News0 min ago
Why Do The Stay In Campaign Have Nothing Good To Say About The Eu?
113 Answers
On Andrew Marr this morning Nigel Lawson said "There is no campaign to love the EU only to try and scare the pants of those who may vote to leave" - I think he was bang on, so is there any reason to stay in reality?
Answers
“Why Do The Stay In Campaign Have Nothing Good To Say About The Eu?” Simples! Because there is nothing good to say about the EU. It is an anti-
12:28 Sun 10th Apr 2016
Quite, NJ. A new friend over here studied at the Sorbonne in the '50's - so what's all the yelling about our students won't be able to study abroad if we leave, about? I seem to remember taking holidays in Europe, school exchanges etc. You bought travel insurance, same as you do now to cover all the bits not covered in European countries.
On our own, we did more than fine. We will do again! And if what the scaremongers tell us is true 'It won't be amicable, they'll be nasty to us!', well, then, do we want to be partners with such nasty people? That just won't happen. They'll impose a 5% trade tariff? OK, we impose a 5% trade tariff. They are not so stupid. They export far more to us than we to them.
Sunday lunch tantrum over :o) x
On our own, we did more than fine. We will do again! And if what the scaremongers tell us is true 'It won't be amicable, they'll be nasty to us!', well, then, do we want to be partners with such nasty people? That just won't happen. They'll impose a 5% trade tariff? OK, we impose a 5% trade tariff. They are not so stupid. They export far more to us than we to them.
Sunday lunch tantrum over :o) x
Exactly...any tarriffs they impose will be shooting themselves in the foot...the likes of BMW, Mercedes etc will stop selling us cars ?..i dont think so
Weve traded with european countries for thousands of years, they buy our products and services, we buy theirs...and they wont want to suddenly stop...its countries we need to deal with not some bloated empire like the eussr.
and i have a feeling the companies involved will eventually be the better off for not being held back by the eussrs anti-competetive trading laws, they will be able to negotiate deals without the eussrs restrictions...
eventually just like before the markets will find their own levels without intervention from these meddling power crazed rsoles who want to turn "europe" into one horrible homogenous, isotropic unidentifiable mass with no identity, no national pride , nothing, just doing their bidding..
Weve traded with european countries for thousands of years, they buy our products and services, we buy theirs...and they wont want to suddenly stop...its countries we need to deal with not some bloated empire like the eussr.
and i have a feeling the companies involved will eventually be the better off for not being held back by the eussrs anti-competetive trading laws, they will be able to negotiate deals without the eussrs restrictions...
eventually just like before the markets will find their own levels without intervention from these meddling power crazed rsoles who want to turn "europe" into one horrible homogenous, isotropic unidentifiable mass with no identity, no national pride , nothing, just doing their bidding..
You aren't "still waiting" -- whenever someone points such a benefit out, it's either dismissed as propaganda or just ignored. I'd discussed, previously, the benefits of remaining in the EU from the point of view of scientific research, and in general the UK is a huge beneficiary of this (eg under the Horizon 2020 project, or through the European Research Council, etc etc), both because of EU funding and because things are just easier when countries work together. Ditto Climate Change policy, for that matter, although I suppose NJ in particular wouldn't care too much about that. At the very least, I think everyone accepts that if Climate Change is a problem at all then it's an international problem requiring international solutions.
These aren't trivial concerns, and while they could probably be largely replaced on leaving the EU, they are easier to achieve from within. Of course, I don't expect you to change your decision based solely on this point. But you have at least been told about that one now (again), so the "we're still waiting to hear them" reply is, I hope, a little less redundant.
These aren't trivial concerns, and while they could probably be largely replaced on leaving the EU, they are easier to achieve from within. Of course, I don't expect you to change your decision based solely on this point. But you have at least been told about that one now (again), so the "we're still waiting to hear them" reply is, I hope, a little less redundant.
So our research scientists aren't currently working along side U.S. research scientists in their Labs and vice versa.? No Indian scientists working in UK labs.?
Ironic that the most highly industrialised nations that knock out more pollutants are not in the EU in any case so the EU working together pretty much achieves diddly squat
Ironic that the most highly industrialised nations that knock out more pollutants are not in the EU in any case so the EU working together pretty much achieves diddly squat
Probably, not definitely -- so they *are* a reason for staying in. You might consider that it's outweighed by other considerations, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reason to stay in.
I suppose this is another reason you don't see anything "good" about the EU. The standards the Leave campaigners have set is impossible to meet -- something has, apparently, to be absolutely essential to the EU in order to provide a reason to stay. I think it's going to be difficult if not impossible to find such a reason -- but positive benefits are reasons to stay. If something is easier to achieve inside the EU than out, then it's a reason to stay.
I suppose this is another reason you don't see anything "good" about the EU. The standards the Leave campaigners have set is impossible to meet -- something has, apparently, to be absolutely essential to the EU in order to provide a reason to stay. I think it's going to be difficult if not impossible to find such a reason -- but positive benefits are reasons to stay. If something is easier to achieve inside the EU than out, then it's a reason to stay.
When I was last in Bodrum it seemed that every young Turk was busting a gut to come to the UK. They bemoaned the fact that they needed visas to live and work here which were very difficult to acquire. Most asked me to bring back CDs and one a laptop because of the expense there. If Turkey and the other several countries one of which Macedonia become members our country will be swamped and we can't legitimately stop it.
I would like my grand daughters to have local education available to them and god forbid hospital and other necessities available.
That is not xenophobia. That is the sense to know this small Island cannot squeeze a quart into a pint pot. It would be nice to think all these potential candidates to the EU could bring highly skilled medics with them but we don't need more Big Issue sellers!!
I would like my grand daughters to have local education available to them and god forbid hospital and other necessities available.
That is not xenophobia. That is the sense to know this small Island cannot squeeze a quart into a pint pot. It would be nice to think all these potential candidates to the EU could bring highly skilled medics with them but we don't need more Big Issue sellers!!
That retort retrocop overlooks a couple of points: again, the point is not that such collaboration is impossible from outside the EU, but rather that it's easier from within. For example, the relative ease of movement within the EU makes travel, and discussion, and active collaboration, much more practical. And vice versa, as it happens. I don't think it's just because of geography that in my University the relative demographics of people in the department are weighted in favour of EU citizens -- and while there are some non-EU citizens around, there are a) fewer and b) the rules surrounding them are a lot more stringent. Presumably, the entire point of leaving the EU would be to extend the tighter rules to all immigrants. But one of my non-EU colleagues has already been obliged to leave because the stringent rules have forced her out, or are soon about to. In the same way, I don't think it's just geography that explains why most conferences hosted here, or that I have attended, that are meant to feature leading experts in the field, are overwhelmingly attended by EU citizens, or people from institutions within the EU. The Open borders of Schengen drive that ease of collaboration, where you can hop over at barely a day's notice to work with someone in the flesh, as compared to the longer-term planning that has to go in to trips to the US, India, Russia, China and other countries.
People still go to and work with people in these places, for sure. But it is harder. The rules are tighter. Collaboration is often more constrained. The set of cooperative rules that apply within the EU make that collaboration much easier, much more fruitful, and much less of an administrative headache.
People still go to and work with people in these places, for sure. But it is harder. The rules are tighter. Collaboration is often more constrained. The set of cooperative rules that apply within the EU make that collaboration much easier, much more fruitful, and much less of an administrative headache.
Jim, //The Open borders of Schengen drive that ease of collaboration, where you can hop over at barely a day's notice to work with someone in the flesh,//
We're not party to Schengen, but that doesn't stop us hopping over at short notice if we want to, just as we've always done. None of what you say negates the less positive aspects of our membership. Have you thought about those?
We're not party to Schengen, but that doesn't stop us hopping over at short notice if we want to, just as we've always done. None of what you say negates the less positive aspects of our membership. Have you thought about those?
Oh, and I should add: the collaboration with non-EU partners can sometimes depend on our being in the EU anyway. There aren't going to be all that many examples where, say, US scientists are working with us exclusively of any other EU country. So even those collaborative projects will be risked by leaving the EU -- if nothing else because non-EU partners would now have to consider two sets of scientific research rules to negotiate with and navigate, as opposed to just one. The UK is for sure too important to ignore entirely, so it's likely that most or all of these projects would still largely survive intact, but the resulting redefinition of relationships is likely to be non-trivial. For the overwhelming majority of scientists, Brexit is therefore regarded as too great a risk, and certainly not worth the trouble. Being in the EU does benefit scientific research, and this does provide a reason to stay.
//But it is harder. The rules are tighter. //
Yes. So it should be harder and the rules tighter to just swan around Europe unchecked.
An old Bob Hope joke about the Space race. "Our German rocket scientists are better than the Russian's German rocket scientists"
We traded with whom we pleased and we did joint research all over the world prior to the EU. For the sake of a little advanced application a visa is no problem to obtain especially if one's credentials are correct. Rather that than expose ourselves to more potential Paris and Brussels atrocities.
Pre the Common Market we didn't have most of the M.E. queing up to take us over and do us harm. Times have changed and our security is more important than being a member of an impotent ,corrupt club.
.
Yes. So it should be harder and the rules tighter to just swan around Europe unchecked.
An old Bob Hope joke about the Space race. "Our German rocket scientists are better than the Russian's German rocket scientists"
We traded with whom we pleased and we did joint research all over the world prior to the EU. For the sake of a little advanced application a visa is no problem to obtain especially if one's credentials are correct. Rather that than expose ourselves to more potential Paris and Brussels atrocities.
Pre the Common Market we didn't have most of the M.E. queing up to take us over and do us harm. Times have changed and our security is more important than being a member of an impotent ,corrupt club.
.
I went to school in the early 60s with a young boy from New Zealand. His father was a Professor Allen who was head of the UCL Dept of Physics and Astronomy. He worked at the Mill Hill Observatory. We weren't in the Common Market then let alone the European Union so coming and going will not stop.Just better controls, one hopes, as to who comes and goes.!!
“I have not seen any argument for the 'Leave' side that is not based on "Xenophobia.' Anti immigrant',' get our borders back' and similar.
Which are totally specious.”
I don’t think that’s very fair (or even correct) Eddie.
I have mentioned numerous other factors, apart from immigration, in my posts where I favour Brexit. Having said that, and since you have raised it, I have also mentioned uncontrolled immigration from the EU. I’m not talking about non-European asylum seekers or the hoards swarming in from Turkey and the like willing to chance their arm. I’m talking about the 500m bona fide EU residents, every one of whom has an absolute right to settle in the UK. They may have nothing to offer; they may have no skills; they may have no means of support; they may have nowhere to live; they may have ten children each; they may be suffering from ailments which require expensive medical treatment; they may have lengthy criminal records. There is nothing we can do to refuse them entry. To want to control this is not xenophobia and it’s not specious. It is a genuine argument that requires grown-up debate. We’re told the UK needs immigrants. I’ll accept that because successive governments have failed to ensure that young people are fit for work and have the skills and attitudes required. That said, the UK needs to be able to choose which immigrants it accepts. It should not have to accept for settlement anybody who wants to live here just because it suits them.
Any money that comes from the EU, Jim, that you describe, is money that the UK has parted with in the first place. It’s rather like you giving someone a hundred quid and being grateful that they’ve given you thirty back, on the condition that you spend on what they tell you to. The “collaboration” that you speak of from within the EU comes at an enormous price (and I don’t just mean the £££s we provide). The conditions imposed on member states (such as the one I’ve mentioned above) are simply far and away disproportionately costly to the benefits gained.
“The Open borders of Schengen drive that ease of collaboration, where you can hop over at barely a day's notice…”
Yes and look at the problems that Schengen has caused on mainland Europe. So great are the problems that the wretched agreement has come close to complete collapse and in many places has been unofficially suspended. Schengen, like the euro, is a fair weather scheme and the EU is incapable of dealing with storms - even though they had a good weather forecast which suggested they would occur. And as has been said, I used to “pop over at short notice” to France and Belgium in the 1960s. No particular planning was needed. All you needed was an air or ferry ticket and a passport.
The UK was a world leader in R&D long before it joined the EU. “Collaboration” with other nations was achieved through co-operation and mutual benefit. It does not need a supra-national organisation to facilitate this. Like trade, research takes place despite political affiliations, not because of them. The only reason the UK needs the EU’s largesse to fund its projects is because it parts with £55m a day to the EU. Keep that and it can be spent of anything we wish.
Which are totally specious.”
I don’t think that’s very fair (or even correct) Eddie.
I have mentioned numerous other factors, apart from immigration, in my posts where I favour Brexit. Having said that, and since you have raised it, I have also mentioned uncontrolled immigration from the EU. I’m not talking about non-European asylum seekers or the hoards swarming in from Turkey and the like willing to chance their arm. I’m talking about the 500m bona fide EU residents, every one of whom has an absolute right to settle in the UK. They may have nothing to offer; they may have no skills; they may have no means of support; they may have nowhere to live; they may have ten children each; they may be suffering from ailments which require expensive medical treatment; they may have lengthy criminal records. There is nothing we can do to refuse them entry. To want to control this is not xenophobia and it’s not specious. It is a genuine argument that requires grown-up debate. We’re told the UK needs immigrants. I’ll accept that because successive governments have failed to ensure that young people are fit for work and have the skills and attitudes required. That said, the UK needs to be able to choose which immigrants it accepts. It should not have to accept for settlement anybody who wants to live here just because it suits them.
Any money that comes from the EU, Jim, that you describe, is money that the UK has parted with in the first place. It’s rather like you giving someone a hundred quid and being grateful that they’ve given you thirty back, on the condition that you spend on what they tell you to. The “collaboration” that you speak of from within the EU comes at an enormous price (and I don’t just mean the £££s we provide). The conditions imposed on member states (such as the one I’ve mentioned above) are simply far and away disproportionately costly to the benefits gained.
“The Open borders of Schengen drive that ease of collaboration, where you can hop over at barely a day's notice…”
Yes and look at the problems that Schengen has caused on mainland Europe. So great are the problems that the wretched agreement has come close to complete collapse and in many places has been unofficially suspended. Schengen, like the euro, is a fair weather scheme and the EU is incapable of dealing with storms - even though they had a good weather forecast which suggested they would occur. And as has been said, I used to “pop over at short notice” to France and Belgium in the 1960s. No particular planning was needed. All you needed was an air or ferry ticket and a passport.
The UK was a world leader in R&D long before it joined the EU. “Collaboration” with other nations was achieved through co-operation and mutual benefit. It does not need a supra-national organisation to facilitate this. Like trade, research takes place despite political affiliations, not because of them. The only reason the UK needs the EU’s largesse to fund its projects is because it parts with £55m a day to the EU. Keep that and it can be spent of anything we wish.
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.