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?

Both the in and out campaigns are using lies and dirty tactics to try to persuade us to vote with them - on that score there is really nothing to choose between them.

Engineers thumb, I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by your first sentence. In my own business I both imported and exported and the EU made absolutely no difference to either. The EU have never pulled together and I don't believe they ever will.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3487444/What-took-long-Archbishop-Canterbury-says-s-NOT-racist-fear-migration-Iain-Duncan-Smith-says-rational-comments-come-late.html

An interesting read.

engineers thumb
I don't think the UK would ever be irrelevant.
I have more faith in our wonderful people.
We would thrive out of the expensive,bullying EU

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3486917/We-ll-invest-UK-quit-EU-says-super-rich-Norway.html

GOOD news,Norway and Iceland want to invest massively in the UK.
A very good read.

The change that I would like to see is the formation of party politics in the EU. Instead of electing MEP's from national party lines I would like MEP's to be clearly aligned with an EU party with a clear manifesto and structure as posed to connecting with speedster interest groups. A party political org would also help people engage and relate to the EU more easily.

The current structure has been designed to ensure that MEPs have very little influence over the legislation initiated by the European Council and Commission. It cannot initiate legislation nor kill off any it disagrees with. It is a scrutinising chamber and rubber stamp facility with little real parallels with a democratic sovereign Parliament.

Yes there are issues but it's better to work on those from the inside rather than become an increasingly irrelevant state isolated by nationalism and rose tinted memories of the good old days that weren't really that good

I agree, at the time we joined the UK was the sick man of Europe. Now, the roles are reversed and it's Europe that is failing while the UK is prospering. It would be great to work in cooperation inside the EU but Cameron has proven the organisation is unwilling to reform itself and our national voice within the EU is actually quite small and will reduce as other countries join. I sometimes think it's the REMAIN side that has the rose-tinted spectacles and a delusional desire that they think that one day the EU will change.

22Sailors, I hardly think that now is the time to start spreading rumours of intergenerational conspiracy theories!

The ultimate aim of the EU is stated in its Treaties - 'ever closer union'. Politically, financially (Euro and ECB) and with common defence, legal system and all the other trappings of State, flag, anthem, ambassadorial reach. It achieved legal entity via the Lisbon Treaty, so it is 'a thing'. It is already recognised and allowed to sit on many international organisations, That means one country ruled from Brussels. No thank you.

. I have seen and felt the benefits of the EU in industry and benefited from improved employment protection.

Many in the UK have found the EU impacts adversely on their working lives, such as the Ford workers in Southampton whose jobs transferred to Turkey with the aid of a £80 million from the EU, or the Landrover workers who factory closed due to EU directives or the steel workers not redundant because the EU does not permit the UK to subside these critical industrial industries.

The fact remains if the UK leaves the EU each area of bussiness and society will either continue to implement the same regulatory set without input into the development of that framework or implement a UK specific framework. Thus resulting un any exporter or individual having to comply with two sets of regulation... How is that an improvement!

Alternatively, stay within the EU, accept TTIP and have to comply with that set of agreements that actually reduces quality and safety in order to open competition to American providers.

Why do people continue to see the EU a threat, accross Europe people are proud to be European celebratingthe success as well as challenging the failures. The out campaign seems to be a collecting point for every ill of the world, never mind that most of the gripes have very little to do with EU membership.

No, the OUT campaign is showing how the EU permeates every area of our lives and suffocates us in read tape, and strangles innovation as it complys with every directive and regulation that is foist unwillingly on us.
I suggest that people look at the EU holistically, rather than trying to identify the benefits from narrow standpoints and recognise the social damage the EU is inflicting on this country as it marches on in ever closer unions towards its ultimate Superstate

Engineers thumb, please will you answer my previous question about the comment you have now repeated.

Why do you think people want to leave - probably because of the very reasons you give, they do not wish to be ruled by Europe and never wish to have the Euro which has been a calamitous failure as was expected. Don't you think Norway are actually supporting us by wanting to invest here. I'm afraid you're arguments do not hold water. You talk as though you would be happy to see the UK more or less vanish into history and I don't think even DC wants that! Do you know the meaning of the word holistic?

so many people who want to leave the EU, thought it was a bad idea for scotland to have independence. Fucking hypocrites

Branleuse

These people who want to LEAVE but wanted Scotland to STAY (the NO, YES voters) - how you found many of them?

I've only come across YES, YES and YES, NO combinations so far.

interesting to understand why people hold these disparate combinations of views

I was broadly in favour of Scottish Independence but the SNP suggesting they would be much better off was based on oil prices of around $130 (from memory) which worried me. It has been down to almost $25 recently and the all-time average is $47 which basically made independence economically unfeasible.

I am 100% in the leave camp.

I don't think there is any need for such foul language. Scotland got their vote an we want ours which includes Scotland but wouldn't have if they'd left. As with Scotland it is one person one vote.

foul language?

Is this your first visit to mumsnet?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485473/The-small-Swedish-town-terrorized-string-sex-attacks-eight-assaults-past-three-weeks-leaves-women-terrified-walk-dark.html#newcomment

This is just one of at least half a dozen reports of similar and worse behaviour.
This is very concerning

I think that you are looking at someone else repeating my comments. The bottom line is that from my experience I find that membership of the EU has been a positive force. I support ever closer union, long term for Europe to flourish it needs closer economic policy and in the fullness of time a single currency. Non of this can be called a secret agenda it is a stated aim. I find it interesting that no one can give examples of "Red Tape". As for landrover ceasing production of the deffender that is just natural product lifecycle, you can't expect to keep a design that is 70 years old in production without modernising. Safety standards and environmental standards improve over time and designs adapt to meet the new requirements. Interesting that Iceland wants to invest... not long ago their banking system collapsed taking with it funds placed there by at least one council looking for a return!

Iceland has withdrawn its application to join the EU.
Iceland has tariff-free trade with the EU.
Iceland has a trade deal with China. the EU doesn't have one.

Landrover Defenders may be a legacy design, but are still sought after and production will now continue outside the EU. Outside the EU because the model cannot meet the EU's emission levels, but neither could VW and it had to cheat to fool us into thinking it had.

So, in short, not one drop of carbon saved and several hundred UK jobs lost.

Safer, Stronger, Better - unless you are a redundant Landrover worker.

Landrover could have continued manufacture in the UK they just couldn't place it on the market in the EU without investing in the design. So the lost jobs are not a result of the EU.
I'm not surprised that Iceland has withdrawn its application as it couldn't meet the requirements for membership after it's financial meltdown.
To pick up on earlier comments I do feel that the in/out campains are both using smoke and mirrors. I speak of my personal experience of the EU rather than of newspaper headlines and that experience tells me that it is of significant benefit. Can anyone give an example of a specific directive (with directive ID from the Europa website) that is just "red tape"?

Fears on leaving:

1. The 'irish problem' as it was so quaintly referred to at school will explode again.
2. Scotland will have another referendum and leave.
3. Spain will go back to preventing the supply of goods and services to Gibraltar and there'll be no real way to stop them.

Anyone able to help me out with counter arguments?

KleineDracheKokosnuss

My son has a kokosnuss book too!
I think Scottish independence is a separate question, right now we have a strong nationalist government in Scotland so you have to expect the sabre ratteling along the way. Scotland stands no economic jope of independance so it will just fissle away gently.

They will make an anglo irish agreement regards to the Irish border.

You didn't need a passport to enter and leave Ireland. Irish citizens can vote etc. There is a special relationship.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3486917/We-ll-invest-UK-quit-EU-says-super-rich-Norway.html

Posted this earlier but thought it worth while reposting.

As Landrovers will continue to be produced abroad and can be personally imported into the EU. then no carbon savings will have been made.

There are plenty of EU Directives that have subsequently been overturned or discarded. You could argue that that shows there is an effective mechanism for removing bad Directives but my argument would be to ask why the EU felt it had to pass such a Directive in the first place,

I can see the attraction of the EU to an engineer in that it's rules, regulations and directives provide a framework in which to operate and standardise. But do we want to apply that harmonisation to every aspect of our lives? Do we want the EU ruling on everything from rubber gloves to the husbandry of domestic animals?

Surely the point is that the Britain has never had a written Constitution. My lawyer friends tell me that without a written Constitution Britons are free to do anything they want, as long as it's legal. We don't have to ask, the presumption is that it will be legal.

Whereas the continental tradition of having a written constitution means that they consider themselves only able to do what is their constitution tells them they can so. The presumption is that, unless the right is actually written in the constitution, there is no presumed right to do it.

So, completely the different experience of the British.

And my fears are that by directing and harmonising and codifying every aspect of our lives we are, in effect, handing ourselves that written constitution that we have until now avoided.

I can see the benefits of standards and harmonisation, in some areas, but feel that can be achieved in those areas that benefit from it without having to move towards full political union with countries who should just be seen as our trading partners. Total standardisation will remove the innovation of competition..

Isn't most of Norway's wealth based on oil... which has fallen by 80 -90 dollars a barrel?
I must admit I'm dubious of anything quoted in the daily mail, I suppose there is the outside chance of some journalism between foreigner hatred and foods that now give you cancer.

Spring, landrover closed production not the EU.
Which directives specifically were you referencing?
Personally I would like a written constitution as it would enshrine basic rights. A lack of constitution actually creates a lot of burocracy with test cases and statute challenges etc... no wonder the lawyers like it!
Xxxxxxx

Kleine

*Fears on leaving:

1. The 'irish problem' as it was so quaintly referred to at school will explode again.
2. Scotland will have another referendum and leave.
3. Spain will go back to preventing the supply of goods and services to Gibraltar and there'll be no real way to stop them.

Anyone able to help me out with counter arguments?*

1. I see no link between the UK being in the EU and an insurgence of the 'Irish problem'. The UK already had a special relationship with Ireland before we both joined the EU and would continue to have that special relation after. We assisted in the Irish Euro bailout and Irish citizens living in the UK have had a right to vote in our elections since the late 1940s. There has already been a recent increase in violence with the recent shootings there and the arms cache that has been found, but that is believed to be dissident Republicans and some will always be with us, in or out of the EU.

1. I don't believe Scotland will have a 2nd referendum. The SNP like to fly the kite that if Scotland voted OUT a 2nd referendum would be required but they will use any excuse to try to secure a 2nd referendum because that is the whole purpose of their party.

Opinion polls show Scotland just as divided on the EU as some other parts of the UK. If they voted IN, there is no guarantee they would get a 2nd referendum as the Indyref was supposed to settle matters 'for a generation'. Since that referendum the oil price has tanked so there may be many who no longer think Scotland would be viable and therefore less likely to vote OUT. Scotland has benefitted hugely from its EU funding. But the next countries to join the EU will be very poor countries like Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia. Scotland will be expected to be a net contributor to the development of those countries, rather than it has been as a receiver of EU funding. Funding the accession of those new member countries while being forced to adopt the unstable Euro will not appeal to many Scots. I cannot imagine them voting OUT of the UK with an SNP promise to join the EU in this climate.

1. Spain's relationship with Gibraltar would depend on what relationship a post Brexit UK negotiated with Spain / the EU. If we had a trade deal with the EU then Spain would have to comply with that EU-negotiated deal. If we had to negotiate a separate trade deal with Spain then the supply of goods and services to Gibraltar would be one aspect of that deal. But being in the EU has not prevented some hostilities and skirmishes. We've had boats fired on by the Spanish coastguard as recently as last year. I've been caught up in border go-slows in this decade. If Spain really wants to be difficult she will be In or OUT of the EU. What we would need to do is to make it clear to Spain that there would be penalties if Spain decided to harass Gibraltar.

You didn't mention the Falkland Islands. I very much doubt we would be able to liberate the FIs again if the need arose. Belgium refused to supply us with ammunition during the Gulf War. Our permanent seat in the UN Security Council will probably be taken over by the EU, which will argue, why should the UK and France both have permanent UN seats when both are in the EU and the UK has recently voted to remain so. Therefore rather than being stronger, our global influence will decline. Wait until the EU has control of member state armed forces and both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands will not be defensible by the UK.

I was regularly on Mumsnet years ago, but have not been on for a while until about a month ago. When I use to be on if you had used that language it would have been screened out,,non of us would have seen it. Anybody needing to use such language is lacking in knowledge of our beautiful language so they have to use the bad language. No young man should ever use it as they are insulting others intelligence.

Whilst sailors and I disagree on the EU we do agree on the use of fowl language. I think that it cheapens any argument and demonstrates a lack of ability to express one's self.