AIBU to think the referendum is a farce...

[Homeriliad]

... and not to vote?

I support remain but I've always been opposed to an EU referendum due to the complex economic arguments involved. But even I didn't expect it turn into a Tory leadership campaign with lies being flung on both sides.

I'm angry that the Tory party (Boris) are using the British economy as a pawn in their power games; I'm fed up with the terrible quality of debate and lack of access to facts.

Jeeze I just read this - explains a lot... ind.pn/1UquGna
www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3742/The-Perils-of-Perception-and-the-EU.aspx

Basically the public massively overestimates the number of EU migrates, the amount the UK pays etcetc.

kitty I thought I had replied on democracy - but then I wrote a reply to this yesterday and must have got distracted and forgotten to post it.
I am not interested in the EU saying they will become more democratic and making small changes and being more transparent. They have been saying similar for years...
Juncker has dodgy views about democracy - it gets in the way. It is an inconvenience. He has made no secret about his views - they are well known. Still he was nominated by the European Council and then elected by the parliament to that role - he was chosen. Which can only be a reflection on the EU...and its attitude to democracy. If you seriously want to be more democratic you don't chose someone for a top position who is proudly anti democratic.
Not withstanding that - as well as our vote only being 1 in 28 - we are subject to and more closely effected by the actions of politicians in other countries that we have no democratic control over. I go back to Anglea Merkel and her stupid policy on refugees. Greece, Italy etc are bearing the brunt of her stupidity. I agree in or out of a union we can have no/limited control over what a neighbouring countries government does.
However the situation wouldn't have been the same if it was not for open borders and the EU. (It would probably have caused a diplomatic incident) Once they get inside the EU there is such freedom of movement, they can go anywhere. And also the fact that she has had the nerve to say that the rest of the EU has to take their share...
(I'm not saying we shouldn't help genuine refugees - I think the UK's policy is the best way of helping them. Merkel's way just encouraged chancers to risk their lives and put money into the hands of criminals (people smugglers) and reduce the amount of help we can give to the ones in genuine danger.)
Looked at fish fight - so the law has been changed and they don't have to now discard catches?
Like I said I don't know much about the fishing industry - but if you have quotas and have foreign boats fishing your waters and taking part of that - there has to be less for you -you can catch less for yourself?

Interesting link - but wondering about bias eg

1. How much the UK pays in: The majority of us (67%) correctly say the UK annually pays more into the EU’s budget than it gets back - but we overestimate how much we pay compared with other countries ....In reality, Germany paid in twice as much as us in 2014 (21% of total EU income), followed by France (16%) then Italy (12%), with the UK in fourth place (11%).
2. How much the UK directly gets back: the majority of us are also correct that we get less back than other large countries. Three in five correctly (58%) rank the UK as one of the lower gross recipients from the EU budget: in 2014, the UK received less than other Western European countries like Germany, Italy, Spain and France.

To give people true facts you have to quote directly comparable figures - those are not comparable, they aren't really saying anything.

So for eg Germany might put in 100 million and the UK 50 million.
Germany put in twice as much but got a bigger share back - say it got 90 million back - it made a net contribution of 10 million.
UK put in half as much but got less back - say 10 million so a net contribution of 40 million.... or the UK could have got 40 million back - and made the same net contribution as Germany (10 million) .

Juncker is not proudly anti-democratic. He's occasionally made some stupid comments about specific issues.
And you're missing the point - there has been a great deal of reform over the years in answer to you saying that there has been no reform at all.
For example the commission is reexamining practically all of the EU legislation to check it's fit for purpose.. With major public consultations etc .
The European Parliament has gained a lot of powers over the years for example.
Fisheries - there was a big campaign, and a major reform of the CAP which prevented fishermen from discarding. ie all catches form part of the quota. Obviously many fishermen complain but it prevents a lot of waste.

Plus in fisheries you have licences to fish in the different waters linked to quotas. I can't recall how the licences are allocated - but certainly one of the issues is that the UK fishermen at a certain point sold a lot of theirs.

Juncker is not proudly anti-democratic. He's occasionally made some stupid comments about specific issues.
So they chose a person who can't be trusted not to say stupid things? Not sure that's any better...it hasn't set my mind to rest.

see eg Juncker's speech here: europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5614_en.htm

As he said he's one of the first Commission Presidents who had to campaign.

Eg on democacy "It is my very personal commitment to improve the way in which the Union works with national Parliaments. I have inscribed a duty to interact more closely with national Parliaments in the mission letters of all Members of my Commission. I am convinced that strengthening our relationship with national Parliaments will bring the Union closer to the people that it serves."

you may not agree with his vision for Europe but 'proudly antidemocratic' is more of a Brexit speaking point than reality.

he's a bit of a joker to be honest unlucky. I'm not a big fan but I also think he's not guilty of everything he's been accused of.
The problem is finding a candidate that all 28 can accept in the end. Tends to be centrist and from a small Member State.

The things Juncker has said do not sound like harmless slips-ups.

Jean-Claude Juncker's most outrageous political quotations

"When it becomes serious, you have to lie."

"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates"

“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”

“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’”

"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

“We all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it”

yet Mr Juncker has probably presided over the Commission that has proposed the least legislation in a long time..

let's be clear, he's in favour of more Europe than people in the UK like, no doubt about it. But not in making the UK integrate in that way if they're not in favour.

there's also no references for those quotes, am sure he's said similar but it's hard to judge exactly when it's like that.

euobserver.com/economic/32222 for a start...

indeed Winter. The context is that he doesn't want to fuel speculation specifically in regards to Monetary debates by providing indications of the direction of travel after Council debates. However these 'secret' debates are the negotiations between ministers in the eurozone, and in any case still need European Parliament approval. Not quite the same as being anti-democratic.

Full quote:
"The same applies to economic and monetary policies in the Union. If we indicate possible decisions, we are fuelling speculations on the financial markets and we are throwing in misery mainly the people we are trying to safeguard from this."

"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious," he said.

Under his line of reasoning, ministers and EU leaders who discuss financial matters in public put "millions of people at risk" due to wild swings in financial markets produced by their public commentary.

So you are defending Juncker's lies and lack of democracy?

eh? you realise that the discussions he mentions are with democratically elected Ministers, that then get voted on? What he's saying is that he prefers not to cause swings in the market. Also in the end all that information is available - but do you brief before, during and after or do you keep some aspects secret in order to avoid major swings?

Dont agree with the lies.

But it's not as black and white as the quotes suggest by themselves. Interesting that the telegraph doesn't mention 'in order to avoid speculation'.

Bearing in mind this is Eurogroup meetings on the eurozone policy: "A conference-goer suggested that removing the secrecy in EU meetings could prevent markets from moving on rumour and speculations, Juncker said that could not be done because ministers and EU leaders need time to reach decisions.

"Actions on the financial markets are taking place in real time. We don't always agree at each and every debate on monetary policy, but meanwhile markets are reacting.""

NB this is not his view on any other policy area.

Hi unlucky I saw this column on democracy, sovereignty etc and thought of you :-)

barristerblogger.com/2016/06/13/must-remain-eu-peace-prosperity/