E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Yes, with what is coming it's best to keep a clear head.

 

I know it's been a quirk of poltical language for a while, especially form the govt side but the thing that's geting on my nerves -

'I/We do not accept'... or occasionally 'I/We do not recognise'...

Especially as it seems to be used as thinly veiled 'I reject [your] reality and substitue my own...'


You can not 'accept' that the the bear is going to maul your face off all you like, you can proclaim 'I do not recognise that the bear has eaten my face off' after the fact but it's just not true.

 

Actually it's all making me think of drinking regularly again.

 

May or may not be a repost, but this is worth watching:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2115155058544742

"Peter Shore delivers his powerful anti-Europe speech ahead of the EU referendum of 1975"

 

The only problem with the opinion that it's more of the same 'project fear' is that it's not being borne out by reality, no matter what statistic you look at (although I've not looked at them all) we're already worse of and we've not even left yet.

Even the much lauded increase in exports have failed to materialise for reasons explained by Adam Posen in a post a few pages ago. I really wished it was all just 'project fear' and there was nothing to be concerned about as at least that's just an emotional state caused by a threat, unfortunately that's not what reality is showing us.

 

Which project fear are we talking about anyway? The "We're being overrun by foreigners" project fear, the "Foreign nations are writing our laws" project fear, the "EU will collapse at any moment now" project fear or the "Brexit is bad for the economy" project fear? Oh, wait, the last one is turning out reality.

Anyway, referring to that video: Yes, the UK currently can't feed itself. And no, the EU does not mean foreign countries writing the laws for Britain, but Britain and other EU member states writing their laws concerning international cooperation together. There's a difference.

 

Yeah we can use facts as much as we like, people who don't want to listen won't.

If I can't talk sense to my mum I have little chance explaining things to anyone else.

It's just seen as trying to stop Brexit, or causing a bad one. She may as well just take a dump on my floor, blame me for it and wait for me to clean it up. Oh and then say I didn't clean it up well enough.

 

I don't think Britain has been able to feed itself for long before the EU ever existed- we've imported food stuffs for a very long time ( food convoys during WW2 anyone? )- that's a non-argument against Brexit.

As for laws; Britain is beholden to whatever the EU parliament dreams up- we have some say, but we certainly aren't one big happy EU family writing laws that are in all our best interests- the EU parliament writes laws and lays down guidance that it deems right, regardless if it flies in the face of what individual countries have enshrined in law; that doesn't feel like 'cooperation' to me- feels a lot more like 'do as we say, or else'. For reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that food wasn't as cheap as it is now in the EU, though. Also, wasn't rationing also hand in hand with those food convoys owing to how much food we have to import?

What year did rationing finish? I'm pretty sure it want at the end of the war..

 

You may want to tell Peter Shore that.

Single Market? Practically a UK invention. Regional Development Funds? UK pushed for it. Fines for member states who do not adhere to EU law? UK pushed for that. European defence initiative? UK pushed for that. Reformed CAP and CFP? UK pushed for it. Accession of Eastern European states? UK pushed for it. Accession of Turkey? UK pushed for it. Reform of voting structures in EU from unanimous to qualified majority voting? UK pushed for that. TTIP? UK was a major driver of it. Adoption of low energy lightbulbs? UK pushed for that, too.

That is, of course, against a large number of opt-outs and exemptions, and a rebate on contributions that no other member state enjoyed. Fact is, the UK is singlehandedly responsible for a lot of how the EU looks and functions.

 

1954

 

That's the sad thing though- there is plenty of false information or skewed thinking on both sides of the debates- and of course, the UK has benefited from EU law, but it has also suffered; the people in charge will always take advantage of any opportunity to force their will onto others. It's what bureaucrats do best.

 

Point is: the UK was one of those in charge. Second largest economy behind Germany by a small margin, larger than France; a rebate that other member states needed to cover, huge number of opt-outs and exemptions, and when Cameron asked for even more of those in February 2016 (at a EU summit that was supposed to discuss the immigrant refugee problem, but wait, sorry guys, never mind that ****, let's talk about some more special sauce for the UK first) he actually was given almost everything he asked for.

And then the UK decided to leave anyway. And didn't even have the decency to guarantee residence for EU immigrants who had already made their lives here. So I'm not exactly overflowing with aw, diddums here.

 

I don't recall standing in Brussels and making any of those demands- I doubt you were there either. See my previous remark: bureaucrats doing what is in their best interests under the guise of working for their country- never hurts to win some special treatment for your country and remind the voters come election time. Clearly, discussing the immigrant problem that no one really wanted to deal with ( and still doesn't, unless dumping them everywhere and anywhere counts ) wouldn't interest the public or benefit the politicians, but rebates and hand outs for the UK? Ooh baby, that'd win Cameron some brownies.

I think we need to remember whose idea if was to give the people a referendum on leaving, and why; the way I see it being in the EU was seen as no longer being in our best interests, it's just a shame there was a lack of real information and lot chest-beating surrounding the whole affair, and a lack of realism about what would happen if we did vote to leave, short term and long term. Lies, fearmongering and personal agendas, on both sides- I haven't even said whether I'm for or against, just interested in people's attitudes towards the whole sordid affair.

I vote we raise the anchor and float Britain down towards the Canary Islands- I hear the weather is nice this time of year...

 

In a democracy we vote those bureaucrats into office and we can vote them out. I think it is ironic that the UK electorate voted in MEPs whose express manifesto was to disengage from the EU and then complained it did not feel represented in the EU; that it voted Brexit in protest of austerity after voting into government a party whose express manifesto is austerity, three times running now.

All this complaining about bureaucrats acting in their own interest is just an abdication of responsibility for one's own voting record.

 

They complained even though the highest turnout was 38.5% and the lowest 24%.

If the EU was such a big issue, being in or out, why did nobody care enough to vote.

Should I say, why didn't those that liked being in the EU vote, it seems those that didn't like it did vote and hence the MEPs elected.

Edit: news just in that we're joining a combined EU military force. How that piece fits into the Brexit jigsaw I have no idea.

 

You're assuming an awful lot based on zero info- who are you to say who I did or didn't vote for to represent me in the EU parliament? Whose to say they they stuck to their manifesto after we voted for them?

As for voting in the Tories & austerity- you must be joking, surely? You think there was any viable alternative? Labour spent all the money, let the banks run riot, then did a literal runner when they realised they killed the economy and left the Tories to deal with the aftermath and sort out the mess when they won the next election. No one trusted Labour to be back in charge and quite rightly too, but Labour made damn sure to blame the Tories for having to implement austerity measures- funny how that works ( see: blame the other lot ). As for the last general election, it's pretty clear that the public have gotten tired of the Tories and they barely scraped through a victory- having a balmy and maybe a little bit racist old man as their leader didn't do the Labour party any favours, though having Cameron also do a runner on the Tories kind of shows what a mess the country is in right now.

As for low turn out, given how dire and personality devoid the current bunch are it's hardly surprising the majority of voters simply don't bother turning out as they are entirely turned off at the thought of trying to choose from one bunch of equally inept, ignorant and arrogant big-heads or another. Politics needs young-blood, fresh ideas and a willingness to listen to outside ideas and advice, rather than a bunch of old farts who couldn't care less about facts and proven alternatives and plough on with their staunch and dogmatic ideals as their roadmap to failure ( see: legalising cannabis and controlling it proven to be positive for crime reduction and economy boost vs home office refusal to yield, also see: EU firearms proposals vs Czech government moving to enshrine the right for legal gun ownership in their constitution in order to protect the rights of its citizens ).

Maybe accusing people of voting poorly rather than accepting that the result of vote was undesirable isn't the most fair-minded way of thinking- unless you think it's reasonable to blame one person for another's mistake? You'd make a poor psychologist, I'll say that much...

 

Maybe i missed it but i didn't read anyone saying you voted one way or tuther, just that we did.

Also Labour didn't spend all the money as we're a currency issuing nation and there's not an 'all' to spend, there's not a limited pot of money that once spent is all gone so it's incorrect to say someone spent all the money.

Labour also wasn't the lead architect of deregulation of the banks, that started under Thatchers reign and has continued to a lesser of greater extent ever since so both parties are to blame, although personally I'd blame the Conservative more as they started it and tore up far more regulations over the years, and there would have been uproar if Labour undid the last 18 years of financial market reform.

They also didn't 'kill the economy' as up until the global financial crisis caused by the subprime market in America the UK's GDP had been growing consistently for well over a decade.

The reason people, not just Labour, blame the Conservatives for austerity is because it's a political choice not an economic one, it's been proven throughout the world that austerity doesn't work, in fact there's an argument to be made that it actually makes the situation worse not better.

And besides none of ^^that^^ has anything to do with the EU, i mean sure we pushed for deregulation of the financial markets across the EU and got what we wanted more or less but the EU didn't impose austerity on the UK, it didn't prevent us from having stricter regulation on the financial markets, and it defiantly didn't tell our media outlets to feed us a pack of lies.

 

Who was talking about you?

I don't think you understand what led to the global 2008 Credit Crunch (pro tip: it wasn't Labour). Read Corky42's post.

Because not voting at all really creates political change, yo! Sorry, more abdication of responsibility.

I accuse people of voting uninformedly and then blaming others for not getting what they expected. A bit like how Leavers are now blaming remainers and the EU for Brexit not quite turning out the way they thought.