Norway has free movement of labour (in both directions)
Indeed they do. They're not a member of the EU though and that was the premise of Prague's outburst about countries kicking anyone out that disgarees with the EU's utopian dream/disaster.
Oh dear. That of course is not what I wrote, but I suppose if your preferred footie forum is The Lion Rants, such blatant travesties are normal for you.
But if you want to have a sensible discussion ( I.e. one where it is not a given that everyone will agree with you) consider what Cameron is saying today about the future of the Calais camp if we leave. It's part of the same thing. The French are doing our dirty work there now, because we are part of the same club, and have a shared problem. But the Mayor of Calais is at her wits end about it, understandably. Now, as soon as we vote for Brexit, she will be the first to say, let anyone through who says they are going to the UK. Wouldn't you, in her shoes?
So it's not difficult to see that they will start to get difficult with Brits living there, to score political points. Actually like we are now doing today with Kiwis and Aussies, charging them to access the NHS when they are here, even though they don't charge us over there.
It could actually help you to remember your own favourite song when thinking about Europe. Not everyone likes us.
You talk about having a 'sensible' discussion yet label anyone who errs on the side of the no campaign as being akin to Le Pen. You then have the temerity to try and spin it to make it sound as though I'm the one that didn't like the taste of my dummy. You started mud slinging, and not for the first time.
You make some good points on many threads and I find your contributions interesting, as with most other posters, but you don't half have a tantrum when someone disagrees with you. Rein in the name calling and we're good to go.
Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un.
I'm beginning to feel like the unfortunate Tunisian woman who allegedly started the Arab Spring.
I respect my fellow lifers right to express their opinion - some I will agree with and others not - same applies with my, occasionally disjointed views - sometimes folk agree with me but not very often .
Think I'll stick to football comments only in future.
The oven gloves were only removed from a local store here - not even sure if it was a national issue.
Which PM signed away our Sovereignty to Brussels, anyway? Or did he?
The EU vote will be decided by the emotional responses from the don't knows. Many will vote simply for taking risk or not taking risk.
Was listening to a programme on the radio this morning that raised the question why, when faced with public speaking for example, do some fall to pieces and some thrive. It's only how you have programmed your mind. You either see a challenge to overcome and delight in the prospect of overcoming a threat, or you hide from the threat. You create the image of the outside world, not the other way round, and you control how you react, flight or fight.
It's irrelevant what are the potential risks that arise with a Brexit, it's whether those risks are seen as a challenge able to be overcome to achieve greater benefits, or to fear in case we fail.
The weaknesses of the EU acknowledged by its supporters, are threats, but not seen as such because they come from the EU itself seen as benign. In my view the threats the EU poses in terms of overruling national interests cannot be addressed because we do not have the control or influence supporters would like to suggest. If we had control or influence we could get the changes Cameron wants without threatening to leave the EU, the ultimate threat to our partners. The UK is being characterised as a nuisance and a trouble maker asking for all these concessions. We have to curry favour with disinterested partners. To make them interested and support us we have to threaten to leave. If we need to change the rules to make the club attractive we are in the wrong club.
Supporters of the EU suggest its OK faffing about in a futile battle to modernise the EU but madness try and find markets for our goods outside the EU.
Big business will say it will be worse off with a Brexit. Im waiting for an interviewer to say "Can you explain why a drop in dividends for your shareholders is bad for UK citizens, why you can't compete with foreign competition, why you think your goods will stop being demanded by EU consumers and why you think the EU will want to hurt its own economies by not offering reciprocal trade agreements in the mutual interests of the UK and the EU".
Anyone who thinks politicians have any better an idea about what is best, staying or leaving, than any one who posts on here should stop thinking that no worries. Politicians will be making up their mind on emotion just like everyone else, they don't have a scooby do about anything outside Westminster that's not fed to them by lobbyists. Big business thinks about its own interests, not yours or mine and lazy business just wants a cosy market protected by tarriffs.
So my advice is don't think anyone else's opinion is worth a dog turd, our view of the world is personal to us, and taking someone else's interpretation of how they see the EU is a cop out.
Resist a decision based on flight because either way you remain under a threat, the EU is not a protective sanctuary and the world outside can be scary.
Norway has free movement of labour (in both directions)
Indeed they do. They're not a member of the EU though and that was the premise of Prague's outburst about countries kicking anyone out that disgarees with the EU's utopian dream/disaster.
Oh dear. That of course is not what I wrote, but I suppose if your preferred footie forum is The Lion Rants, such blatant travesties are normal for you.
But if you want to have a sensible discussion ( I.e. one where it is not a given that everyone will agree with you) consider what Cameron is saying today about the future of the Calais camp if we leave. It's part of the same thing. The French are doing our dirty work there now, because we are part of the same club, and have a shared problem. But the Mayor of Calais is at her wits end about it, understandably. Now, as soon as we vote for Brexit, she will be the first to say, let anyone through who says they are going to the UK. Wouldn't you, in her shoes?
So it's not difficult to see that they will start to get difficult with Brits living there, to score political points. Actually like we are now doing today with Kiwis and Aussies, charging them to access the NHS when they are here, even though they don't charge us over there.
It could actually help you to remember your own favourite song when thinking about Europe. Not everyone likes us.
You talk about having a 'sensible' discussion yet label anyone who errs on the side of the no campaign as being akin to Le Pen. You then have the temerity to try and spin it to make it sound as though I'm the one that didn't like the taste of my dummy. You started mud slinging, and not for the first time.
You make some good points on many threads and I find your contributions interesting, as with most other posters, but you don't half have a tantrum when someone disagrees with you. Rein in the name calling and we're good to go.
Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un.
Spin? Give over. If I have a viewpoint, I give it, as clearly as I can manage, and I also have a rule that I only write what I would say to a person's face. So I'll summarise what I have actually been writing, in the last 24 hours here, as opposed to your version of it. People can make up their own minds whether it is spin, bluster or tantrum, and doubtless judge your reply on the same measure, should you choose to do so.
- UKIP and its supporters generally talk about all those coming from the EU to Britain as 'economic migrants'. Whereas, I never see Brits talking about themselves, colonising France, Spain and Tuscany, as economic migrants. Yet in Spain certainly many people moan about the Brits the way many Brits moan about Poles etc. So consequences for Brits abroad of Brexit, are real and potentially serious. Their conceit that they in, say, Spain, are different and better than a Romanian in Sidcup, stops them from getting to grips with this.
- I accept that UKIP is a properly constituted political party, and its one MP (whom I watched carefully on the Marr show yesterday), is an intelligent and coherent politician. I don't know why you should be so upset to be considered as a UKIP sympathiser. That is how you sound to me, if not, I'm interested to learn where you disagree with them.
- my only reference to le Pen was to point out that while she appears to have the same views on the EU as you do, she is not your friend (or rather Big Rob's, who lives there) because wherever her party has power the policies are and will be France for the French. They are especially strong in the North.
- Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un Funny enough I was going to suggest that this would probably be your solution but thought that would be going a bit far...
The Brits in Spain created a housing market that Spaniards couldn’t compete with. That bubble is bursting for a lot of them now.
The camps in dover is rubbish from Cameron, but less rubbish than is being flung from the other side. The problem is, the out campaigners give us all sorts of crap about everything, including the shape of bananas and now on this site- oven gloves where the thread poster has said this has made him decide to support the exit!!!! Complete crap. Are we better off in or out - as dippenhall says, nobody knows for sure on the maths, so that is a reason to stay in. Wait to you are sure before you leave FFS. How is that not the only logical approach? That and the EU would certainly make us regret it.
here is something that genuinely puzzles me about the debate, especially migrants and welfare.
here is the 2014 interview with Radek Sikorski the Polish foreign minister at the time, by Andrew Marr. All 7 mins is worth watching, but from around 3.10 he starts to explain that our welfare system is more generous to new arrivals than in most of Europe and especially more so than it is in Poland. And he has no problem if we harmonise it.
Well if that is the case, why do we make such a big song and dance about leaving unless we have a big new exclusive deal? Why do we pay benefits up front, when most EU countries don't? Why don't we just fix it? Nothing is actually stopping us, according to Sikorski.
"Norway entered into a trade agreement with the community (EU) following the outcome of the referendum in 1972. That trade agreement remained in force until Norway joined the European Economic Area in 1994.
On 28 November 1994, yet another referendum was held, narrowing the margin but yielding the same result: 52.2% opposed membership and 47.8% in favour, with a turn-out of 88.6%. There are currently no plans to file another application."
You ignored all five facts presented in my post and focused on the one opinion.
Do you think Norway is the best model for a future UK, outside the EU? A country that contributes to the EU budget, has free movement of people, goods and services, has to implement EU legislation on oven gloves etc, but has no vote at the table. Is that the best model? You've used it as an example several times on this thread, so you must do.
I have used it as an example, yes. That doesn't explicitly mean I see it as the model we should adopt, let alone see it as being the 'best' model. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.
Britain can negotiate its own terms. Terms that best suit the model it sees as being beneficial to its population.
Norway has the terms that it has because of its relationship with the EU. If the UK chooses to have a different relationship with the EU, then the UK will have different terms.
Norwegians are able to live anywhere in the EU (the example you gave) because Norway is part of the free movement of people and any EU citizen can move to Oslo without requiring a visa.
If the UK decides that free movement of people is not wanted (say, in order to reduce immigration from Eastern Europe), then that's something that UK citizens will not get when they want to travel. Britain could of course agree visa terms with the EU as a whole (most likely) or with individual nations (not likely). Those terms would affect British citizens who currently live in Europe or intend to move there. Maybe they'll still be able to travel fairly freely, maybe they won't. It will depend on what the UK wants and what the EU members want. But neither side is likely to offer better terms to the other's citizens than are offered to their own.
The Brits in Spain created a housing market that Spaniards couldn’t compete with. That bubble is bursting for a lot of them now.
The camps in dover is rubbish from Cameron, but less rubbish than is being flung from the other side. The problem is, the out campaigners give us all sorts of crap about everything, including the shape of bananas and now on this site- oven gloves where the thread poster has said this has made him decide to support the exit!!!! Complete crap. Are we better off in or out - as dippenhall says, nobody knows for sure on the maths, so that is a reason to stay in. Wait to you are sure before you leave FFS. How is that not the only logical approach? That and the EU would certainly make us regret it.
I said that my mind says to stay in but my heart says to get out. My mind generally rules, in my world - following the heart is not the answer to rational solutions.
If we could recover the level of self-governance we had prior to Blair and Brown signing on the dotted line and achieve a more economic Union, rather than the current drive toward a Federal Europe, I would be more than happy. I believe this is what Cameron is trying to achieve but if we don't sort it before the referendum then we have no chance afterwards.
It is the petty bureaucracy and interference from Brussels that I object to but I would always vote to stay in as I see the economic benefits it brings.
We must prioritise on both immigration and benefits issues BEFORE the referendum if the Government is to comfortably achieve its target of remaining within the Union and avoid being ostracised in the event of a negative outcome.
How can we achieve anything other than being ostracised if we leave.? If exit was seen by other member states as being viable, more would do it. Europe can’t let that happen and has to make us regret it and they have the power to do so and some. We shouldn’t be playing with fire here and the arguments have to be meaningful – not about oven gloves! The reasons the out campaign have to be about it being better to leave financially, not about sovereignty or silly details. Is Europe perfect – far from it, but we have to improve it not leave it and cut of our nose to spite our face. I accept you said your head said to stay in, so sorry about that. You may not be one of them, but the people who would have us out for the wrong reasons, could do us and our children a lot of damage. It is a much more serious issue than bananas and oven gloves.
How can we achieve anything other than being ostracised if we leave.? If exit was seen by other member states as being viable, more would do it. Europe can’t let that happen and has to make us regret it and they have the power to do so and some. We shouldn’t be playing with fire here and the arguments have to be meaningful – not about oven gloves! The reasons the out campaign have to be about it being better to leave financially, not about sovereignty or silly details. Is Europe perfect – far from it, but we have to improve it not leave it and cut of our nose to spite our face. I accept you said your head said to stay in, so sorry about that. You may not be one of them, but the people who would have us out for the wrong reasons, could do us and our children a lot of damage. It is a much more serious issue than bananas and oven gloves.
I've made up my mind to leave. I'm tired of people using the straight bananas cliche (has anyone really heard it mentioned by anyone except for EU fanatics as a put down) and I find it incredibly patronising that people don't think I've got my children's best interests at heart.
here is something that genuinely puzzles me about the debate, especially migrants and welfare.
here is the 2014 interview with Radek Sikorski the Polish foreign minister at the time, by Andrew Marr. All 7 mins is worth watching, but from around 3.10 he starts to explain that our welfare system is more generous to new arrivals than in most of Europe and especially more so than it is in Poland. And he has no problem if we harmonise it.
Well if that is the case, why do we make such a big song and dance about leaving unless we have a big new exclusive deal? Why do we pay benefits up front, when most EU countries don't? Why don't we just fix it? Nothing is actually stopping us, according to Sikorski.
Agree. Cameron is trying to portray himself as getting a concession from the EU when it was within his power to provide restricted non-discriminatory benefits anyway. Side issues are being used to deflect attention from the real issues.
How can we achieve anything other than being ostracised if we leave.? If exit was seen by other member states as being viable, more would do it. Europe can’t let that happen and has to make us regret it and they have the power to do so and some. We shouldn’t be playing with fire here and the arguments have to be meaningful – not about oven gloves! The reasons the out campaign have to be about it being better to leave financially, not about sovereignty or silly details. Is Europe perfect – far from it, but we have to improve it not leave it and cut of our nose to spite our face. I accept you said your head said to stay in, so sorry about that. You may not be one of them, but the people who would have us out for the wrong reasons, could do us and our children a lot of damage. It is a much more serious issue than bananas and oven gloves.
What happens if we are "ostracised"? You can't ostracise anyone from something they don't want to be part of. You can ignore them, but so what, you make new friends.
How do the EU make us regret leaving? Put up trade barriers? Then we put up trade barriers. The EU sells more to us than we sell to them, so who regrets most.
For years the UK was ostracised by France when we wanted to join the Common Market. Why should we be worried about being ostracised for leaving?
How do you improve the EU if you can't agree on what improvement means.
What does "financially" better mean? Financially better for whom - big business or consumers. Staying in the EU does not allow us to get cheaper imports that don't bear EU Tariffs (taxes that we pay). Staying in the EU doesn't allow us to sell more goods to countries who suddenly remove the tit for tat tariff that are applied to goods imported from the EU. Staying in the EU doesn't allow taxpayers to subsidise our industries to keep them competitive if we think it's the right thing to do. Staying in the EU doesn't allow UK businesses freedom to evolve to serve new markets on UK terms.
If you only believe one half of the argument no wonder you are panicking and worrying about your children.
here is something that genuinely puzzles me about the debate, especially migrants and welfare.
here is the 2014 interview with Radek Sikorski the Polish foreign minister at the time, by Andrew Marr. All 7 mins is worth watching, but from around 3.10 he starts to explain that our welfare system is more generous to new arrivals than in most of Europe and especially more so than it is in Poland. And he has no problem if we harmonise it.
Well if that is the case, why do we make such a big song and dance about leaving unless we have a big new exclusive deal? Why do we pay benefits up front, when most EU countries don't? Why don't we just fix it? Nothing is actually stopping us, according to Sikorski.
Agree. Cameron is trying to portray himself as getting a concession from the EU when it was within his power to provide restricted non-discriminatory benefits anyway. Side issues are being used to deflect attention from the real issues.
Very interesting!
This seems almost unbelievable in light of what's been published in the media in recent weeks - doesn't quite make sense. Are you suggesting Cameron is duping the public with mock negotiations, appearing to negotiate a better deal when the problem of benefits and migration could be resolved within these shores and with no interference from Brussels?
Norway has free movement of labour (in both directions)
Indeed they do. They're not a member of the EU though and that was the premise of Prague's outburst about countries kicking anyone out that disgarees with the EU's utopian dream/disaster.
Oh dear. That of course is not what I wrote, but I suppose if your preferred footie forum is The Lion Rants, such blatant travesties are normal for you.
But if you want to have a sensible discussion ( I.e. one where it is not a given that everyone will agree with you) consider what Cameron is saying today about the future of the Calais camp if we leave. It's part of the same thing. The French are doing our dirty work there now, because we are part of the same club, and have a shared problem. But the Mayor of Calais is at her wits end about it, understandably. Now, as soon as we vote for Brexit, she will be the first to say, let anyone through who says they are going to the UK. Wouldn't you, in her shoes?
So it's not difficult to see that they will start to get difficult with Brits living there, to score political points. Actually like we are now doing today with Kiwis and Aussies, charging them to access the NHS when they are here, even though they don't charge us over there.
It could actually help you to remember your own favourite song when thinking about Europe. Not everyone likes us.
You talk about having a 'sensible' discussion yet label anyone who errs on the side of the no campaign as being akin to Le Pen. You then have the temerity to try and spin it to make it sound as though I'm the one that didn't like the taste of my dummy. You started mud slinging, and not for the first time.
You make some good points on many threads and I find your contributions interesting, as with most other posters, but you don't half have a tantrum when someone disagrees with you. Rein in the name calling and we're good to go.
Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un.
Spin? Give over. If I have a viewpoint, I give it, as clearly as I can manage, and I also have a rule that I only write what I would say to a person's face. So I'll summarise what I have actually been writing, in the last 24 hours here, as opposed to your version of it. People can make up their own minds whether it is spin, bluster or tantrum, and doubtless judge your reply on the same measure, should you choose to do so.
- UKIP and its supporters generally talk about all those coming from the EU to Britain as 'economic migrants'. Whereas, I never see Brits talking about themselves, colonising France, Spain and Tuscany, as economic migrants. Yet in Spain certainly many people moan about the Brits the way many Brits moan about Poles etc. So consequences for Brits abroad of Brexit, are real and potentially serious. Their conceit that they in, say, Spain, are different and better than a Romanian in Sidcup, stops them from getting to grips with this.
- I accept that UKIP is a properly constituted political party, and its one MP (whom I watched carefully on the Marr show yesterday), is an intelligent and coherent politician. I don't know why you should be so upset to be considered as a UKIP sympathiser. That is how you sound to me, if not, I'm interested to learn where you disagree with them.
- my only reference to le Pen was to point out that while she appears to have the same views on the EU as you do, she is not your friend (or rather Big Rob's, who lives there) because wherever her party has power the policies are and will be France for the French. They are especially strong in the North.
- Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un Funny enough I was going to suggest that this would probably be your solution but thought that would be going a bit far...
Many thanks for your well constructed response.
We may disagree wholeheartedly on many things but I respect your right to hold those views and enjoy reading debate from all sides, regardless of the angle we all take to make our point.
For the record, the Channel Tunnel quip was very much facetious. It'd be more of a spectacle if we blew it up
How can we achieve anything other than being ostracised if we leave.? If exit was seen by other member states as being viable, more would do it. Europe can’t let that happen and has to make us regret it and they have the power to do so and some. We shouldn’t be playing with fire here and the arguments have to be meaningful – not about oven gloves! The reasons the out campaign have to be about it being better to leave financially, not about sovereignty or silly details. Is Europe perfect – far from it, but we have to improve it not leave it and cut of our nose to spite our face. I accept you said your head said to stay in, so sorry about that. You may not be one of them, but the people who would have us out for the wrong reasons, could do us and our children a lot of damage. It is a much more serious issue than bananas and oven gloves.
What happens if we are "ostracised"? You can't ostracise anyone from something they don't want to be part of. You can ignore them, but so what, you make new friends.
How do the EU make us regret leaving? Put up trade barriers? Then we put up trade barriers. The EU sells more to us than we sell to them, so who regrets most.
For years the UK was ostracised by France when we wanted to join the Common Market. Why should we be worried about being ostracised for leaving?
How do you improve the EU if you can't agree on what improvement means.
What does "financially" better mean? Financially better for whom - big business or consumers. Staying in the EU does not allow us to get cheaper imports that don't bear EU Tariffs (taxes that we pay). Staying in the EU doesn't allow us to sell more goods to countries who suddenly remove the tit for tat tariff that are applied to goods imported from the EU. Staying in the EU doesn't allow taxpayers to subsidise our industries to keep them competitive if we think it's the right thing to do. Staying in the EU doesn't allow UK businesses freedom to evolve to serve new markets on UK terms.
If you only believe one half of the argument no wonder you are panicking and worrying about your children.
Do you really have no concept of what Europe could do to marginalise us? Seriously?
How can we achieve anything other than being ostracised if we leave.? If exit was seen by other member states as being viable, more would do it. Europe can’t let that happen and has to make us regret it and they have the power to do so and some. We shouldn’t be playing with fire here and the arguments have to be meaningful – not about oven gloves! The reasons the out campaign have to be about it being better to leave financially, not about sovereignty or silly details. Is Europe perfect – far from it, but we have to improve it not leave it and cut of our nose to spite our face. I accept you said your head said to stay in, so sorry about that. You may not be one of them, but the people who would have us out for the wrong reasons, could do us and our children a lot of damage. It is a much more serious issue than bananas and oven gloves.
What happens if we are "ostracised"? You can't ostracise anyone from something they don't want to be part of. You can ignore them, but so what, you make new friends.
How do the EU make us regret leaving? Put up trade barriers? Then we put up trade barriers. The EU sells more to us than we sell to them, so who regrets most.
For years the UK was ostracised by France when we wanted to join the Common Market. Why should we be worried about being ostracised for leaving?
How do you improve the EU if you can't agree on what improvement means.
What does "financially" better mean? Financially better for whom - big business or consumers. Staying in the EU does not allow us to get cheaper imports that don't bear EU Tariffs (taxes that we pay). Staying in the EU doesn't allow us to sell more goods to countries who suddenly remove the tit for tat tariff that are applied to goods imported from the EU. Staying in the EU doesn't allow taxpayers to subsidise our industries to keep them competitive if we think it's the right thing to do. Staying in the EU doesn't allow UK businesses freedom to evolve to serve new markets on UK terms.
If you only believe one half of the argument no wonder you are panicking and worrying about your children.
Do you really have no concept of what Europe could do to marginalise us? Seriously?
They certainly couldn't stop us from trading with the largest emerging markets, freely
Seriously though, why would we want to be a part of such a vindictive organisation?
This is turning into a real hot potato - bit like the football at The Valley last Saturday.
Think the original thread has slightly gone off on a tangent!
That's because any time the EU is criticised, even as part of a joke, it is a dog whistle to all the soothsayers to spread the usual myths and fear-mongering we see every single time.
I was in the UK just a couple of months ago. I saw Tata trucks, McDonalds hamburgers, I brought Nutrogena hand cream, I saw Nissan car dealerships, Starbucks coffee shops, McCain oven chips (mind you use the right oven gloves), Ugg boots, Sony electronics and bananas. And yet I hear anti-EU folk talk about that organisation restricting the UK's right to trade with whoever they wish to around the world. I don't get it?
Norway has free movement of labour (in both directions)
Indeed they do. They're not a member of the EU though and that was the premise of Prague's outburst about countries kicking anyone out that disgarees with the EU's utopian dream/disaster.
Oh dear. That of course is not what I wrote, but I suppose if your preferred footie forum is The Lion Rants, such blatant travesties are normal for you.
But if you want to have a sensible discussion ( I.e. one where it is not a given that everyone will agree with you) consider what Cameron is saying today about the future of the Calais camp if we leave. It's part of the same thing. The French are doing our dirty work there now, because we are part of the same club, and have a shared problem. But the Mayor of Calais is at her wits end about it, understandably. Now, as soon as we vote for Brexit, she will be the first to say, let anyone through who says they are going to the UK. Wouldn't you, in her shoes?
So it's not difficult to see that they will start to get difficult with Brits living there, to score political points. Actually like we are now doing today with Kiwis and Aussies, charging them to access the NHS when they are here, even though they don't charge us over there.
It could actually help you to remember your own favourite song when thinking about Europe. Not everyone likes us.
You talk about having a 'sensible' discussion yet label anyone who errs on the side of the no campaign as being akin to Le Pen. You then have the temerity to try and spin it to make it sound as though I'm the one that didn't like the taste of my dummy. You started mud slinging, and not for the first time.
You make some good points on many threads and I find your contributions interesting, as with most other posters, but you don't half have a tantrum when someone disagrees with you. Rein in the name calling and we're good to go.
Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un.
Spin? Give over. If I have a viewpoint, I give it, as clearly as I can manage, and I also have a rule that I only write what I would say to a person's face. So I'll summarise what I have actually been writing, in the last 24 hours here, as opposed to your version of it. People can make up their own minds whether it is spin, bluster or tantrum, and doubtless judge your reply on the same measure, should you choose to do so.
- UKIP and its supporters generally talk about all those coming from the EU to Britain as 'economic migrants'. Whereas, I never see Brits talking about themselves, colonising France, Spain and Tuscany, as economic migrants. Yet in Spain certainly many people moan about the Brits the way many Brits moan about Poles etc. So consequences for Brits abroad of Brexit, are real and potentially serious. Their conceit that they in, say, Spain, are different and better than a Romanian in Sidcup, stops them from getting to grips with this.
- I accept that UKIP is a properly constituted political party, and its one MP (whom I watched carefully on the Marr show yesterday), is an intelligent and coherent politician. I don't know why you should be so upset to be considered as a UKIP sympathiser. That is how you sound to me, if not, I'm interested to learn where you disagree with them.
- my only reference to le Pen was to point out that while she appears to have the same views on the EU as you do, she is not your friend (or rather Big Rob's, who lives there) because wherever her party has power the policies are and will be France for the French. They are especially strong in the North.
- Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un Funny enough I was going to suggest that this would probably be your solution but thought that would be going a bit far...
Many thanks for your well constructed response.
We may disagree wholeheartedly on many things but I respect your right to hold those views and enjoy reading debate from all sides, regardless of the angle we all take to make our point.
For the record, the Channel Tunnel quip was very much facetious. It'd be more of a spectacle if we blew it up
Well sure, I was 99% sure of that. Call the other 1% the Spanner factor :-)
This is turning into a real hot potato - bit like the football at The Valley last Saturday.
Think the original thread has slightly gone off on a tangent!
That's because any time the EU is criticised, even as part of a joke, it is a dog whistle to all the soothsayers to spread the usual myths and fear-mongering we see every single time.
Or possibly simply because there is a referendum on the way?
This is turning into a real hot potato - bit like the football at The Valley last Saturday.
Think the original thread has slightly gone off on a tangent!
That's because any time the EU is criticised, even as part of a joke, it is a dog whistle to all the soothsayers to spread the usual myths and fear-mongering we see every single time.
Or possibly simply because there is a referendum on the way?
Comments
You make some good points on many threads and I find your contributions interesting, as with most other posters, but you don't half have a tantrum when someone disagrees with you. Rein in the name calling and we're good to go.
Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un.
This is very exciting news on here.
I respect my fellow lifers right to express their opinion - some I will agree with and others not - same applies with my, occasionally disjointed views - sometimes folk agree with me but not very often
Think I'll stick to football comments only in future.
The oven gloves were only removed from a local store here - not even sure if it was a national issue.
Which PM signed away our Sovereignty to Brussels, anyway? Or did he?
Was listening to a programme on the radio this morning that raised the question why, when faced with public speaking for example, do some fall to pieces and some thrive. It's only how you have programmed your mind. You either see a challenge to overcome and delight in the prospect of overcoming a threat, or you hide from the threat. You create the image of the outside world, not the other way round, and you control how you react, flight or fight.
It's irrelevant what are the potential risks that arise with a Brexit, it's whether those risks are seen as a challenge able to be overcome to achieve greater benefits, or to fear in case we fail.
The weaknesses of the EU acknowledged by its supporters, are threats, but not seen as such because they come from the EU itself seen as benign. In my view the threats the EU poses in terms of overruling national interests cannot be addressed because we do not have the control or influence supporters would like to suggest. If we had control or influence we could get the changes Cameron wants without threatening to leave the EU, the ultimate threat to our partners. The UK is being characterised as a nuisance and a trouble maker asking for all these concessions. We have to curry favour with disinterested partners. To make them interested and support us we have to threaten to leave. If we need to change the rules to make the club attractive we are in the wrong club.
Supporters of the EU suggest its OK faffing about in a futile battle to modernise the EU but madness try and find markets for our goods outside the EU.
Big business will say it will be worse off with a Brexit. Im waiting for an interviewer to say "Can you explain why a drop in dividends for your shareholders is bad for UK citizens, why you can't compete with foreign competition, why you think your goods will stop being demanded by EU consumers and why you think the EU will want to hurt its own economies by not offering reciprocal trade agreements in the mutual interests of the UK and the EU".
Anyone who thinks politicians have any better an idea about what is best, staying or leaving, than any one who posts on here should stop thinking that no worries. Politicians will be making up their mind on emotion just like everyone else, they don't have a scooby do about anything outside Westminster that's not fed to them by lobbyists. Big business thinks about its own interests, not yours or mine and lazy business just wants a cosy market protected by tarriffs.
So my advice is don't think anyone else's opinion is worth a dog turd, our view of the world is personal to us, and taking someone else's interpretation of how they see the EU is a cop out.
Resist a decision based on flight because either way you remain under a threat, the EU is not a protective sanctuary and the world outside can be scary.
- UKIP and its supporters generally talk about all those coming from the EU to Britain as 'economic migrants'. Whereas, I never see Brits talking about themselves, colonising France, Spain and Tuscany, as economic migrants. Yet in Spain certainly many people moan about the Brits the way many Brits moan about Poles etc. So consequences for Brits abroad of Brexit, are real and potentially serious. Their conceit that they in, say, Spain, are different and better than a Romanian in Sidcup, stops them from getting to grips with this.
- I accept that UKIP is a properly constituted political party, and its one MP (whom I watched carefully on the Marr show yesterday), is an intelligent and coherent politician. I don't know why you should be so upset to be considered as a UKIP sympathiser. That is how you sound to me, if not, I'm interested to learn where you disagree with them.
- my only reference to le Pen was to point out that while she appears to have the same views on the EU as you do, she is not your friend (or rather Big Rob's, who lives there) because wherever her party has power the policies are and will be France for the French. They are especially strong in the North.
- Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un Funny enough I was going to suggest that this would probably be your solution but thought that would be going a bit far...
The camps in dover is rubbish from Cameron, but less rubbish than is being flung from the other side. The problem is, the out campaigners give us all sorts of crap about everything, including the shape of bananas and now on this site- oven gloves where the thread poster has said this has made him decide to support the exit!!!! Complete crap. Are we better off in or out - as dippenhall says, nobody knows for sure on the maths, so that is a reason to stay in. Wait to you are sure before you leave FFS. How is that not the only logical approach? That and the EU would certainly make us regret it.
here is the 2014 interview with Radek Sikorski the Polish foreign minister at the time, by Andrew Marr. All 7 mins is worth watching, but from around 3.10 he starts to explain that our welfare system is more generous to new arrivals than in most of Europe and especially more so than it is in Poland. And he has no problem if we harmonise it.
Well if that is the case, why do we make such a big song and dance about leaving unless we have a big new exclusive deal? Why do we pay benefits up front, when most EU countries don't? Why don't we just fix it? Nothing is actually stopping us, according to Sikorski.
Norwegians are able to live anywhere in the EU (the example you gave) because Norway is part of the free movement of people and any EU citizen can move to Oslo without requiring a visa.
If the UK decides that free movement of people is not wanted (say, in order to reduce immigration from Eastern Europe), then that's something that UK citizens will not get when they want to travel. Britain could of course agree visa terms with the EU as a whole (most likely) or with individual nations (not likely). Those terms would affect British citizens who currently live in Europe or intend to move there. Maybe they'll still be able to travel fairly freely, maybe they won't. It will depend on what the UK wants and what the EU members want. But neither side is likely to offer better terms to the other's citizens than are offered to their own.
My mind generally rules, in my world - following the heart is not the answer to rational solutions.
If we could recover the level of self-governance we had prior to Blair and Brown signing on the dotted line and achieve a more economic Union, rather than the current drive toward a Federal Europe, I would be more than happy.
I believe this is what Cameron is trying to achieve but if we don't sort it before the referendum then we have no chance afterwards.
It is the petty bureaucracy and interference from Brussels that I object to but I would always vote to stay in as I see the economic benefits it brings.
We must prioritise on both immigration and benefits issues BEFORE the referendum if the Government is to comfortably achieve its target of remaining within the Union and avoid being ostracised in the event of a negative outcome.
How can we achieve anything other than being ostracised if we leave.? If exit was seen by other member states as being viable, more would do it. Europe can’t let that happen and has to make us regret it and they have the power to do so and some. We shouldn’t be playing with fire here and the arguments have to be meaningful – not about oven gloves! The reasons the out campaign have to be about it being better to leave financially, not about sovereignty or silly details. Is Europe perfect – far from it, but we have to improve it not leave it and cut of our nose to spite our face. I accept you said your head said to stay in, so sorry about that. You may not be one of them, but the people who would have us out for the wrong reasons, could do us and our children a lot of damage. It is a much more serious issue than bananas and oven gloves.
If possible, can you give real-world examples (rather than intangibles like potential or sovereignty) since 2000.
What happens if we are "ostracised"? You can't ostracise anyone from something they don't want to be part of. You can ignore them, but so what, you make new friends.
How do the EU make us regret leaving? Put up trade barriers? Then we put up trade barriers. The EU sells more to us than we sell to them, so who regrets most.
For years the UK was ostracised by France when we wanted to join the Common Market. Why should we be worried about being ostracised for leaving?
How do you improve the EU if you can't agree on what improvement means.
What does "financially" better mean? Financially better for whom - big business or consumers. Staying in the EU does not allow us to get cheaper imports that don't bear EU Tariffs (taxes that we pay). Staying in the EU doesn't allow us to sell more goods to countries who suddenly remove the tit for tat tariff that are applied to goods imported from the EU. Staying in the EU doesn't allow taxpayers to subsidise our industries to keep them competitive if we think it's the right thing to do. Staying in the EU doesn't allow UK businesses freedom to evolve to serve new markets on UK terms.
If you only believe one half of the argument no wonder you are panicking and worrying about your children.
http://capx.co/if-david-cameron-thinks-the-eu-wants-to-shunt-illegal-immigrants-on-to-britain-why-does-he-want-to-stay/
This seems almost unbelievable in light of what's been published in the media in recent weeks - doesn't quite make sense.
Are you suggesting Cameron is duping the public with mock negotiations, appearing to negotiate a better deal when the problem of benefits and migration could be resolved within these shores and with no interference from Brussels?
We may disagree wholeheartedly on many things but I respect your right to hold those views and enjoy reading debate from all sides, regardless of the angle we all take to make our point.
For the record, the Channel Tunnel quip was very much facetious. It'd be more of a spectacle if we blew it up
Think the original thread has slightly gone off on a tangent!
Seriously though, why would we want to be a part of such a vindictive organisation?