those countries could go to war again. It is easy for those of us who grew up after the War to take this for granted, but history shows it is not inevitable. Of course, the UK leaving the EU would not mean that it falls apart, but it would be a destabilising influence ata time when the EU is under a number of pressures, from Greece's problems to the influx of refugees. So I don't think it would be good for us to do anything which could make things worse.

On the other hand, I identify as British rather than European. As an institution, the EU is dysfunctional and the ruling bureaucracy appears to be pursuing its own agenda rather than following the direction of the elected governments and the European Parliament. Closer co-operation is one thing, but I don't believe a European state is achievable or desirable - we are all too different, with different languages, cultures and outlooks, to be forced into a one-size-fits-all state.

I can see the arguments on both sides. What does infuriate me is the timing of this - there is no particular reason to raise this now, the timing is entirely due to Cameron's wish to neuter sections of his own party. If it blows up in his face and the vote is to leave, we face considerable uncertainty and short-term pain - whether there will be long-term gains is anyone's guess. If the vote is to remain, it will make it much harder to revisit the question if an issue should arise with the EU that really should make us think again.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 06:32 AM

Good post Mr Jones, although I favour immediate exit.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: G-Force
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 08:18 AM

I voted to join the Common Market

Did you? How did you do that? At the time of the 1975 referendum we had already been stitched up into the EEC for two years.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:48 AM

I am unconvinced by any of the arguments.I voted against joining. I am undecided

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Acorn4
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 02:45 PM

If we do leave will someone coin the word "brextricate"?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stanron
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 03:12 PM

As some body has already pointed out, when we voted last, in the seventies, we were already a member of the European Economic Community. We were voting to remain or leave just like we are now. We did not know then that the intention was to become a United States of Europe. This information was kept hidden, presumably because the planners did not trust the electorate to share their vision.

So the first strike against the idea and actuality of the EU is it's intrinsic dishonesty and it's usurpation of democracy. It's a tyranny.

The idea itself is worthy. After two world wars in the first half of the 20th century some sort of arrangement was needed to prevent a third. The idea of a United States of Europe was the solution. This idea is now about 70 years old. Very few people today drive a 70 year old car, I'd bet that nobody uses a 70 year old computer or telephone. The world has changed enormously in 70 years but the idea behind the EU has not changed. It has not adapted to a vastly changed world and is probably not capable of doing so.

So the second strike against the EU is it's inflexibility. It's getting to be a bit of a fossil.

Do you guys on the sunset side of the pond know that for the last 20 years the EU has not been able to present a verified set of accounts? No one knows what's happening to the money. Or if they do know they are not telling.

So strike three is that the EU is either corrupt or incompetent, or both. It does not take good care of OUR money.

Then there's the Parliament. Every country in the EU already has a parliament of elected reprersentatives. Why do we need an additional layer of government above the government we have? Is it just more highly paid jobs for the boys? This EU Parliament cannot initiate legislation. It can only vote on legislation proposed by an unelected committee of appointees. Oh, and the whole Parliament ups sticks for one week in every month and moves from Brussels to Strasbourg. Why? To satisfy French Pride.

So strike four is also parts of strike one and three. More democratic deficit. More wasted money and more, almost criminal, stupidity.

Guess how I'll vote.

There is still merit in the idea of a united Europe. It's the current implementation that is so completely flawed. Whilst the EU is incapable of reform, we should leave.

Oh yes, one final point. If you would really want to wipe the fat smirks from the faces of David Cameron and George Osbourne, and I'm sure some of you do, then vote LEAVE when you get the chance.