In,out,shake it all about,the EU ,what's best to vote.

[Daisyonthegreen]

Nothing on here,or am I wrong,I'm a newbie so be patient with me.
Anyhow here goes it's the Referendum on the European Union on the 23 June this year.
I'm voting Leave.
How's about you guys?

Engineers thumb
You so insidiously love to try and defame the people who favour leave.
All sorts of people from all walks of life want to Leave.
Democracy dictates that EVERYONE,left ,right ,middle ,far right ,far left have the right to vote whether you like it or not.
That is Democracy.
Instead of trying and failing to defame the Leave voters why don't you give us some really good reasons to stay in the EU?

I have been stating solid reasons to stay from my own experience in industry and bussiness. One good example is the reduction in the amount of parrallell testing and approvals required by manufacturers
who place product on the international market by replacing national standards with EU directives and the underpinning harmonised standards, both of which manufacturers can influence (with I member states). This is why we are a world leader in the area of marine navigation. Outside my industry the automotive parts and special vehicles manufacturing sector is similarly supported and thrives. This is due in large part to adoption of the same common framework. We are a country of small businesses, correctly placing a product on the market in the UK for example CE marking mean a that it can immediately be place on the market throughout the EU states without impediment. This framework sets basic standards for safety, compatibility and environmental protection. If we leave we still have to comply with all the above before we can place product on the market plus we have to meet national regulations but we lose our input into the regulation. On top of this we lose the mutual recognition agreements that open up many other markets including the US automatically. Could some of this be parrallelled, yes but it would take a long time and see a lot of UK businesses disadvantaged globally.
You acuse me of attacking you but all you do is speak of random red tape without evudence/experience and whine about being mislabeled. I suggest that you read my previous post again as I am clear not to lump every brexit campainer into the far right camp. I do suggest that the far right largely want to exit andnpose the question what do they hope to achieve by aligning them selves such?

The main reason most Stayers have given me is 'it will be a bit scary' if we leave.

Hardly the most compelling argument.

Engineers thumb
Thank you,to be honest your reasons are nit picking.
For a country who invented so much over the centuries I think we could sort ourselves out regards placing goods on the market regards safety,environment,regulations ,compatibility etcetera.
Frankly for a country like us it would be " child's play".
It would be sorted relatively quickly.
I do not talk endlessly of EU red tape( although there is miles of it,and unnecessary too),I post informative articles,proposals of how we will thrive if we leave the EU.
Written by Independent businessmen in one case.(see my prior posts for interested parties).
I think it best we agree to differ in the time honoured fashion.

If you think regulatory matters are "child's play" you must be very naive and never worked with for regulations, their implementation and effects.

Daisy

Signed. Typical BBC. Last thing they want is a balanced debate.

Helpful chap
It's rather scarey,it simply isn't Democratic.

Widowadman
Good grief you suggest we remain infantilised by the EU and cannot deal with regulations.You are naieve to be truthful.

As a very enlightened pig once said, all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

engineersthumb's reasons are not nitpicking, they are a series of specific arguments with examples. It's just not good enough to answer with a vague "we are a great country, we'll figure it out easily" (paraphrasing, obviously).

Thank you Chalalal and widow
It's good to know there are others looking at the details.
Daisy
It's not that we couldn't operate our on regulatory framework it's that doing do would place us at a disadvantage. We would still have to comply with the existing EU legislation before placing product on the European market. Also we would in many cases then have to apply other national regulations to access markets outside of the EU where existing mutual recognition agreements exist with the EU.

the devil is always in the details engineersthumb

earlier in this thread (or another one on the same topic? can't remember!) I also explained why Brexit would be detrimental to UK research, and was also told it was a "detail" in the grand scheme of things. What a convenient way to brush away specific arguments that don't go your way.

speaking of, I just saw a poll conducted by Nature, which found that 78% of British scientists believed Brexit would be harmful to UK science (and 83% will be voting to stay in). The same poll also looked at EU scientists, and less than half thought that Brexit would be detrimental to EU science. So much for "they need us more than we need them"...

businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
For those who want detail,I have posted this numerous times.Regards science that has been addressed in previous posts I believe.

scientistsforbritain.uk/wordpress/?page_id=54
Interesting.

scientistsforbritain.uk/wordpress/?page_id=54
Masses of positives and facts from Scientists for Britain.Just press on areas of interest and there is a lot of information .
These men and women are not phased by leaving the EU at all.

That is indeed interesting Daisy, thanks. Although saying "these men and women" is pushing it given the photos on the website ;-)

European Court of Justice interfering in research in the EU

I think Britain should be able to decide what it's scientists research without permission from the EU

www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2011/dec/12/eu-ban-stem-cell-patents

Daisy, Spring
I believe that when academic funding, science and engineering were discussed people from these professions, myself included, pointed out that we do rather well from EU funding and the collaborative environment it brings. Indeed ethics is importsnt in science and technology particularly in academia. Bringing this ethical debate to a wider community is actually beneficial as it provides both wider scrutiny and reduces the competitive impacts that may occasionally be felt by unethical practice in neighbouring states.

That's one take on it Engineer.
There is a body of scientists are pro-EU and another who are anti-EU

Each has their reasons for holding their views.

There is no such thing as EU money. That 'EU money' is the tax paid by the tax-payers in its constituent member countries, rebadged as EU funding and handed back to selected EU countries to be spent as dictated by the EU. The bountiful EU that everyone seems to fall for.

The ethics argument is hollow. The UK is quite capable of making ethical decisions with the input of other EU countries. What the EU is doing is making the UK uncompetitive. It is handing our bioscience jobs to other countries.

The point is that being part of a larger block is good both for colaboration and ensures that the effects of unethical states acting in their own interests is lessened. Acting alone is possible but it would put the UK in a weaker position. Referencing newspaper articles is not the same as finding a scientist or academic willing to argue that brexit would do anything but weaken the UKs position. Professionally I know the terrible impact that an out vote would have on the scientific and technical communities.

there's a body of pro-EU scientists and a body of anti-EU scientists, each with carefully considered reasons I'm sure. But there are a whole lot more people in the first camp (as I said above, about 78% according to Nature)

The point is that being part of a larger block is good both for colaboration

So why limit yourself to your 28 neighbour's. Why not widen that to include the other 168 countries in the Workd who aren't in this parochial, limiting EU political union?

and ensures that the effects of unethical states acting in their own interests is lessened

The UK does not need to have its ethics policed by other countries, some of which have a very dubious reputation.
The UK should not be dictating ethics to other sovereign states either.

Regrettably we are going to have to agree to differ again Engineer as you are unswervingly pro-EU and I am equally as unswervingly anti-EU.

Chalala. 8 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas.

Spring,
I am pro EU, but I'm pro EU because the evidence I'd there. Most anti EU campaigners seem to either quote the opinions of others or sight legitimate gripes but gripes which would not be improved by leaving the EU. Acting as a block does bring individual protectio. Does the UKs ethical stance need challenging, yes! As does every nation's, I'm proud of th UK and I think scrutiny improves us.

Ha scrutiny!
Wow I think the EU Deffo needs scrutiny with the massive misjudgements of late.
Regards quoting others in order to back a case to leave so what!,that is legitimate.
Regards so called "gripes" I certainly think we can do far better without 28 other countries problems hanging round our necks.
You want personal opinion well here's mine.
The EU is an undemocratic busted flush,an unwieldy out of date backward institution that we would thrive out of.
Good grief the so called leaders don't even now protect their own women from assault preferring to cover it up until it all came out on personal media.
And don't please ask me for reasons for my view I have posted many evidences.
I shall vote Leave on the 23rd June 2016 with utter confidence.
I urge all to vote Leave to protect this country and its people.