How do European see Britons re Europe? As is evident, almost all of them at elite level want the UK to stay, even Guy Verhofstadt. Contrary to the idea of the EU qua French Colbertist Napoleonic tyranny, they want the union's policies to move in the direction of the UK political mainstream - but the pesky voters typically reject the necessary reforms Everyone admires a patriot and that is how they see Mrs Thatcher. Standoffishness on EU matters is not the source of any real ill-will toward Britain It would be remiss to omit that the UK is also seen in European political circles as America's poodle, particularly post-2003 The smaller and formerly-colonised EU countries tend to see the UK as simultaneously co-guarantor of the European end of NATO commitments with France, as well as regretting the loss of imperial power relations over weaker countries and the sovereignty that went with them Young people, however, look straight to the USA for international leadership and don't think much about the UK at all
I have no affection whatever for this Tory government so the fact that to a small extent it's watered down by the EU as far as I and many like me are concerned is all to the good.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberr
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own at least there's safety in numbers
The Left in the UK has usually been well disposed to the EU because it enables the Left to achieve things which cannot be achieve through the UK parliament. I call that anti-democratic.
When a Labour or Tory government elected on well under 50% of the vote can legislate to restrict popular rights - such as, for example, minimum holiday and maternity leave entitlements - the EU comes in handy.
If the government offends the public, it can be voted out. Implicitly, your argument is that you can't trust people to vote the right way, so you need an external body to override them.
2. As you and I have discussed at length, the issue is whether we think we will have more influence at the table, QMV and all, in trying to amend and adapt EU rules and regulations in our favour, or whether somehow (no one has explained how) we would have more influence if we had no input at all.
When the EU-wide rules about selling widgets are drafted, your argument seems to imply that we are better off having no input into those rules and that we should make our own rules. But of course our widget-makers would have to comply with those EU rules if we wanted to sell widgets into the EU. It makes no sense.
...
Except increasingly those EU wide rules about selling widgets (and pretty much everything else concerning standards in trade goods) are not just EU-wide. They are world wide and are decided at a level above the EU. The problem there is that a country like Norway has representation and a vote on those international bodies. A country like the UK does not because we have ceded that right to the EU.
As such we actually end up having more influence on those EU rules from outside the EU than from inside.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
This
Both campaigns are crap, neither option is appealing, but if there is a single factor driving me to vote remain, it can be summed up in 2 words
Nigel Farage
Petty Nationalism is a rancid political philosophy that is wholly abhorrent, and must be opposed, whether espoused by UKIP or Ukip in kilts
The hatred of "other", the yearning for an imagined glorious past (for UKIP it's Agincourt, the the SNPers it's Bannockburn), the idea that all their grievances can be solved by separatism, is tragic.
I am not anyone's idea of a Socialist, but listening to Alan Johnson describing Internationalism and solidarity within the EU resonates more strongly than anything the Outers have said.
I have to pick a side. I can't pick the same side as these numpties.
2. As you and I have discussed at length, the issue is whether we think we will have more influence at the table, QMV and all, in trying to amend and adapt EU rules and regulations in our favour, or whether somehow (no one has explained how) we would have more influence if we had no input at all.
When the EU-wide rules about selling widgets are drafted, your argument seems to imply that we are better off having no input into those rules and that we should make our own rules. But of course our widget-makers would have to comply with those EU rules if we wanted to sell widgets into the EU. It makes no sense.
...
Except increasingly those EU wide rules about selling widgets (and pretty much everything else concerning standards in trade goods) are not just EU-wide. They are world wide and are decided at a level above the EU. The problem there is that a country like Norway has representation and a vote on those international bodies. A country like the UK does not because we have ceded that right to the EU.
As such we actually end up having more influence on those EU rules from outside the EU than from inside.
Nobody listens to Norway You would be shocked how few people would listen to the UK either "Are the USA and the EU fine with it? The UK's caught in the middle, they'll play along"
It may surprise some to hear that I agree with most of what Cyclefree has to say, particularly her most important point, that Remain should be making some positive arguments for EU membership. Project Fear by itself should be enough to win the referendum comfortably. But by itself it will not close down discussions about Britain's future in the EU.
Remainers need to make a cogent argument that can put British people at rest with their identity. That has so far not been attempted.
Alastair,
I think we're all mostly on the fence, but have to make a really tricky decision one way or the other. Even the most rabid of the Leavers, or the Remainers doesn't (or at least shouldn't) imagine that the arguments are clear cut.
The politicians' natural inclination to polarise isn't helping at all. Why on earth they can't say that they're torn, and that they are advocating the vote that they are 'on balance' escapes me. I'm not going to be voting for the Leave party or the Remain party - it's just a binary decision.
It may surprise some to hear that I agree with most of what Cyclefree has to say, particularly her most important point, that Remain should be making some positive arguments for EU membership. Project Fear by itself should be enough to win the referendum comfortably. But by itself it will not close down discussions about Britain's future in the EU.
Remainers need to make a cogent argument that can put British people at rest with their identity. That has so far not been attempted.
Alastair this is a serious question, why don't you try?
Your piece on prospective pension changes in the Budget a few weeks back was superb, I am certain you could make a great case to Leavers like me.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
I'm not going to be hanging out bunting if Remain win.
You make a fair point... why should anyone be falling over enthusiastic over any govt or body. Is anyone singing in the streets over the UN? I agree with your assessment of what the Leavers have degenerated to.
It may surprise some to hear that I agree with most of what Cyclefree has to say, particularly her most important point, that Remain should be making some positive arguments for EU membership. Project Fear by itself should be enough to win the referendum comfortably. But by itself it will not close down discussions about Britain's future in the EU.
Remainers need to make a cogent argument that can put British people at rest with their identity. That has so far not been attempted.
The politicians' natural inclination to polarise isn't helping at all. Why on earth they can't say that they're torn, and that they are advocating the vote that they are 'on balance' escapes me. I'm not going to be voting for the Leave party or the Remain party - it's just a binary decision.
On that, I forgive them - people seem to like polarization, and punish attempts at nuance or acknowledgements of decisions being made on balance, they want certainty, passion, irrespective of evidence or consideration.
I have no affection whatever for this Tory government so the fact that to a small extent it's watered down by the EU as far as I and many like me are concerned is all to the good.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberg
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own (which I don't believe them to be) at least there's safety in numbers
Roger: I am not a Tory, a point I have had to make more than once. Too many people base their like or dislike of the EU on whether they like its particular policies. That is not the basis of my objection to its current structure.
The issue about lawmakers - whether of the British or EU variety - is not numbers but their democratic legitimacy. This is an issue on which the EU currently fails, miserably. And - for me, anyway - if I have to choose between the EU and democracy, I choose democracy every time.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
This
Both campaigns are crap, neither option is appealing, but if there is a single factor driving me to vote remain, it can be summed up in 2 words
Nigel Farage
Petty Nationalism is a rancid political philosophy that is wholly abhorrent, and must be opposed, whether espoused by UKIP or Ukip in kilts
The hatred of "other", the yearning for an imagined glorious past (for UKIP it's Agincourt, the the SNPers it's Bannockburn), the idea that all their grievances can be solved by separatism, is tragic.
I am not anyone's idea of a Socialist, but listening to Alan Johnson describing Internationalism and solidarity within the EU resonates more strongly than anything the Outers have said.
I have to pick a side. I can't pick the same side as these numpties.
Self-government strikes me as being rather a decent cause.
But, I must say that I'm very relieved not to be on the same side as you.
It may surprise some to hear that I agree with most of what Cyclefree has to say, particularly her most important point, that Remain should be making some positive arguments for EU membership. Project Fear by itself should be enough to win the referendum comfortably. But by itself it will not close down discussions about Britain's future in the EU.
Remainers need to make a cogent argument that can put British people at rest with their identity. That has so far not been attempted.
Alastair this is a serious question, why don't you try?
Your piece on prospective pension changes in the Budget a few weeks back was superb, I am certain you could make a great case to Leavers like me.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
I'm not going to be hanging out bunting if Remain win.
Personally speaking I don't regard any country as the enemy, European or otherwise. There is definitely a section of those wanting out that could be described as Little Englanders, same as there are plenty of Remainers who despise their country.
Most of us fit somewhere in between, including me. I'm sure you see me as an ignorant Kipper, but the two things I really care about are governing ourselves and bringing back grammar schools, only Ukip stand for those up until now.
I will say that I voted Ukip at the GE despite Farage, not because of him, his rant in the debate about HIV sufferers was disgusting, absolutely appalling. If I lived in a marginal I would have voted Tory for the first time ever, I have admired Cameron up until the last few weeks.
I could have been persuaded to vote in if we were given proper reforms, but as Longworth says the EU seems incapable of reform.
Please consider that not everyone who votes Leave is a Little Englander, we just hold different views to you.
4. I agree, Dave oversold it. But, again as has been done to death (but we seem to be doing Brexit to death, so hey) - he has codified our "no ECU" status in EU law, he has safeguarded our financial services from eurozone discrimination, and he has got us an opt-out from the single rulebook. These issues are critical.
You are flatly incorrect here. Not only are our banks included in single rulebook now, but the French got it expanded to non-credit financial institutions. And they made sure the language on "different" provisions of single rulebook enactment was removed.
We have an opt out of SSM/SRM. We adhere to CRD-IV as it is the implementation mechanism of Basel III.
Did you not read what you linked to?? There is a mutual non-discrimination clause between eurozone and non-eurozone members. That is to prevent, as @Charles rightly points to, the ECB trying to repatriate EUR business to the eurozone.
So I am flatly correct.
That piece that Norfolk linked to makes absolutely no mention of a non discrimination clause at all.
From the piece: ...Hollande said there are..."no special dispensations from the rules of the single market or UK veto over the eurozone, which is very important for France".
Which is exactly a non-discrimination clause although of course from the French perspective of them not wanting the UK to be able to discriminate against the eurozone rather than our desire for the opposite not to happen.
I have no affection whatever for this Tory government so the fact that to a small extent it's watered down by the EU as far as I and many like me are concerned is all to the good.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberr
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own at least there's safety in numbers
The Left in the UK has usually been well disposed to the EU because it enables the Left to achieve things which cannot be achieve through the UK parliament. I call that anti-democratic.
When a Labour or Tory government elected on well under 50% of the vote can legislate to restrict popular rights - such as, for example, minimum holiday and maternity leave entitlements - the EU comes in handy.
If you're concerned about a government legislating on "well under 50% of the vote" why would you want an institution with even less democratic legitimacy in Britain to be issuing legislation over British citizens.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
This
Both campaigns are crap, neither option is appealing, but if there is a single factor driving me to vote remain, it can be summed up in 2 words
Nigel Farage
Petty Nationalism is a rancid political philosophy that is wholly abhorrent, and must be opposed, whether espoused by UKIP or Ukip in kilts
The hatred of "other", the yearning for an imagined glorious past (for UKIP it's Agincourt, the the SNPers it's Bannockburn), the idea that all their grievances can be solved by separatism, is tragic.
I am not anyone's idea of a Socialist, but listening to Alan Johnson describing Internationalism and solidarity within the EU resonates more strongly than anything the Outers have said.
I have to pick a side. I can't pick the same side as these numpties.
I agree with most of that albeit with different levels of priority. Who'd have thought!
It may surprise some to hear that I agree with most of what Cyclefree has to say, particularly her most important point, that Remain should be making some positive arguments for EU membership. Project Fear by itself should be enough to win the referendum comfortably. But by itself it will not close down discussions about Britain's future in the EU.
Remainers need to make a cogent argument that can put British people at rest with their identity. That has so far not been attempted.
Alastair this is a serious question, why don't you try?
Your piece on prospective pension changes in the Budget a few weeks back was superb, I am certain you could make a great case to Leavers like me.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
I'm not going to be hanging out bunting if Remain win.
You poor thing,wonder how you would of coped before we joined the common market.
Remain is what we know - we may like or loathe it, but we know it.
Leave is what we don't know - even those campaigning for it don't agree on what it is.
Correct. Your last sentence sums up why LEAVE will ultimately lose.
That's an argument against change of any kind - albeit, I agree it's one that people will find credible.
It's not an argument against change per se, it's an argument that says that people are not going to vote for a change if even its proponents can't agree on what it will be or what is consequences will be.
2. As you and I have discussed at length, the issue is whether we think we will have more influence at the table, QMV and all, in trying to amend and adapt EU rules and regulations in our favour, or whether somehow (no one has explained how) we would have more influence if we had no input at all.
When the EU-wide rules about selling widgets are drafted, your argument seems to imply that we are better off having no input into those rules and that we should make our own rules. But of course our widget-makers would have to comply with those EU rules if we wanted to sell widgets into the EU. It makes no sense.
...
Except increasingly those EU wide rules about selling widgets (and pretty much everything else concerning standards in trade goods) are not just EU-wide. They are world wide and are decided at a level above the EU. The problem there is that a country like Norway has representation and a vote on those international bodies. A country like the UK does not because we have ceded that right to the EU.
As such we actually end up having more influence on those EU rules from outside the EU than from inside.
hmmm.
do you mean that the rules might apply to EU:non-EU trade? So you would put the UK into a position of having to negotiate UK:EU and UK:non-EU rules. Well of course that gives the UK complete control over those sets of negotiations. But will we be in a better position than it is today?
But Richard these are trade deals. Many Leavers are crying freedom about the ability to make our own laws. That's a far cry from working out uniform widget specifications.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
This
Both campaigns are crap, neither option is appealing, but if there is a single factor driving me to vote remain, it can be summed up in 2 words
Nigel Farage
Petty Nationalism is a rancid political philosophy that is wholly abhorrent, and must be opposed, whether espoused by UKIP or Ukip in kilts
The hatred of "other", the yearning for an imagined glorious past (for UKIP it's Agincourt, the the SNPers it's Bannockburn), the idea that all their grievances can be solved by separatism, is tragic.
I am not anyone's idea of a Socialist, but listening to Alan Johnson describing Internationalism and solidarity within the EU resonates more strongly than anything the Outers have said.
I have to pick a side. I can't pick the same side as these numpties.
Self-government strikes me as being rather a decent cause.
Only if you trust the British people to elect a sensible government.
People like Scott and Alastair clearly don't - which says more about them than the British people.
Nobody listens to Norway You would be shocked how few people would listen to the UK either "Are the USA and the EU fine with it? The UK's caught in the middle, they'll play along"
But the whole thing is decided by votes. And the thing is those votes are non binding as well.
If we go back to Toppings widgets.
If those widgets are made in the UK and only used in the UK and one of the International bodies passes a law about them, we can simply refuse to accept it and carry on making our widgets to suit our market. Obviously we would not be able to export those widgets to another country using the new standard but that wouldn't matter if we weren't exporting them anyway.
If those widgets are made in the UK and only used in the UK and the EU passes a law about them we have to comply. Even if we would still never export a single one of those widgets to another EU country we would still have to enforce and abide by the EU rules.
Now the chances are there will also be other countries who have the same standards as us (perhaps as a hangover from the days of Empire) and don't fancy retooling to meet the international standards. Under the International rules neither of us would forced to abide by the new standards. We could continue to ignore them until we saw that they were affecting some new export market and we decided to adopt them. Again under EU rules this wouldn't be an option.
So outside the EU, not only do we have a proper vote (and Norway is highly influential in those specialist areas it considers to be of vital importance such as fishing) but we also have the ability to decide that we don't need to adopt the new standards if they don't suit our current position.
Of course in some areas this freedom is tempered by membership of the EEA but given that key parts of our legislation are exempt from the EEA Agreement, it si still a better position than the one we currently have as a member of the EU.
I'm not remotely embarrassed to be called a 'Little Englander' or more accurately in my case a 'Little Britain-er'. I don't long for past imperial glories - which is why (unlike Lib Dems bizarrely) I feel no need to club together in some sort of big bloc which allows our country to 'wield influence' in the world. I find the idea of bringing other countries under our control to be deeply illiberal. I want us to be free, stable, democratic, and prosperous, and to do that I want us to be capable of strongly defending our Island, rather than ridiculous overseas posturing. If we do that, we'll be listened to. If we're not listened to, never mind. Switzerland manages all this right within the belly of the EU; I see no reason why we can't do it given our location.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
This
Both campaigns are crap, neither option is appealing, but if there is a single factor driving me to vote remain, it can be summed up in 2 words
Nigel Farage
Petty Nationalism is a rancid political philosophy that is wholly abhorrent, and must be opposed, whether espoused by UKIP or Ukip in kilts
The hatred of "other", the yearning for an imagined glorious past (for UKIP it's Agincourt, the the SNPers it's Bannockburn), the idea that all their grievances can be solved by separatism, is tragic.
I am not anyone's idea of a Socialist, but listening to Alan Johnson describing Internationalism and solidarity within the EU resonates more strongly than anything the Outers have said.
I have to pick a side. I can't pick the same side as these numpties.
Self-government strikes me as being rather a decent cause.
Only if you trust the British people to elect a sensible government.
People like Scott and Alastair clearly don't - which says more about them than the British people.
To be fair, I find Alistair Meeks' arguments cogent, though I disagree with them.
If I had to choose between petty nationalists, who could be voted out of office, and bureaucrats who think they know best, and who could not be, I would choose the former over the latter.
Remain is what we know - we may like or loathe it, but we know it.
Leave is what we don't know - even those campaigning for it don't agree on what it is.
Correct. Your last sentence sums up why LEAVE will ultimately lose.
That's an argument against change of any kind - albeit, I agree it's one that people will find credible.
It's not an argument against change per se, it's an argument that says that people are not going to vote for a change if even its proponents can't agree on what it will be or what is consequences will be.
Which sums up exactly what a remain vote will do, unless you can tell me how the EU will change in the next ten or fifteen years.
It may surprise some to hear that I agree with most of what Cyclefree has to say, particularly her most important point, that Remain should be making some positive arguments for EU membership. Project Fear by itself should be enough to win the referendum comfortably. But by itself it will not close down discussions about Britain's future in the EU.
Remainers need to make a cogent argument that can put British people at rest with their identity. That has so far not been attempted.
Alastair this is a serious question, why don't you try?
Your piece on prospective pension changes in the Budget a few weeks back was superb, I am certain you could make a great case to Leavers like me.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
I'm not going to be hanging out bunting if Remain win.
Lets nail that one straight away. It's the remain camp that are myopically focused on the EU and nothing beyond that. We have an immigration policy that we can do nothing about that discriminates in favour of lower skilled EU labour at the expense of higher skilled non-EU labour. That is absolutely crazy. I care about the well being of the world as a whole, not just the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth than the little Englander mentality. Our history and culture is so much richer for trading with the whole world, and looking beyond the area defined by the EU for opportunities and historic alliances. Vote LEAVE isn't a vote to retreat to the backwaters, far from it, it's a vote to return to Britain's historic role as a nation engaging with the rest of the world across religious, cultural, ethnic and geographical boundaries.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Probably because they recognise being EU members does not denude them of sovereignty.
Anyone who thinks we are not currently a Sovereign Nation is just plain wrong
I have no affection whatever for this Tory government so the fact that to a small extent it's watered down by the EU as far as I and many like me are concerned is all to the good.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberg
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own (which I don't believe them to be) at least there's safety in numbers
And yet some of the main areas where the EU interferes are where Labour and the Left might want to do something to help their supporters and fulfill their aspirations.
Want to re-nationalise the railways? Not a chance when we are in the EU. Want to reverse Tory VAT introductions on home energy costs - Nope, not allowed. Want to offer direct support to industry like Steel? Nope, against the rules.
The fact that we have had fairly centre or centre right Governments (whether Tory or Labour) since 1979 has tended to hide the fact that there are large areas of left wing Labour policy that would be stamped on by the EU before they even got as far as the Queen's speech.
The whole point of leaving the EU is that it would be up to our elected Government to decide the best way to run the country and the electorate could choose their MPs on that basis. At the moment you really have to ask why, for large areas of policy, we even bother having MPs at all.
Despite its name Norway's Statoil is part privatised and is subject to EU Oil and Gas regulations. German railways for one are state owned so nationalisation does not seem incompatible to the EU and privatisation as in the Royal mail does not seem to be either.
I was thinking the other day that the 'Leave' argument is like having a bad mobile phone contract. You've been ripped off for years, but you've sort of ignored it and not done anything about it. You finally get up the gumption to phone the foreign call centre to argue for an upgrade to get you to renew your contract, and they tell you in no uncertain terms to bugger off. There's really only one thing to do isn't there? You might get a better contract elsewhere, but you could just go pay as you go for a while, or permanently. The alternative is to stay and continue to get the piss taken out of you.
Except they haven't told us to 'bugger off'.
The head of the household has gone in and renegotiated the contract. He's taken the new deal back to the rest of the household, some of whom are happy, whilst others are unhappy. Whilst he's happyish with the new deal, he's allowing the rest of the family a say on the new deal.
Nah. They have told the head of the household to bugger off and he is just trying to make it seem like he got a better deal. It is basically take or leave it on the same terms as before (although some on here who seem to be in the know on financial matters actually think it is a worse deal than before)
I disagree.
They have not told us to bugger off. If they had plainly said so, it would be much easier to vote for leave. Instead, they've come up with another offer, different to the one many of us wanted (then again, some did not want any offer and thought the current deal was fine). In some ways it may be better, in others it may be worse. It's up to the family to decide.
But that's the important point: we have a vote. As a family we can decide on whether the offer is good enough for us. Opinions differ.
(Which is perhaps stretching this analogy too far).
Nobody listens to Norway You would be shocked how few people would listen to the UK either "Are the USA and the EU fine with it? The UK's caught in the middle, they'll play along"
But the whole thing is decided by votes. And the thing is those votes are non binding as well.
If we go back to Toppings widgets.
If those widgets are made in the UK and only used in the UK and one of the International bodies passes a law about them, we can simply refuse to accept it and carry on making our widgets to suit our market. Obviously we would not be able to export those widgets to another country using the new standard but that wouldn't matter if we weren't exporting them anyway.
If those widgets are made in the UK and only used in the UK and the EU passes a law about them we have to comply. Even if we would still never export a single one of those widgets to another EU country we would still have to enforce and abide by the EU rules.
Now the chances are there will also be other countries who have the same standards as us (perhaps as a hangover from the days of Empire) and don't fancy retooling to meet the international standards. Under the International rules neither of us would forced to abide by the new standards. We could continue to ignore them until we saw that they were affecting some new export market and we decided to adopt them. Again under EU rules this wouldn't be an option.
So outside the EU, not only do we have a proper vote (and Norway is highly influential in those specialist areas it considers to be of vital importance such as fishing) but we also have the ability to decide that we don't need to adopt the new standards if they don't suit our current position.
Of course in some areas this freedom is tempered by membership of the EEA but given that key parts of our legislation are exempt from the EEA Agreement, it si still a better position than the one we currently have as a member of the EU.
And it is a legitimate concern. I had been unaware that if we made widgets but didn't export them then we are nevertheless bound by EU widget specification regulations. I would be interested in a concrete example. I have looked at financial services and farming only (you know ALL ABOUT my views on the EU and financial services and as also mentioned in discussion with you, for better or for worse the EU treats our farmers well).
So if this is the case, then you are saying that we should leave the EU because British widget makers should have the right to make widgets howsoever they want, and sod the EU; we don't want to export widgets there anyway.
And all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU. As mentioned, it is a legitimate concern but not sure I share those priorities.
@PolhomeEditor: Our top story tonight: Left-wing union boss says Labour activists should use boundary changes to dump Blairite MPs https://t.co/nZcUHF7mvx
@lukeakehurst: My platform 4 NEC includes making it as difficult as possible 4 Trots like Serwotka to join Labour or deselect hard-working MPs.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
The main point I'd take issue with is 5. It shouldn't really need stating that to all intents and purposes, the lazy EU=Europe equation is more or less correct: it's Europe minus Switzerland and some countries round the edge. More surprisingly to many sceptics, it isn't seen as especially controversial or undemocratic. With some exceptions, the majority of people in most of the 28 countries see it as part of the furniture, in much the same way as other levels of government. Few get misty-eyed over it, but the idea of leaving it doesn't cross many minds.The disjuncture in thinking over this was striking in the Greek crisis, when sceptics here felt that withdrawing form the Euro was the obvious solution, but it was political suicide to suggest it in Greece.
That's become a little less true since the refugee crisis - the drawbacks of Schengen in that situation have made many Europeans dubious about that. But fundamentally, if we withdraw from the EU we are indeed withdrawing from the only continental decision-mking body that we're likely to see in our lifetimes, and we're likely to be the only country even to think of it (unless one fancies Le Pen's or Wilders' chances of an absolute majority - and the fact that we'd be in the company of nobody but Le Pen and Wilders should give some pause too.
To say that it's not the EU that one would like is akin to lefties grumbling that Britain has gone to the dogs under the Tories and Blair. There might be a case for it, but it's beside the point, which is that the choice in European association isn't between an ideal EU and the current one, but between the current one and nothing.
If Britain were uniquely better-governed, more prosperous, more open-minded than most of Western Europe, there might be a case for argunig that we could speed off to a better future ourselves. But it isn't. We're a decent country doing our best in difficult circumstances, like everyone else, and marching off in a cause of exceptionalism is IMO a serious mistake.
Remain is what we know - we may like or loathe it, but we know it.
Leave is what we don't know - even those campaigning for it don't agree on what it is.
Correct. Your last sentence sums up why LEAVE will ultimately lose.
That's an argument against change of any kind - albeit, I agree it's one that people will find credible.
It's not an argument against change per se, it's an argument that says that people are not going to vote for a change if even its proponents can't agree on what it will be or what is consequences will be.
Which sums up exactly what a remain vote will do, unless you can tell me how the EU will change in the next ten or fifteen years.
None of us know what will happen in the future, in the EU, the UK or the world in general but in a referendum the onus is on those arguing for change to explain to us clearly and unequivocally what change will mean.
Lets nail that one straight away. It's the remain camp that are myopically focused on the EU and nothing beyond that. We have an immigration policy that we can do nothing about that discriminates in favour of lower skilled EU labour at the expense of higher skilled non-EU labour. That is absolutely crazy. I care about the well being of the world as a whole, not just the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth than the little Englander mentality. Our history and culture is so much richer for trading with the whole world, and looking beyond the area defined by the EU for opportunities and historic alliances. Vote LEAVE isn't a vote to retreat to the backwaters, far from it, it's a vote to return to Britain's historic role as a nation engaging with the rest of the world across religious, cultural, ethnic and geographical boundaries.
The UK has four different immigration categories.
One is with its near neighbours in the EU and the EFTA states, which allows our citizens to work in those countries without restriction and vice-versa.
The second is with close friends - such as Australia and New Zealand - where we allow 'working holidays' and the like.
The third is with countries where we have good regards for their educational and vocational qualifications.
And finally there is the rest of the world, where - absent family connections - you probably aren't coming in.
Almost all countries have similar distinctions: maybe they have three categories rather than four; maybe they have five. But they are all broadly alike. So, for Canadians trying to get into the US, there is the non-immigrant NAFTA professional visa which gives those people a completely status to - for example - Brits.
But all immigration policies dissect to a certain amount along national lines, partly because of history; partly because it's convenient to have special relations with neighbours (as we did with Ireland long before the EU), and partly because it is a useful heuristic for selecting people.
I was thinking the other day that the 'Leave' argument is like having a bad mobile phone contract. You've been ripped off for years, but you've sort of ignored it and not done anything about it. You finally get up the gumption to phone the foreign call centre to argue for an upgrade to get you to renew your contract, and they tell you in no uncertain terms to bugger off. There's really only one thing to do isn't there? You might get a better contract elsewhere, but you could just go pay as you go for a while, or permanently. The alternative is to stay and continue to get the piss taken out of you.
Except they haven't told us to 'bugger off'.
The head of the household has gone in and renegotiated the contract. He's taken the new deal back to the rest of the household, some of whom are happy, whilst others are unhappy. Whilst he's happyish with the new deal, he's allowing the rest of the family a say on the new deal.
Nah. They have told the head of the household to bugger off and he is just trying to make it seem like he got a better deal. It is basically take or leave it on the same terms as before (although some on here who seem to be in the know on financial matters actually think it is a worse deal than before)
I disagree.
They have not told us to bugger off. If they had plainly said so, it would be much easier to vote for leave. Instead, they've come up with another offer, different to the one many of us wanted (then again, some did not want any offer and thought the current deal was fine). In some ways it may be better, in others it may be worse. It's up to the family to decide.
But that's the important point: we have a vote. As a family we can decide on whether the offer is good enough for us. Opinions differ.
(Which is perhaps stretching this analogy too far).
I think the fact that we all have a vote is also what detoxifies the split in the Cons. They become members of the public in many ways about the EU and because the public gets to decide and it is not a case of putting or not putting it in the manifeston then it shouldn't have too many repercussions afterwards.
I have no affection whatever for this Tory government so the fact that to a small extent it's watered down by the EU as far as I and many like me are concerned is all to the good.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberg
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own (which I don't believe them to be) at least there's safety in numbers
And yet some of the main areas where the EU interferes are where Labour and the Left might want to do something to help their supporters and fulfill their aspirations.
Want to re-nationalise the railways? Not a chance when we are in the EU. (snip)
Sorry, but that is totally wrong. There is no reason we could not renationalise the railways. We could not go back to BR as it was structured: then again, that would be very difficult anyway, and almost certainly not wanted.
AIUI what the EU stipulates is that infrastructure and services are separated, in order to allow others to run services and competition. That is perfectly possible to do with renationalised operating companies, especially if they maintain Open Access on a fair basis. It's also a very good idea. In fact, BR was sort-of heading that way with sectorisation in the 1980s, which IMO was the start of the turnaround for the railway network.
EU railway law is an interesting one. The three (soon to be four) packages of laws have much more relevance to mainland Europe, where international services are more widespread than in the UK, where the only such services are operated through the Chunnel.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Probably because they recognise being EU members does not denude them of sovereignty.
Anyone who thinks we are not currently a Sovereign Nation is just plain wrong
In terms of the modern world I believe you are right. And I want to keep what we have that is the pound and our own central bank.
And it is a legitimate concern. I had been unaware that if we made widgets but didn't export them then we are nevertheless bound by EU widget specification regulations. I would be interested in a concrete example. I have looked at financial services and farming only (you know ALL ABOUT my views on the EU and financial services and as also mentioned in discussion with you, for better or for worse the EU treats our farmers well).
So if this is the case, then you are saying that we should leave the EU because British widget makers should have the right to make widgets howsoever they want, and sod the EU; we don't want to export widgets there anyway.
And all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU. As mentioned, it is a legitimate concern but not sure I share those priorities.
I was simply using your example. But yes, even if we make something that is never exported we have to abide by EU rules. This has long been a bugbear amongst the majority of our companies which do not produce goods for export but who are still bound by EU wide rules.
And no I am not saying "all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU."
I am saying the benefits you claim for EU membership are so spurious and, to my mind, illusory, that they are far outweighed by the problems and damage that membership of the EU does to our country, including in trade terms.
The main point I'd take issue with is 5. It shouldn't really need stating that to all intents and purposes, the lazy EU=Europe equation is more or less correct: it's Europe minus Switzerland and some countries round the edge. More surprisingly to many sceptics, it isn't seen as especially controversial or undemocratic. With some exceptions, the majority of people in most of the 28 countries see it as part of the furniture, in much the same way as other levels of government. Few get misty-eyed over it, but the idea of leaving it doesn't cross many minds.The disjuncture in thinking over this was striking in the Greek crisis, when sceptics here felt that withdrawing form the Euro was the obvious solution, but it was political suicide to suggest it in Greece.
That's become a little less true since the refugee crisis - the drawbacks of Schengen in that situation have made many Europeans dubious about that. But fundamentally, if we withdraw from the EU we are indeed withdrawing from the only continental decision-mking body that we're likely to see in our lifetimes, and we're likely to be the only country even to think of it (unless one fancies Le Pen's or Wilders' chances of an absolute majority - and the fact that we'd be in the company of nobody but Le Pen and Wilders should give some pause too.
To say that it's not the EU that one would like is akin to lefties grumbling that Britain has gone to the dogs under the Tories and Blair. There might be a case for it, but it's beside the point, which is that the choice in European association isn't between an ideal EU and the current one, but between the current one and nothing.
If Britain were uniquely better-governed, more prosperous, more open-minded than most of Western Europe, there might be a case for argunig that we could speed off to a better future ourselves. But it isn't. We're a decent country doing our best in difficult circumstances, like everyone else, and marching off in a cause of exceptionalism is IMO a serious mistake.
The choice is between the future one and nothing, not the current one.
I was thinking the other day that the 'Leave' argument is like having a bad mobile phone contract. You've been ripped off for years, but you've sort of ignored it and not done anything about it. You finally get up the gumption to phone the foreign call centre to argue for an upgrade to get you to renew your contract, and they tell you in no uncertain terms to bugger off. There's really only one thing to do isn't there? You might get a better contract elsewhere, but you could just go pay as you go for a while, or permanently. The alternative is to stay and continue to get the piss taken out of you.
Except they haven't told us to 'bugger off'.
The head of the household has gone in and renegotiated the contract. He's taken the new deal back to the rest of the household, some of whom are happy, whilst others are unhappy. Whilst he's happyish with the new deal, he's allowing the rest of the family a say on the new deal.
Nah. They have told the head of the household to bugger off and he is just trying to make it seem like he got a better deal. It is basically take or leave it on the same terms as before (although some on here who seem to be in the know on financial matters actually think it is a worse deal than before)
I disagree.
They have not told us to bugger off. If they had plainly said so, it would be much easier to vote for leave. Instead, they've come up with another offer, different to the one many of us wanted (then again, some did not want any offer and thought the current deal was fine). In some ways it may be better, in others it may be worse. It's up to the family to decide.
But that's the important point: we have a vote. As a family we can decide on whether the offer is good enough for us. Opinions differ.
(Which is perhaps stretching this analogy too far).
I think the fact that we all have a vote is also what detoxifies the split in the Cons. They become members of the public in many ways about the EU and because the public gets to decide and it is not a case of putting or not putting it in the manifeston then it shouldn't have too many repercussions afterwards.
Or perhaps that's wishful thinking on my part...
It looks like wishful thinking to me. The public see an alcoholic that's fallen off the wagon.
I have no affection whatever for this Tory government so the fact that to a small extent it's watered down by the EU as far as I and many like me are concerned is all to the good.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberg
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own (which I don't believe them to be) at least there's safety in numbers
And yet some of the main areas where the EU interferes are where Labour and the Left might want to do something to help their supporters and fulfill their aspirations.
Want to re-nationalise the railways? Not a chance when we are in the EU. (snip)
Sorry, but that is totally wrong. There is no reason we could not renationalise the railways. We could not go back to BR as it was structured: then again, that would be very difficult anyway, and almost certainly not wanted.
AIUI what the EU stipulates is that infrastructure and services are separated, in order to allow others to run services and competition. That is perfectly possible to do with renationalised operating companies, especially if they maintain Open Access on a fair basis. It's also a very good idea. In fact, BR was sort-of heading that way with sectorisation in the 1980s, which IMO was the start of the turnaround for the railway network.
EU railway law is an interesting one. The three (soon to be four) packages of laws have much more relevance to mainland Europe, where international services are more widespread than in the UK, where the only such services are operated through the Chunnel.
The most interesting effect the EU has on railways is how Crossrail had to spend hundreds of millions more to make they met the specifications for German trains that would never run on them. That we didn't get an opt out for that sort of harmonisation shows how little influence we have. Our only influence was back when there were only 15 members. Its now all gone.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
Lets nail that one straight away. It's the remain camp that are myopically focused on the EU and nothing beyond that. We have an immigration policy that we can do nothing about that discriminates in favour of lower skilled EU labour at the expense of higher skilled non-EU labour. That is absolutely crazy. I care about the well being of the world as a whole, not just the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth than the little Englander mentality. Our history and culture is so much richer for trading with the whole world, and looking beyond the area defined by the EU for opportunities and historic alliances. Vote LEAVE isn't a vote to retreat to the backwaters, far from it, it's a vote to return to Britain's historic role as a nation engaging with the rest of the world across religious, cultural, ethnic and geographical boundaries.
The UK has four different immigration categories.
One is with its near neighbours in the EU and the EFTA states, which allows our citizens to work in those countries without restriction and vice-versa.
The second is with close friends - such as Australia and New Zealand - where we allow 'working holidays' and the like.
The third is with countries where we have good regards for their educational and vocational qualifications.
And finally there is the rest of the world, where - absent family connections - you probably aren't coming in.
Almost all countries have similar distinctions: maybe they have three categories rather than four; maybe they have five. But they are all broadly alike. So, for Canadians trying to get into the US, there is the non-immigrant NAFTA professional visa which gives those people a completely status to - for example - Brits.
But all immigration policies dissect to a certain amount along national lines, partly because of history; partly because it's convenient to have special relations with neighbours (as we did with Ireland long before the EU), and partly because it is a useful heuristic for selecting people.
The scale of difference between 1 and the others, and between 2 to 4 is logarithmic.
Remain is what we know - we may like or loathe it, but we know it.
Leave is what we don't know - even those campaigning for it don't agree on what it is.
Correct. Your last sentence sums up why LEAVE will ultimately lose.
That's an argument against change of any kind - albeit, I agree it's one that people will find credible.
It's not an argument against change per se, it's an argument that says that people are not going to vote for a change if even its proponents can't agree on what it will be or what is consequences will be.
Which sums up exactly what a remain vote will do, unless you can tell me how the EU will change in the next ten or fifteen years.
None of us know what will happen in the future, in the EU, the UK or the world in general but in a referendum the onus is on those arguing for change to explain to us clearly and unequivocally what change will mean.
Equally, being drawn further into an ever closer union requires " those arguing for change to explain to us clearly and unequivocally what change will mean."
Why does only one side have to predict the future?
The most interesting effect the EU has on railways is how Crossrail had to spend hundreds of millions more to make they met the specifications for German trains that would never run on them.
Largely because I'm not exactly very pro-EU. I've come off the fence on the side of Remain largely because I'm appalled at what Leave represents, not because of any particular affection for Brussels. The choice is between myopic arrogant undemocratic bureaucrats and little Englanders who regard other European countries as the enemy and who play on fears of foreigners. It's very much the lesser of two evils for me.
This
Both campaigns are crap, neither option is appealing, but if there is a single factor driving me to vote remain, it can be summed up in 2 words
Nigel Farage
Petty Nationalism is a rancid political philosophy that is wholly abhorrent, and must be opposed, whether espoused by UKIP or Ukip in kilts
The hatred of "other", the yearning for an imagined glorious past (for UKIP it's Agincourt, the the SNPers it's Bannockburn), the idea that all their grievances can be solved by separatism, is tragic.
I am not anyone's idea of a Socialist, but listening to Alan Johnson describing Internationalism and solidarity within the EU resonates more strongly than anything the Outers have said.
I have to pick a side. I can't pick the same side as these numpties.
Self-government strikes me as being rather a decent cause.
Only if you trust the British people to elect a sensible government.
People like Scott and Alastair clearly don't - which says more about them than the British people.
You cannot trust the Labour Party to elect a sensible leader. The public can only elect what is put in front of them.
Lets nail that one straight away. It's the remain camp that are myopically focused on the EU and nothing beyond that. We have an immigration policy that we can do nothing about that discriminates in favour of lower skilled EU labour at the expense of higher skilled non-EU labour. That is absolutely crazy. I care about the well being of the world as a whole, not just the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth than the little Englander mentality. Our history and culture is so much richer for trading with the whole world, and looking beyond the area defined by the EU for opportunities and historic alliances. Vote LEAVE isn't a vote to retreat to the backwaters, far from it, it's a vote to return to Britain's historic role as a nation engaging with the rest of the world across religious, cultural, ethnic and geographical boundaries.
The UK has four different immigration categories.
One is with its near neighbours in the EU and the EFTA states, which allows our citizens to work in those countries without restriction and vice-versa.
The second is with close friends - such as Australia and New Zealand - where we allow 'working holidays' and the like.
The third is with countries where we have good regards for their educational and vocational qualifications.
And finally there is the rest of the world, where - absent family connections - you probably aren't coming in.
Almost all countries have similar distinctions: maybe they have three categories rather than four; maybe they have five. But they are all broadly alike. So, for Canadians trying to get into the US, there is the non-immigrant NAFTA professional visa which gives those people a completely status to - for example - Brits.
But all immigration policies dissect to a certain amount along national lines, partly because of history; partly because it's convenient to have special relations with neighbours (as we did with Ireland long before the EU), and partly because it is a useful heuristic for selecting people.
The scale of difference between 1 and the others, and between 2 to 4 is logarithmic.
Perhaps. But it is a lie to claim that if we left the EU then we would suddenly have a 'non-racist' immigration policy.
I have no affection whatever for this Tory government so the fact that to a small extent it's watered down by the EU as far as I and many like me are concerned is all to the good.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberg
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own (which I don't believe them to be) at least there's safety in numbers
And yet some of the main areas where the EU interferes are where Labour and the Left might want to do something to help their supporters and fulfill their aspirations.
Want to re-nationalise the railways? Not a chance when we are in the EU. (snip)
Sorry, but that is totally wrong. There is no reason we could not renationalise the railways. We could not go back to BR as it was structured: then again, that would be very difficult anyway, and almost certainly not wanted.
AIUI what the EU stipulates is that infrastructure and services are separated, in order to allow others to run services and competition. That is perfectly possible to do with renationalised operating companies, especially if they maintain Open Access on a fair basis. It's also a very good idea. In fact, BR was sort-of heading that way with sectorisation in the 1980s, which IMO was the start of the turnaround for the railway network.
EU railway law is an interesting one. The three (soon to be four) packages of laws have much more relevance to mainland Europe, where international services are more widespread than in the UK, where the only such services are operated through the Chunnel.
The most interesting effect the EU has on railways is how Crossrail had to spend hundreds of millions more to make they met the specifications for German trains that would never run on them. That we didn't get an opt out for that sort of harmonisation shows how little influence we have. Our only influence was back when there were only 15 members. Its now all gone.
I'd love to know more about the Crossrail part of the story, and where these alleged costs come from. I believe we may have someone either tangentially or fully involved on here who may know more.
(I'm guessing it may be CBTC / ERTMS signalling, but I've been out of the loop for a few weeks and haven't heard the story if it's been during that time.)
And it is a legitimate concern. I had been unaware that if we made widgets but didn't export them then we are nevertheless bound by EU widget specification regulations. I would be interested in a concrete example. I have looked at financial services and farming only (you know ALL ABOUT my views on the EU and financial services and as also mentioned in discussion with you, for better or for worse the EU treats our farmers well).
So if this is the case, then you are saying that we should leave the EU because British widget makers should have the right to make widgets howsoever they want, and sod the EU; we don't want to export widgets there anyway.
And all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU. As mentioned, it is a legitimate concern but not sure I share those priorities.
I was simply using your example. But yes, even if we make something that is never exported we have to abide by EU rules. This has long been a bugbear amongst the majority of our companies which do not produce goods for export but who are still bound by EU wide rules.
And no I am not saying "all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU."
I am saying the benefits you claim for EU membership are so spurious and, to my mind, illusory, that they are far outweighed by the problems and damage that membership of the EU does to our country, including in trade terms.
I would be interested to know which sectors those companies are in. As for illusory benefits, I am clear in my mind on the benefits for financial services. Without knowing any more about other industries, this page, especially point 2 (random google) seems quite compelling...
I'd love to know more about the Crossrail part of the story, and where these alleged costs come from. I believe we may have someone either tangentially or fully involved on here who may know more.
(I'm guessing it may be CBTC / ERTMS signalling, but I've been out of the loop for a few weeks and haven't heard the story if it's been during that time.)
We do have someone on this board who knows the answers.
But I haven't heard him speak on this issue. I shall ping him.
(As an aside, JJ, have you ever connected an LCD panel to anything using LVDS?)
And it is a legitimate concern. I had been unaware that if we made widgets but didn't export them then we are nevertheless bound by EU widget specification regulations. I would be interested in a concrete example. I have looked at financial services and farming only (you know ALL ABOUT my views on the EU and financial services and as also mentioned in discussion with you, for better or for worse the EU treats our farmers well).
So if this is the case, then you are saying that we should leave the EU because British widget makers should have the right to make widgets howsoever they want, and sod the EU; we don't want to export widgets there anyway.
And all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU. As mentioned, it is a legitimate concern but not sure I share those priorities.
I was simply using your example. But yes, even if we make something that is never exported we have to abide by EU rules. This has long been a bugbear amongst the majority of our companies which do not produce goods for export but who are still bound by EU wide rules.
And no I am not saying "all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU."
I am saying the benefits you claim for EU membership are so spurious and, to my mind, illusory, that they are far outweighed by the problems and damage that membership of the EU does to our country, including in trade terms.
I would be interested to know which sectors those companies are in. As for illusory benefits, I am clear in my mind on the benefits for financial services. Without knowing any more about other industries, this page, especially point 2 seems quite compelling...
There is a very clear benefit for financial companies (like asset managers) from being in the EEA - which is the single passport. It massively reduces cost and paperwork for businesses like ours.
But it is worth remembering that we'd still have this benefit if we left the EU and went to a status like Norway's.
Excellent article, Cyclefree - may it be one of many.
Funnily enough, from a betting perspective, my money would be on Brexit. People tend to boil complicated matters down to gut feel and that leaves Remain with several problems:
(1) Most people do not believe that the EU could punish us because the other countries have too much to lose. Visas for UK residents to visit Europe - what happens to those countries' tourist industries if there are no UK tourists? Tariffs on UK goods - they export more to us than we do them; Movement of labour - ditto to the goods point. Nobody really feels as though there will be a trade war or other implications because the other side has too much to lose. Ireland, for a start, would be decimated by any sort of UK-EU trade war. More to the point, the effects of any disputes and uncertainty would be enough to tip several of the recovering economies back into recession. Plus, if you are Spain or Italy (for example), the last thing you need is energetic youngsters coming back into an economies with high youth unemployment.
(2) The refugee crisis is likely to be in the news continuously in the run-up to the referendum. I do not see how this helps anything other than Brexit despite what the French say about Calais. Again, most people will take the view that the EU's threats are empty.
(3) Having comments from the French, German and Italians will only enthuse the Brexiteers and make them more committed to go out and vote. Cameron should tell them to be quiet.
(4) Newspapers - especially the Daily Mail - see the referendum as an ideal opportunity to get rid of Cameron and replace him with a "true" Tory who will not be so Blair-lite. They will use this to the max.
(5) Brexit is your ultimate "F*** you" in the eyes of many people - it annoys the political establishment and what people like to term the Metropolitan Elite. And, because of point (1), people are likely to feel there is little true risk.
Lets nail that one straight away. It's the remain camp that are myopically focused on the EU and nothing beyond that. We have an immigration policy that we can do nothing about that discriminates in favour of lower skilled EU labour at the expense of higher skilled non-EU labour. That is absolutely crazy. I care about the well being of the world as a whole, not just the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth than the little Englander mentality. Our history and culture is so much richer for trading with the whole world, and looking beyond the area defined by the EU for opportunities and historic alliances. Vote LEAVE isn't a vote to retreat to the backwaters, far from it, it's a vote to return to Britain's historic role as a nation engaging with the rest of the world across religious, cultural, ethnic and geographical boundaries.
The UK has four different immigration categories.
One is with its near neighbours in the EU and the EFTA states, which allows our citizens to work in those countries without restriction and vice-versa.
The second is with close friends - such as Australia and New Zealand - where we allow 'working holidays' and the like.
The third is with countries where we have good regards for their educational and vocational qualifications.
And finally there is the rest of the world, where - absent family connections - you probably aren't coming in.
Almost all countries have similar distinctions: maybe they have three categories rather than four; maybe they have five. But they are all broadly alike. So, for Canadians trying to get into the US, there is the non-immigrant NAFTA professional visa which gives those people a completely status to - for example - Brits.
But all immigration policies dissect to a certain amount along national lines, partly because of history; partly because it's convenient to have special relations with neighbours (as we did with Ireland long before the EU), and partly because it is a useful heuristic for selecting people.
The scale of difference between 1 and the others, and between 2 to 4 is logarithmic.
Perhaps. But it is a lie to claim that if we left the EU then we would suddenly have a 'non-racist' immigration policy.
Well we're now getting into different argumenr about whether national discrimination is racist or not. But point is vast majority of national discrimination in immigration policy would be gone.
Despite its name Norway's Statoil is part privatised and is subject to EU Oil and Gas regulations. German railways for one are state owned so nationalisation does not seem incompatible to the EU and privatisation as in the Royal mail does not seem to be either.
Um No.
Statoil and other Norwegian operators are only subject to limited aspects of the EEA Oil and Gas regulation. That is primarily the Licencing regime and the laws covering the export of gas to the EU.
And guess what. It was Norway which introduced the licencing regulations to the EEA and therefore to the EU. Not the other way round. And it was Norway that drove the introduction of the rules for the export of gas to the EU, specifically to make sure the EU had as little influence over them as possible.
Indeed Norway have been the driving force behind much of the regulation of the oil and gas sector in Europe. Not least in terms of Safety. When Cullen was looking for a system to adopt after the Piper Alpha disaster it was Norway he looked to and adopted their safety systems to create what is now known as the Safety Case - a system that is used all over the world, except unfortunately the USA.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
That last sentence isn't quite true. Until Delors and Thatcher, much of the left was anti-EU.
The EU is not appalling. It has good points. But many other countries in Europe only recently became democratic and/or a nation relatively recently and/or have had appalling political structures and so view the EU more benignly and less of a threat to long-standing and pre-existing and strong political structures and culture.
@michaelsavage: BREAKING: John Longworth resigns as director general of British Chamber of Commerce. It comes after he was suspended for backing #Brexit
And it is a legitimate concern. I had been unaware that if we made widgets but didn't export them then we are nevertheless bound by EU widget specification regulations. I would be interested in a concrete example. I have looked at financial services and farming only (you know ALL ABOUT my views on the EU and financial services and as also mentioned in discussion with you, for better or for worse the EU treats our farmers well).
So if this is the case, then you are saying that we should leave the EU because British widget makers should have the right to make widgets howsoever they want, and sod the EU; we don't want to export widgets there anyway.
And all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU. As mentioned, it is a legitimate concern but not sure I share those priorities.
I was simply using your example. But yes, even if we make something that is never exported we have to abide by EU rules. This has long been a bugbear amongst the majority of our companies which do not produce goods for export but who are still bound by EU wide rules.
And no I am not saying "all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU."
I am saying the benefits you claim for EU membership are so spurious and, to my mind, illusory, that they are far outweighed by the problems and damage that membership of the EU does to our country, including in trade terms.
I would be interested to know which sectors those companies are in. As for illusory benefits, I am clear in my mind on the benefits for financial services. Without knowing any more about other industries, this page, especially point 2 seems quite compelling...
There is a very clear benefit for financial companies (like asset managers) from being in the EEA - which is the single passport. It massively reduces cost and paperwork for businesses like ours.
But it is worth remembering that we'd still have this benefit if we left the EU and went to a status like Norway's.
Yes of course but we wouldn't be able to argue the toss about the nature of the rules, we would have to accept them as a fait accompli. Now, some say we are ineffective in our negotiations, but as you well know much of the thrust of eg MiFID II has come from the FCA.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
'The funny thing is, David Cameron did have a chance to build a genuine non-Eurozone block inside the EU, and extract a different settlement for them. He could have spent two years in negotiation with Sweden, Denmark, and probably two or three of the Eastern European countries (such as Hungary and the Czech Republic) who have little appetite to join the Euro. Essentially, he could have gathered together all those countries that wanted to get off the "ever closer union" bus.
It reflects very poorly on him that he chose instead to try and rush through a pseudo-renegotiation.'
I think we have to conclude that the PM isn't interested in doing anything to challenge the direction of the EU, and indeed isn't concerned if that direction means ever diminishing self government for the UK.
The EU has also been utterly ruinous to public health in this country in terms mineral-starved foods coming out of farms driven by farm subsidies on the basis of yields. Not that it started the process, but it sure as hell exacerbated it. It has hastened the demise of the mixed farm and fuelled the fire of nitrogen fertiliser and pesticide-driven crops that don't have time to draw the necessary nutrients from the soil, leading to your '5 a day' often being pretty useless in terms of vitamin and mineral content. Which is making us all sick. Covered fantastically well in an extremely readable book called 'We want real food' by Graham Harvey.
One is with its near neighbours in the EU and the EFTA states, which allows our citizens to work in those countries without restriction and vice-versa.
The second is with close friends - such as Australia and New Zealand - where we allow 'working holidays' and the like.
The third is with countries where we have good regards for their educational and vocational qualifications.
And finally there is the rest of the world, where - absent family connections - you probably aren't coming in.
Almost all countries have similar distinctions: maybe they have three categories rather than four; maybe they have five. But they are all broadly alike. So, for Canadians trying to get into the US, there is the non-immigrant NAFTA professional visa which gives those people a completely status to - for example - Brits.
But all immigration policies dissect to a certain amount along national lines, partly because of history; partly because it's convenient to have special relations with neighbours (as we did with Ireland long before the EU), and partly because it is a useful heuristic for selecting people.
The scale of difference between 1 and the others, and between 2 to 4 is logarithmic.
Perhaps. But it is a lie to claim that if we left the EU then we would suddenly have a 'non-racist' immigration policy.
Well we're now getting into different argumenr about whether national discrimination is racist or not. But point is vast majority of national discrimination in immigration policy would be gone.
You and I will always disagree because I believe it that is the first duty of the government to increase the freedom of its citizens. Therefore a bilateral agreement with any country to allow freedom of labour would increase freedom, and I would look very favourably on it. You, however, have a different view.
Calm down Rubio fans, Puerto Rico always votes heavily for the establishment candidate in primaries. Romney got 82.5% of the vote there in 2012.
There was no question that Rubio will win by the same margins there, and in D.C. But it answers the David Herdson question of how many delegates can Rubio and Kasich get.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
We did it days ago, and again this morning, and you agreed that the EU would have the upper hand in any deal.
I don't think so.
In fact my way of thinking is that we should be sensible and offer the EU a free trade deal with us, after all 5m EU jobs depend on their trade with us.
The most interesting effect the EU has on railways is how Crossrail had to spend hundreds of millions more to make they met the specifications for German trains that would never run on them.
Did Boris not say this morning he stopped that?
That was yesterdays story or so I thought. Not sure how valid in the first place.
For the loading gauge to be suitable for trains from Germany or other places on the continent to arrive and travel through then the entire route to London and beyond to Reading would be affected surely? As it is the trains are suitable for the UK and built in Derby.
The most interesting effect the EU has on railways is how Crossrail had to spend hundreds of millions more to make they met the specifications for German trains that would never run on them.
I'd love to know more about the Crossrail part of the story, and where these alleged costs come from. I believe we may have someone either tangentially or fully involved on here who may know more.
(I'm guessing it may be CBTC / ERTMS signalling, but I've been out of the loop for a few weeks and haven't heard the story if it's been during that time.)
We do have someone on this board who knows the answers.
But I haven't heard him speak on this issue. I shall ping him.
(As an aside, JJ, have you ever connected an LCD panel to anything using LVDS?)
Worked on products that used derivatives of LVDS for comms, but never worked on it myself. It's not something I've looked into much, except for laughing at Firewire. Heck, one of the last products I worked on before the little 'un came along had a seven-segment display!
It's not really my area (then or now), but aren't there newer specs and systems for such comms?
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
Why would they want to worsen their already serious economic issues? In the event of Brexit, the rest of the EU would be keen to come to an accommodation with us as soon as possible.
@PolhomeEditor: Our top story tonight: Left-wing union boss says Labour activists should use boundary changes to dump Blairite MPs https://t.co/nZcUHF7mvx
@lukeakehurst: My platform 4 NEC includes making it as difficult as possible 4 Trots like Serwotka to join Labour or deselect hard-working MPs.
I cannot remember the names but a couple of extreme lefty idiot trade union leaders have been accepted as labour members just in the last week I think.
The most interesting effect the EU has on railways is how Crossrail had to spend hundreds of millions more to make they met the specifications for German trains that would never run on them. That we didn't get an opt out for that sort of harmonisation shows how little influence we have. Our only influence was back when there were only 15 members. Its now all gone.
Is this true? Googling it up I get Boris Johnson saying Crossrail almost had to spend millions making tunnels wide enough for German trains, which implies that what you're saying didn't actually happen. Anyone know the details?
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
If the EU decides to play hardball, worst case scenario is the UK has to find other markets for its goods and services and grow domestic industries to replace missing imports. I'm not saying these things would be a walk in the park, but nor do the prospects fill me with terror.
I'd love to know more about the Crossrail part of the story, and where these alleged costs come from. I believe we may have someone either tangentially or fully involved on here who may know more.
(I'm guessing it may be CBTC / ERTMS signalling, but I've been out of the loop for a few weeks and haven't heard the story if it's been during that time.)
We do have someone on this board who knows the answers.
But I haven't heard him speak on this issue. I shall ping him.
(As an aside, JJ, have you ever connected an LCD panel to anything using LVDS?)
Worked on products that used derivatives of LVDS for comms, but never worked on it myself. It's not something I've looked into much, except for laughing at Firewire. Heck, one of the last products I worked on before the little 'un came along had a seven-segment display!
It's not really my area (then or now), but aren't there newer specs and systems for such comms?
To amuse myself, I'm building a modern version of the Z88 based around a Raspberry Pi and a 1600x480 panel. I can hook up something around an HDMI - LVDS connector, but I'm wondering if there is an SBC with a build in LVDS...
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
Why would they want to worsen their already serious economic issues? In the event of Brexit, the rest of the EU would be keen to come to an accommodation with us as soon as possible.
I didn't say they would.
Unlike most posters on here - my post was not a campaigning post in support of one side or the other.
I was asking a purely numerical question.
Sorry to get in the way of all the partisan knockabout!
To amuse myself, I'm building a modern version of the Z88 based around a Raspberry Pi and a 1600x480 panel. I can hook up something around an HDMI - LVDS connector, but I'm wondering if there is an SBC with a build in LVDS...
You can buy panels that plug straight into the connector on the pi. I have a touchscreen on mine
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
Why would they want to worsen their already serious economic issues? In the event of Brexit, the rest of the EU would be keen to come to an accommodation with us as soon as possible.
We have a mutual interest in trading with each other, inside or outside the EU. Talk of trade wars is fanciful.
@PolhomeEditor: Our top story tonight: Left-wing union boss says Labour activists should use boundary changes to dump Blairite MPs https://t.co/nZcUHF7mvx
@lukeakehurst: My platform 4 NEC includes making it as difficult as possible 4 Trots like Serwotka to join Labour or deselect hard-working MPs.
I cannot remember the names but a couple of extreme lefty idiot trade union leaders have been accepted as labour members just in the last week I think.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
Why would they want to worsen their already serious economic issues? In the event of Brexit, the rest of the EU would be keen to come to an accommodation with us as soon as possible.
Rank the following in order of EU priorities:
1) stabilising the Euro 2) dealing with mass migration 3) negotiating TTIP with the USA 4) negotiating Brexit terms
It's far from obvious to me that it ranks above fourth.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
If the EU decides to play hardball, worst case scenario is the UK has to find other markets for its goods and services and grow domestic industries to replace missing imports. I'm not saying these things would be a walk in the park, but nor do the prospects fill me with terror.
The problem for many EU countries is that any hint of a dispute with the UK could trip them back into recession as it creates uncertainties and businesses are likely to freeze or curtail investment. That creates political risk for governments.
For example, if you are Hollande facing a Presidential election in 2017, the last thing you need is French investment taking a leg downwards because of uncertainty over what could happen to French exports to the UK.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
That last sentence isn't quite true. Until Delors and Thatcher, much of the left was anti-EU.
The EU is not appalling. It has good points. But many other countries in Europe only recently became democratic and/or a nation relatively recently and/or have had appalling political structures and so view the EU more benignly and less of a threat to long-standing and pre-existing and strong political structures and culture.
I'm afraid it just doesn't just stack up to me. I can see that argument for the Baltic nations etc but are you really saying that we some how have a superior democracy and political structure to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Ireland etc?
To amuse myself, I'm building a modern version of the Z88 based around a Raspberry Pi and a 1600x480 panel. I can hook up something around an HDMI - LVDS connector, but I'm wondering if there is an SBC with a build in LVDS...
You can buy panels that plug straight into the connector on the pi. I have a touchscreen on mine
You can, but they are not the size I need. I'm recreating the Z88 in terms of design, and that means I need an ultra-wide panel.
Comments
As is evident, almost all of them at elite level want the UK to stay, even Guy Verhofstadt. Contrary to the idea of the EU qua French Colbertist Napoleonic tyranny, they want the union's policies to move in the direction of the UK political mainstream - but the pesky voters typically reject the necessary reforms
Everyone admires a patriot and that is how they see Mrs Thatcher. Standoffishness on EU matters is not the source of any real ill-will toward Britain
It would be remiss to omit that the UK is also seen in European political circles as America's poodle, particularly post-2003
The smaller and formerly-colonised EU countries tend to see the UK as simultaneously co-guarantor of the European end of NATO commitments with France, as well as regretting the loss of imperial power relations over weaker countries and the sovereignty that went with them
Young people, however, look straight to the USA for international leadership and don't think much about the UK at all
As such we actually end up having more influence on those EU rules from outside the EU than from inside.
Both campaigns are crap, neither option is appealing, but if there is a single factor driving me to vote remain, it can be summed up in 2 words
Nigel Farage
Petty Nationalism is a rancid political philosophy that is wholly abhorrent, and must be opposed, whether espoused by UKIP or Ukip in kilts
The hatred of "other", the yearning for an imagined glorious past (for UKIP it's Agincourt, the the SNPers it's Bannockburn), the idea that all their grievances can be solved by separatism, is tragic.
I am not anyone's idea of a Socialist, but listening to Alan Johnson describing Internationalism and solidarity within the EU resonates more strongly than anything the Outers have said.
I have to pick a side. I can't pick the same side as these numpties.
He believes he can win a head-to-head versus Cruz in the remaining states. So do I.
You would be shocked how few people would listen to the UK either
"Are the USA and the EU fine with it? The UK's caught in the middle, they'll play along"
I think we're all mostly on the fence, but have to make a really tricky decision one way or the other. Even the most rabid of the Leavers, or the Remainers doesn't (or at least shouldn't) imagine that the arguments are clear cut.
The politicians' natural inclination to polarise isn't helping at all. Why on earth they can't say that they're torn, and that they are advocating the vote that they are 'on balance' escapes me. I'm not going to be voting for the Leave party or the Remain party - it's just a binary decision.
I agree with your assessment of what the Leavers have degenerated to.
The issue about lawmakers - whether of the British or EU variety - is not numbers but their democratic legitimacy. This is an issue on which the EU currently fails, miserably. And - for me, anyway - if I have to choose between the EU and democracy, I choose democracy every time.
But, I must say that I'm very relieved not to be on the same side as you.
Most of us fit somewhere in between, including me. I'm sure you see me as an ignorant Kipper, but the two things I really care about are governing ourselves and bringing back grammar schools, only Ukip stand for those up until now.
I will say that I voted Ukip at the GE despite Farage, not because of him, his rant in the debate about HIV sufferers was disgusting, absolutely appalling. If I lived in a marginal I would have voted Tory for the first time ever, I have admired Cameron up until the last few weeks.
I could have been persuaded to vote in if we were given proper reforms, but as Longworth says the EU seems incapable of reform.
Please consider that not everyone who votes Leave is a Little Englander, we just hold different views to you.
Which is exactly a non-discrimination clause although of course from the French perspective of them not wanting the UK to be able to discriminate against the eurozone rather than our desire for the opposite not to happen.
do you mean that the rules might apply to EU:non-EU trade? So you would put the UK into a position of having to negotiate UK:EU and UK:non-EU rules. Well of course that gives the UK complete control over those sets of negotiations. But will we be in a better position than it is today?
But Richard these are trade deals. Many Leavers are crying freedom about the ability to make our own laws. That's a far cry from working out uniform widget specifications.
People like Scott and Alastair clearly don't - which says more about them than the British people.
If we go back to Toppings widgets.
If those widgets are made in the UK and only used in the UK and one of the International bodies passes a law about them, we can simply refuse to accept it and carry on making our widgets to suit our market. Obviously we would not be able to export those widgets to another country using the new standard but that wouldn't matter if we weren't exporting them anyway.
If those widgets are made in the UK and only used in the UK and the EU passes a law about them we have to comply. Even if we would still never export a single one of those widgets to another EU country we would still have to enforce and abide by the EU rules.
Now the chances are there will also be other countries who have the same standards as us (perhaps as a hangover from the days of Empire) and don't fancy retooling to meet the international standards. Under the International rules neither of us would forced to abide by the new standards. We could continue to ignore them until we saw that they were affecting some new export market and we decided to adopt them. Again under EU rules this wouldn't be an option.
So outside the EU, not only do we have a proper vote (and Norway is highly influential in those specialist areas it considers to be of vital importance such as fishing) but we also have the ability to decide that we don't need to adopt the new standards if they don't suit our current position.
Of course in some areas this freedom is tempered by membership of the EEA but given that key parts of our legislation are exempt from the EEA Agreement, it si still a better position than the one we currently have as a member of the EU.
If I had to choose between petty nationalists, who could be voted out of office, and bureaucrats who think they know best, and who could not be, I would choose the former over the latter.
We half self-government now. It's the people who claim we don't that worry me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6wo2wpT2k
It sums up Rubio's campaign that his best result looks likely to come in a state which does not even have a vote in the Electoral College!
Anyone who thinks we are not currently a Sovereign Nation is just plain wrong
German railways for one are state owned so nationalisation does not seem incompatible to the EU and privatisation as in the Royal mail does not seem to be either.
They have not told us to bugger off. If they had plainly said so, it would be much easier to vote for leave. Instead, they've come up with another offer, different to the one many of us wanted (then again, some did not want any offer and thought the current deal was fine). In some ways it may be better, in others it may be worse. It's up to the family to decide.
But that's the important point: we have a vote. As a family we can decide on whether the offer is good enough for us. Opinions differ.
(Which is perhaps stretching this analogy too far).
So if this is the case, then you are saying that we should leave the EU because British widget makers should have the right to make widgets howsoever they want, and sod the EU; we don't want to export widgets there anyway.
And all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU. As mentioned, it is a legitimate concern but not sure I share those priorities.
@PolhomeEditor: Our top story tonight: Left-wing union boss says Labour activists should use boundary changes to dump Blairite MPs https://t.co/nZcUHF7mvx
@lukeakehurst: My platform 4 NEC includes making it as difficult as possible 4 Trots like Serwotka to join Labour or deselect hard-working MPs.
The main point I'd take issue with is 5. It shouldn't really need stating that to all intents and purposes, the lazy EU=Europe equation is more or less correct: it's Europe minus Switzerland and some countries round the edge. More surprisingly to many sceptics, it isn't seen as especially controversial or undemocratic. With some exceptions, the majority of people in most of the 28 countries see it as part of the furniture, in much the same way as other levels of government. Few get misty-eyed over it, but the idea of leaving it doesn't cross many minds.The disjuncture in thinking over this was striking in the Greek crisis, when sceptics here felt that withdrawing form the Euro was the obvious solution, but it was political suicide to suggest it in Greece.
That's become a little less true since the refugee crisis - the drawbacks of Schengen in that situation have made many Europeans dubious about that. But fundamentally, if we withdraw from the EU we are indeed withdrawing from the only continental decision-mking body that we're likely to see in our lifetimes, and we're likely to be the only country even to think of it (unless one fancies Le Pen's or Wilders' chances of an absolute majority - and the fact that we'd be in the company of nobody but Le Pen and Wilders should give some pause too.
To say that it's not the EU that one would like is akin to lefties grumbling that Britain has gone to the dogs under the Tories and Blair. There might be a case for it, but it's beside the point, which is that the choice in European association isn't between an ideal EU and the current one, but between the current one and nothing.
If Britain were uniquely better-governed, more prosperous, more open-minded than most of Western Europe, there might be a case for argunig that we could speed off to a better future ourselves. But it isn't. We're a decent country doing our best in difficult circumstances, like everyone else, and marching off in a cause of exceptionalism is IMO a serious mistake.
One is with its near neighbours in the EU and the EFTA states, which allows our citizens to work in those countries without restriction and vice-versa.
The second is with close friends - such as Australia and New Zealand - where we allow 'working holidays' and the like.
The third is with countries where we have good regards for their educational and vocational qualifications.
And finally there is the rest of the world, where - absent family connections - you probably aren't coming in.
Almost all countries have similar distinctions: maybe they have three categories rather than four; maybe they have five. But they are all broadly alike. So, for Canadians trying to get into the US, there is the non-immigrant NAFTA professional visa which gives those people a completely status to - for example - Brits.
But all immigration policies dissect to a certain amount along national lines, partly because of history; partly because it's convenient to have special relations with neighbours (as we did with Ireland long before the EU), and partly because it is a useful heuristic for selecting people.
Roger agrees with one of my posts, and now I agree with NickP.
Maybe I am sick?
Or perhaps that's wishful thinking on my part...
AIUI what the EU stipulates is that infrastructure and services are separated, in order to allow others to run services and competition. That is perfectly possible to do with renationalised operating companies, especially if they maintain Open Access on a fair basis. It's also a very good idea. In fact, BR was sort-of heading that way with sectorisation in the 1980s, which IMO was the start of the turnaround for the railway network.
EU railway law is an interesting one. The three (soon to be four) packages of laws have much more relevance to mainland Europe, where international services are more widespread than in the UK, where the only such services are operated through the Chunnel.
And no I am not saying "all the various benefits the EU does give us are subordinate to the widget makers so we will leave the EU."
I am saying the benefits you claim for EU membership are so spurious and, to my mind, illusory, that they are far outweighed by the problems and damage that membership of the EU does to our country, including in trade terms.
Why does only one side have to predict the future?
(I'm guessing it may be CBTC / ERTMS signalling, but I've been out of the loop for a few weeks and haven't heard the story if it's been during that time.)
But I haven't heard him speak on this issue. I shall ping him.
(As an aside, JJ, have you ever connected an LCD panel to anything using LVDS?)
But it is worth remembering that we'd still have this benefit if we left the EU and went to a status like Norway's.
Funnily enough, from a betting perspective, my money would be on Brexit. People tend to boil complicated matters down to gut feel and that leaves Remain with several problems:
(1) Most people do not believe that the EU could punish us because the other countries have too much to lose. Visas for UK residents to visit Europe - what happens to those countries' tourist industries if there are no UK tourists? Tariffs on UK goods - they export more to us than we do them; Movement of labour - ditto to the goods point. Nobody really feels as though there will be a trade war or other implications because the other side has too much to lose. Ireland, for a start, would be decimated by any sort of UK-EU trade war. More to the point, the effects of any disputes and uncertainty would be enough to tip several of the recovering economies back into recession. Plus, if you are Spain or Italy (for example), the last thing you need is energetic youngsters coming back into an economies with high youth unemployment.
(2) The refugee crisis is likely to be in the news continuously in the run-up to the referendum. I do not see how this helps anything other than Brexit despite what the French say about Calais. Again, most people will take the view that the EU's threats are empty.
(3) Having comments from the French, German and Italians will only enthuse the Brexiteers and make them more committed to go out and vote. Cameron should tell them to be quiet.
(4) Newspapers - especially the Daily Mail - see the referendum as an ideal opportunity to get rid of Cameron and replace him with a "true" Tory who will not be so Blair-lite. They will use this to the max.
(5) Brexit is your ultimate "F*** you" in the eyes of many people - it annoys the political establishment and what people like to term the Metropolitan Elite. And, because of point (1), people are likely to feel there is little true risk.
Statoil and other Norwegian operators are only subject to limited aspects of the EEA Oil and Gas regulation. That is primarily the Licencing regime and the laws covering the export of gas to the EU.
And guess what. It was Norway which introduced the licencing regulations to the EEA and therefore to the EU. Not the other way round. And it was Norway that drove the introduction of the rules for the export of gas to the EU, specifically to make sure the EU had as little influence over them as possible.
Indeed Norway have been the driving force behind much of the regulation of the oil and gas sector in Europe. Not least in terms of Safety. When Cullen was looking for a system to adopt after the Piper Alpha disaster it was Norway he looked to and adopted their safety systems to create what is now known as the Safety Case - a system that is used all over the world, except unfortunately the USA.
The EU is not appalling. It has good points. But many other countries in Europe only recently became democratic and/or a nation relatively recently and/or have had appalling political structures and so view the EU more benignly and less of a threat to long-standing and pre-existing and strong political structures and culture.
It's not true.
It reflects very poorly on him that he chose instead to try and rush through a pseudo-renegotiation.'
I think we have to conclude that the PM isn't interested in doing anything to challenge the direction of the EU, and indeed isn't concerned if that direction means ever diminishing self government for the UK.
Romney got 82.5% of the vote there in 2012.
There was no question that Rubio will win by the same margins there, and in D.C.
But it answers the David Herdson question of how many delegates can Rubio and Kasich get.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
In fact my way of thinking is that we should be sensible and offer the EU a free trade deal with us, after all 5m EU jobs depend on their trade with us.
For the loading gauge to be suitable for trains from Germany or other places on the continent to arrive and travel through then the entire route to London and beyond to Reading would be affected surely?
As it is the trains are suitable for the UK and built in Derby.
It's not really my area (then or now), but aren't there newer specs and systems for such comms?
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
Unlike most posters on here - my post was not a campaigning post in support of one side or the other.
I was asking a purely numerical question.
Sorry to get in the way of all the partisan knockabout!
It's been thought provoking reading your opinions.
1) stabilising the Euro
2) dealing with mass migration
3) negotiating TTIP with the USA
4) negotiating Brexit terms
It's far from obvious to me that it ranks above fourth.
For example, if you are Hollande facing a Presidential election in 2017, the last thing you need is French investment taking a leg downwards because of uncertainty over what could happen to French exports to the UK.