Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Has David Cameron Come Away From Brussels With Anything Which Has Made You Change Your Mind Over Coming Out Of The Eu?
86 Answers
http://
Perhaps the Editor will conduct another poll, when all the details have been made crystal clear to the voters?
Perhaps the Editor will conduct another poll, when all the details have been made crystal clear to the voters?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.
Michael Gove.
Michael Gove.
"go back to governing our own country & having our own border controls "
which is essentially what its all about, its not about benefits, or business may this could that blah blah blah, theyre side shows its about the future existence of a country currently known as England, part of the UK...if we stay in it will cease to exist sooner or later.
If its a yes to stay vote, they will be rubbing their hands with glee and start tightening the screw and the demolition crew will be working overtime to take over our financial sector, and as soon as they can our military and thereby effectively emasculating us....
which is essentially what its all about, its not about benefits, or business may this could that blah blah blah, theyre side shows its about the future existence of a country currently known as England, part of the UK...if we stay in it will cease to exist sooner or later.
If its a yes to stay vote, they will be rubbing their hands with glee and start tightening the screw and the demolition crew will be working overtime to take over our financial sector, and as soon as they can our military and thereby effectively emasculating us....
I shall await the BBC or other to list the bullet points before I form a decision; but I will say that given Dave wasn't demanding sufficient anyway, I can't see any deep analysis of whatever is claimed to have been agreed (and probably denied later as misunderstanding) is likely to result in a desire to stay and continue to endure insufficient control of our own country. We get one chance to regain control of our country; no playing to unsubstantiated fears of the unknown, nor insistence there is (disputed) financial benefit to remaining pawns to Europe's elite, is likely to encourage one to throw away that opportunity.
-- answer removed --
“No but had he gone along to Brussels with the intention to alter the rules regarding the real issues and then came away with everything he wanted, then I am sure the majority would vote to stay in.”
I most certainly would not. It is not the rules of the EU as such that are the problem (though they are problem enough). It is the institution itself. It is a fundamentally flawed organisation which had its place, in its original form, fifty years or more ago. However the world has changed. The EU has changed as well (beyond recognition from fifty years ago) but not for the better. It is an interventionalist, stifling, controlling bureaucracy which aims to micro manage every aspect of business and people’s lives. It has little democratic accountability (MEPs only have the power of veto over proposed legislation. They cannot initiate it or repeal it).
It is quite clear that the fundamental issues which affect the UK will never be addressed. Among the principle of these is the fact that the UK has a GDP per head far in excess of the lesser economies. This will mean an inevitable flow of wealth from the UK to elsewhere with no concomitant benefit in return (what does Poland provide to the UK in return for the vast sums of money going into the pockets of Poles living here, much of which is retuned to Poland?). It was also clear that Mr Cameron was never going to achieve “reform” of the EU’s principle aims – and indeed why should he be allowed to? We are only one of 28 members. This agreement (if much of it is not struck down by the European Court of Justice on the grounds of discrimination) is not reform at all. Most of it comprises minor temporary concessions to the UK alone. Some of these concessions do not kick in for some years and most of them expire after a few years. They are sweeteners to persuade the UK electorate to vote to remain.
But these are all peripheral issues. As has been mentioned, the principle issue is one of sovereignty. If any doubters, waverers or “don’t knows” are swayed by this load of drivel they are more foolish than I thought. There is nothing the UK can gain from the EU which he could not achieve by itself. But an awful lot of damage is continually inflicted on this country by our membership of the EU. Mr Cameron’s negotiation was about damage limitation, not reform. He has achieved some minor and temporary limitation but nothing that could be described as reform. If the other 27 EU nations are happy with it as it is that’s a matter for them. The way it is is the way it will always be and the only solution for the UK is to get out asap. Mr Cameron describes Brexit as a “leap in the dark”. I would prefer to describe it as a leap into the sunlight.
I most certainly would not. It is not the rules of the EU as such that are the problem (though they are problem enough). It is the institution itself. It is a fundamentally flawed organisation which had its place, in its original form, fifty years or more ago. However the world has changed. The EU has changed as well (beyond recognition from fifty years ago) but not for the better. It is an interventionalist, stifling, controlling bureaucracy which aims to micro manage every aspect of business and people’s lives. It has little democratic accountability (MEPs only have the power of veto over proposed legislation. They cannot initiate it or repeal it).
It is quite clear that the fundamental issues which affect the UK will never be addressed. Among the principle of these is the fact that the UK has a GDP per head far in excess of the lesser economies. This will mean an inevitable flow of wealth from the UK to elsewhere with no concomitant benefit in return (what does Poland provide to the UK in return for the vast sums of money going into the pockets of Poles living here, much of which is retuned to Poland?). It was also clear that Mr Cameron was never going to achieve “reform” of the EU’s principle aims – and indeed why should he be allowed to? We are only one of 28 members. This agreement (if much of it is not struck down by the European Court of Justice on the grounds of discrimination) is not reform at all. Most of it comprises minor temporary concessions to the UK alone. Some of these concessions do not kick in for some years and most of them expire after a few years. They are sweeteners to persuade the UK electorate to vote to remain.
But these are all peripheral issues. As has been mentioned, the principle issue is one of sovereignty. If any doubters, waverers or “don’t knows” are swayed by this load of drivel they are more foolish than I thought. There is nothing the UK can gain from the EU which he could not achieve by itself. But an awful lot of damage is continually inflicted on this country by our membership of the EU. Mr Cameron’s negotiation was about damage limitation, not reform. He has achieved some minor and temporary limitation but nothing that could be described as reform. If the other 27 EU nations are happy with it as it is that’s a matter for them. The way it is is the way it will always be and the only solution for the UK is to get out asap. Mr Cameron describes Brexit as a “leap in the dark”. I would prefer to describe it as a leap into the sunlight.
ah that's not fair 10C - Man U already have 13 top players injured and unable to take part in the premiership, a good result in which is needed to qualify them for a place at europe's top football table, the champions league. so they can ill afford to do much trying in the irrelevant sideshow that is the europa league.
A few additional points on issues raised:
“Certainly other countries may start to say "well if the UK can get this deal why cant we have one like it as well".
That could start a collapse of the EU as a whole.”
It’s far more likely to collapse if we left, VHG.
“…but the concession that child benefit for children living outside the UK will be paid at local rates is a major step forward.”
In the small print, Eddie: The “concession” does not begin until 2020 and then only for new claimants. After that date the UK will have to administer a benefit that pays out 28 different rates, depending on the claimant’s country of origin. Further small print: the method of calculation of these rates (and the rates themselves) will not be made known until after the referendum. Even more small print (though unrelated to Child Benefit): the Tax Credits for people from other EU countries will be “phased in” over the first four years they are here (as opposed to being unavailable to them at all for that time). The method and rates of “phasing in” will also not be made known until after the referendum. This "concession" willl only last for seven years.
“If we vote for brexit (out of EU) we could lose Dave and demolish Conservatives in favour of Corbyn.”
So we have to remain in the entirely undemocratic EU to keep out a government which may be democratically elected in the UK, Tambo? Sorry, as much as I dislike Corbyn I would sooner be out of the EU and have Corbyn elected by due process here.
“Certainly other countries may start to say "well if the UK can get this deal why cant we have one like it as well".
That could start a collapse of the EU as a whole.”
It’s far more likely to collapse if we left, VHG.
“…but the concession that child benefit for children living outside the UK will be paid at local rates is a major step forward.”
In the small print, Eddie: The “concession” does not begin until 2020 and then only for new claimants. After that date the UK will have to administer a benefit that pays out 28 different rates, depending on the claimant’s country of origin. Further small print: the method of calculation of these rates (and the rates themselves) will not be made known until after the referendum. Even more small print (though unrelated to Child Benefit): the Tax Credits for people from other EU countries will be “phased in” over the first four years they are here (as opposed to being unavailable to them at all for that time). The method and rates of “phasing in” will also not be made known until after the referendum. This "concession" willl only last for seven years.
“If we vote for brexit (out of EU) we could lose Dave and demolish Conservatives in favour of Corbyn.”
So we have to remain in the entirely undemocratic EU to keep out a government which may be democratically elected in the UK, Tambo? Sorry, as much as I dislike Corbyn I would sooner be out of the EU and have Corbyn elected by due process here.
I was in a bar in edinburgh this week, and had some euros in my wallet left over from a holiday in france last week. I offered euros as payment for a round of drinks, which was politely but firmly declined; i quipped that the euro would be their currency if they voted to leave the UK. they were not impressed.
It's a strange business with the Scots.
It seems a number of them (if not quite the majority, but who knows) want to quit the UK. It's quite true that their representatives are often outvoted in Westminster. There are many aspects to that debate but we need not go into them here. But at least theyt have representatives in a Parliament where the MPs can initiate, challenge, veto and repeal legislation on matters that affect them.
However also a sizeable number of them want to remain in the EU. This is an organisation which has virtually no democratic accountability whatsoever and where the MEPs, when they are allowed a say on matters, constantly vote against the best interests of the UK (including Scotland).
It's a funny old world.
It seems a number of them (if not quite the majority, but who knows) want to quit the UK. It's quite true that their representatives are often outvoted in Westminster. There are many aspects to that debate but we need not go into them here. But at least theyt have representatives in a Parliament where the MPs can initiate, challenge, veto and repeal legislation on matters that affect them.
However also a sizeable number of them want to remain in the EU. This is an organisation which has virtually no democratic accountability whatsoever and where the MEPs, when they are allowed a say on matters, constantly vote against the best interests of the UK (including Scotland).
It's a funny old world.
I have been in the OUT camp all along and this so called deal is rubbish and will be changed by the Eurocrats at the first opportunity. If we vote to stay in it will be changed and watered down before we can pull our knickers up from the spanking Brussles give us.
DC must know we are not all so stupid as to think he has actually done a proper job of it... can he?
Take out the scare mungering from both sides about costs of in or out and our standing in the world and we are left with: Do we want to govern ourselves or do we want to be governed by unelected Eurocrats on The gravy train that has never had it's accounts ratified because of incompetence, waste and fiddling? In effect do we want to lose our ability to self govern, trade with the world on our own terms and be a part of the bigger picture?
OUT OUT OUT for me
DC must know we are not all so stupid as to think he has actually done a proper job of it... can he?
Take out the scare mungering from both sides about costs of in or out and our standing in the world and we are left with: Do we want to govern ourselves or do we want to be governed by unelected Eurocrats on The gravy train that has never had it's accounts ratified because of incompetence, waste and fiddling? In effect do we want to lose our ability to self govern, trade with the world on our own terms and be a part of the bigger picture?
OUT OUT OUT for me
In for me and well done dave for getting some sensible reforms on the table, reforms that seem to have been taken aboard by the likes of the northern countries minus Latvia and Austria.
The immigration issue is a non sequitur; we'll still have the issue whether we are in and out, and some would postulate worse if out as the French would just kick their squatters over the Channel.
CAP is a non-issue - agriculture makes up only 2% or so of our GDP, tourism on the other hand is in and this could be seriously damaged.
The biggest gain is the veto on laws and the chance to make block challenges and this seems to have been well-received.
And to trt's question - yes, but pro-rata-ed on the cost of living index between the Eastern bloc ex Comecon members and the UK (or any other western state). And why the likes of Poland, Romania and Bulgaria didn't like it.....
The immigration issue is a non sequitur; we'll still have the issue whether we are in and out, and some would postulate worse if out as the French would just kick their squatters over the Channel.
CAP is a non-issue - agriculture makes up only 2% or so of our GDP, tourism on the other hand is in and this could be seriously damaged.
The biggest gain is the veto on laws and the chance to make block challenges and this seems to have been well-received.
And to trt's question - yes, but pro-rata-ed on the cost of living index between the Eastern bloc ex Comecon members and the UK (or any other western state). And why the likes of Poland, Romania and Bulgaria didn't like it.....
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.