Image

Wednesday 2 March 2016

5 ways in which we are being misled by the Out campaign



The EU referendum will not be decided by facts. Information on the benefits of the UK’s EU membership is widely available, and the facts speak for themselves. In plain English they say: both the UK and its European neighbours are better off with the United Kingdom being a member. The Out campaign is one of resentment and spectacularly bad humour, and the way to counter it is through stories and images that convey the joy and beauty of being able to study in France, work in Germany and retire in Spain even if you don’t belong to an elite for whom these things have long been natural. The EU has made it possible for more British people than ever before to find opportunities in other countries, to contribute to lively public debates there and to make new friends. British people use these opportunities to a much greater extent than citizens of most other EU countries.

That said, there are five things the Out campaign keeps saying that are simply not true, and need to be countered with reference to simple facts:#

1. Outers give us the impression that the UK has somehow been forced into something they never signed up for, or is being colonised by bureaucrats in Brussels. This is not true. The UK government has actively signed up to every treaty and every bit of regulation that is currently in place, and it has decided to opt out of some which, as a result, have not come into force here. It was the UK government that, on many occasions, insisted that all EU members agree on a policy before it can take effect. British administrators in Brussels and British members of the European parliament have long played a major role in shaping the European Union.

2. Outers tell us that the European project was initially just a free-trade idea which then mushroomed into a political structure. This is not true. The reasons for European leaders and citizens to kick off the process were always political. Free trade has always been seen as a tool to secure and safeguard peace in Europe – and it is only one tool from a much bigger toolbox. Stability, prosperity and democracy are the ideals of this European Union, and everybody knows that it needs much more than free trade to achieve them.

3. Outers tell us that the UK is a sovereign nation that should make its own decisions. This makes me wonder where they have been for the last forty years. The people of EU members countries, through their elected governments, including the UK government, have decided to exercise some of their sovereignty together – more so, but not unlike, the people of Bristol and London have decided that the UK government should speak for them both and make decisions that affect the lives of both cities. Yes, the EU is a supranational organisation: this is not some scary spectre but has long been the reality of how we are governed. Let us not choose to ignore the political system we live in.


4. Outers say the EU is dysfunctional. It is true: Europe is facing big problems. Many EU institutions are struggling to cope. But the way to address these issues is to work on solutions and strengthen the institutional framework, rather than turning away from them. The European project has always been one of incremental progress – the way the EU parliament has acquired more and more powers over time is one case in point. Let’s keep working on it!

5. Outers say it is a sign of the EU’s inefficiency and lack of democratic legitimacy that David Cameron was not given a legally binding document at the end of his recent negotiations. While many high-ranking British officials have called this view into doubt, it is worth noting that in many countries, wide-ranging decisions need parliamentary approval. 27 EU leaders need to go to their national parliaments and call a vote when the treaties are changed. It is an odd view held by some Outers that politics is done by leaders sitting together in back rooms.

In short, many of the problems the EU faces could be solved if the UK decided to play ball and make a case for the policies and values it supports. David Cameron has done so: he has found allies in his quest for more ‘subsidiarity’ and for his fight against the abuse of welfare services. In the future, with the UK continuing to be a strong EU member, let’s dedicate as much energy towards Britain’s other goals. In the meantime, a happy compromise between Cameron’s initial demands and a renewed commitment to the founding principles of the European project are enough reason to vote for the UK to stay in the EU.

Christophe Fricker is a Marie Curie Research Fellow atthe University of Bristol, Speaker of the Stefan George Study Group at the Hanse Institute for Advanced Study, and Managing Director of Leipzig-based Knowledge Assurance provider NIMIRUM. 
Christophe.Fricker@bristol.ac.uk 

41 comments:

  1. I have not yet found any supporter of the in-camp to speak the whole truth, only half truths, which gives the wrong impression. Given Fricker's qualifications, I'm disappointed he's based his article on half truths.


    In reply:

    1 The government of the day knew exactly what they were signing up for, but they did not tell the truth to the people. When the outers say they signed up for something they didn't sign up for then that's the truth. You are speaking on behalf of the government. I am speaking on behalf of the people.

    2. Again, Mr Fricker, the government of the day told us it was to do with trade, because they knew that if they told us the truth then we would not have voted to accept it. No one in their right mind would have wanted political union; trade, yes but not political union.

    3. For the last 40 years Britain has been locked inside the EU and still is. The sooner we are out of this political system, the better. Incidentally, Cameron does not speak on behalf of the people of Britain; he speaks against them.


    4. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Sums up the EU rather nicely.

    5. The UK has no influence whatsoever; it is a myth to think otherwise. The outers have never said or held the view that politics are done by leaders sitting together in back rooms, but have said that we cannot negotiate our own trade deals. These deals are done behind closed doors and we only know what the deal is once they agree to put it forward.


    The EU would be much better off without the UK and the UK would be better off governing itself. If Britain was not in the EU: it would be a very rich and proud nation. There would be no food banks, because they wouldn't be needed. It would not have given away its territorial waters and fishing would be prosperous. Agriculture would flourish - farmers would still be given money but not told how to spend it. Britain would still have its steel industry. The NHS would not be in the mess it's in now and there would not have been the job losses to date.

    If being in the EU is so great, why are nearly all the other member states wanting their own referendum?






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree that supporters of the remain camp only speak in half truths, in fact my experience has been that many if not most of the Brexit arguments are given without as much analysis of their economic context (immigration being the key example of this).

      In reply to your points:

      1.& 2. I don't believe it's fair to say 'the people were lied to'. Edward Heath, in his first speech as a backbencher after losing the Conservative leadership, in the House of Commons, said this: “The European Community was founded for a political purpose, not a party purpose, not even a federal purpose, as some would argue. The political purpose was to absorb the new Germany into the structure of the European family, and economic means were adopted for that very political purpose. Today, the issue is still a great political issue.”

      A government pamphlet sent to households made reference to sovereignty and the need to share it. Whilst no clear reference was made to a European Union - at the time this was still an aspirational notion. Indeed the opposing pamphlet made reference to the paranoid notion that Britain was to merge with other countries to form a single nation. In summary - the issue you feel was kept from the people was being debated and discussed. I don't believe it's fair to say that a union that had not been invented at this stage was kept from the British public as a lie. It is the responsibility of the people to research and find out some information themselves after all (this current debate being evidence of that).

      (Quotes and facts Taken from a lecture by Professor Vernon Bogdanor FBA CBE - Gresham College)

      3. For the last 40 years, Britain has been part of a supranational organisation that has benefited it's economy and culture in many ways.

      Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe.

      We have benefited from equal pay for men and women, paid leave made into law, cleaner rivers beaches and air, cheaper flights (easier travel), cheaper communication, better academic exchange and cooperation in research.

      You make it sound as if we are being held prisoner, when the upcoming referendum should be evidence enough that Britain is free to leave should it feel the union is no longer in it's favour. What is important is that the reasons behind either leaving or staying are rational and intelligent.

      4. That quote merely sums up politics rather nicely. Yes there is political corruption in the EU. There is plenty in the current UK government too - if you know of a way to remove corruption from politics then this will be an interesting debate.

      5. The UK holds 13% of the vote in the Council of ministers (which passes most EU law). This is in line with the UK's proportion of population (as a % of the EU's). The UK may have been on the losing side of many votes in recent years - but that's democracy in action. It still voted on the winning side nearly 90% of the time over the past six years, according to academics at the London School of Economics.
      (taken from Fullfact.org)

      I don't think the EU is perfect, and I think it is a project of constant improvement (not always progressing forwards I might add). But it's importance to the UK means we will always have to interact with it, and in my opinion having a voice and influence with which to interact is a far more preferable option.
      Your criticisms of the lack of transparency could be easily applied to our own (or any) government and the manner in which deals and negotiation take place.



      I look forward to hearing more detail on these points and many more in the upcoming debate, but for now I think you are showing a fair amount of subjectivity in your arguments, and little evidence to back it up.

      Delete
    2. My comment: “What is wrong with controlled immigration? What we have now is the equivalent of leaving the doors and windows of your house wide open, so that anybody can walk in and make your home theirs.”


      1&2: “How many people would have listened to that speech by Heath? I don't listen to any speech by Cameron, as he sounds like a broken record you just want to get rid of. Unless a Tory, it's unlikely many would have listened and if they did, probably didn't pay much attention (like I do, when somebody is on the TV or radio I don't want to listen to).

      “And in fairness, not many people are motivated to do their own research, despite the ease with internet access. Back then, research would have been harder, taken longer and you would have had to known where to look. Many wouldn't have had the motivation. Did the newspapers of the day spell it out to them in clear, easy to understand, everyday language? Everybody read newspapers back then.”


      3. I don't believe the benefits outweigh our continued membership in a union that's based on dictatorship – and living under a dictator is like being in prison (“you will do as you're told”). Look at the Irish referendum, where the people had voted 'no' to remaining in the EU, and were told to vote again under the Lisbon Treaty, which had been worded differently, but basically said the same thing. They then voted 'yes', which was the result the EU wanted. Why didn't the EU take the result of the first referendum? Greece was another such issue. The Dutch will be holding their referendum this coming Wednesday. The French and Germans, too, want referendums. Switzerland, I believe, has decided not to apply for membership. Oh, yes, being a member of the EU is so great that everyone is wanting to jump on board, not!


      4. It certainly would.


      5. Is this the reason why Cameron wants as many immigrants as possible in the UK : the more people, the more percentage of votes he'll get in the Council of Ministers?


      My comment: “Evidence can be a funny thing. When Nigel Farage was debating live with Nick Clegg and mentioned the European Army, NC said that NF was living a dangerous fantasy and was adamant there was no EU Army. Farage had been saying for years about this happening. Now we know it's true, although no evidence at the time. The same for immigration. For years NF had been warning about it. It was the truth, although no evidence to support it at the time. Enoch Powell's famous speech 'rivers of blood', said a very long time ago. No evidence to support it at all. That day is drawing nearer!

      “I am not showing subjectivity in my arguments. For those arguments where there is no evidence, my intuition takes over and the evidence comes later.”

      Delete
    3. We have control of our borders. We aren't in the Schengen zone and we are an island. The EU’s 2004 citizenship directive makes it clear that the free movement of people within the EU is not an unqualified right and can be restricted on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health”. This means that serious offenders can be denied entry and the right to live in Britain.
      (Guardian, March 29,2016)

      1&2. Well I'm afraid you are going to have to take some responsibility then. First you say the government lied to the people - now you are saying the people weren't listening. The referendum was an important political event. It was debated politically. Pamphlets were sent out for both "yes" & "No" positions. If people chose to ignore everything then whose fault do you think that is? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

      3. I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand what a supranational organisation is. If you think the EU is based on dictatorship, then you need to do even the most superficial research into it's structure that will show you this is not the case.

      With regards to the Irish referendum, if you are referring to the ratifying of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 (confirmed in 2009) - it was Ireland itself that chose to hold a second referendum, largely based upon certain guarantees and concessions around the issue of abortion. The EU did take the result, Ireland then chose to vote again after the EU decided to make changes based on the decision of the Irish people.
      Yes the EU is facing problems at the moment - they are many, and the reasons behind them are complex. But that in no way justifies your views that the EU is a dictatorship (when it's structure is democratic), nor that the rising insular views across Europe are necessarily right.

      4. Thus it follows that your criticism does not apply to the EU any more than it applies to politics in general.

      5. Immigration doesn't harm our economy. It doesn't erode or destroy our culture. And it isn't responsible for the economic problems that parties like UKIP constantly blame upon it.
      The fact that some people are simply afraid of difference and change is not a reason to offer up immigrants as scapegoats.

      “I am not showing subjectivity in my arguments. For those arguments where there is no evidence, my intuition takes over and the evidence comes later.”

      The problem is that more than just not showing evidence for your own views - you are ignoring evidence that refutes them. To do is to be irrational in the light of concrete proof that many of the things you have posted are simply not true.

      Delete
  2. My comments re control of borders - Well it's certainly going very badly wrong. We are not controlling the numbers coming in, or indeed who comes in on the grounds of public security. I don't hear of anyone being turned back because they're criminals and once here, if they commit a crime, can't be sent back because of their human rights.


    1&2 - I have been told by people who voted in that referendum that they believed they were voting to do with trade. They told me that had they known it was a political union they would never have voted 'yes'. The first time I was aware of that talk by Heath was when you mentioned it. I'm keeping an open mind on this issue. I'm missing an important fact, but can't put my finger on it at the moment. Will need to speak to more of these people.


    3 - I know exactly what a supranational organisation is. So it's down to the elected representatives of each member state not acting on behalf of their people, as Cameron is with us. One has to wonder why they would do that.


    My comments re the rising insular views across Europe - surely the EU, being so democratic, as you say it is, need to take on board the people's concerns - especially since it appears the representatives are not speaking on their behalf.


    5 - Yes, it does destroy our culture. (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5494/the_immigrant_economy_and_the_end_of_europe)

    The UK has had 40 years of difference and change and its living conditions are getting worse. I don't see things getting better.


    My comments re evidence and being irrational - We shall see. The picture you paint here on truth is in contrast to what I'm actually seeing with my own eyes and hearing from the experiences of others. I get the impression that I'm being told how wonderful the King's new clothes are when I can't see any at all.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But we are controlling the number coming in. We have a border control, people have to provide proof of where they are coming from, and if someone has been flagged as a criminal - they can be rejected entry (depending on the crime of course). "Nearly 6,000 European Economic Area nationals have been prevented from entering Britain since 2010 as well as tens of thousands of non-EU nationals."
      (Damian Green, Former Immigration and Policing Minister)

      1&2 - You may well have been told things by people, but there is no denying the historical evidence in the recorded speeches and pamphlets for both sides of the argument. It is entirely possible the people that told you think they were lied to - but that is not evidence that the entire country was lied to.

      If you go further back, Churchill called for a "United states of Europe" after the war. The ECSC structure included political protocols (Court of Justice, Relations with the council of Europe). The treaty of Rome sets out in it's first declarations that the signatories are "DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe," (the very phrase Brexit supporters are in a twist about). The original intent was based around trade for sure, but also political cooperation. It's simply not true to state that the UK was lied to - it wasn't.

      3. Well if you understand the supranational relationship between the UK and the EU, and indeed the structure of the EU - please point to the part that is run as a dictatorship.

      The representatives have to speak on behalf of many different people, with many different interests. Democracy does not mean getting your own way, and there are often things that the public are ill informed on. You seem to be suggesting the EU has done nothing in our interests, yet thanks to the EU we have:

      1957 Treaty of Rome - Equal pay for men and women
      EU Working Time Directive - Enshrine Paid leave into law
      Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - Cleaning our rivers
      Legislation to reduce sulphur emissions by 73% between 1990 and 2002
      EU Bathing Water Directive - helped cleaned up UK beaches
      Food labelling ingredients to be displayed on all products
      International telephone calls lowered by 80% since 1984
      Cheap flights and travel within EU due to increased number of direct flight routes
      Thousands of students take part in foreign exchanges ever year under the EU's Erasmus programme

      And I then there's the single market. The peace between major nations in Europe. Those small things, that were the primary aim of the EU.

      I'm not suggesting the EU is perfect - but please, don't be so ignorant as to suggest it has no positives.

      5. The commentator is a popular right wing blog that is responsible for spreading some of the nastier aspects of Islamaphobia around. I wouldn't be so quick to trust it's opinion on Culture. The truth is that most British people can't even define what British culture is. We live in a multicultural society in the 21st century, one of the internet, globalisation, international employment and travel.

      Almost all aspects of British culture are now intertwined with those of other nations. Music, food, entertainment, film, art, literature - all show a blend of different references to hundreds if not thousands of varying cultural influences.

      It has actually always been this way. London has been described as a city of foreign immigrant cultures as early as 1700. I would guess there are sources going much further back than that. Cultures grow through mixing and assimilating. The main European cultures that exist today are evidence of that. You are suggesting that these cultures (British in particular) are at danger from the very things that make them strong. I think this is highly irrational, with no basis in fact.

      Delete
  3. border control: definitely not working. Back in 2010 may have done, but gone downhill since. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527451/Immigration-destroy-EU-values-says-report-Border-agency-says-crisis-without-equivalent-Europe-Second-World-War.html


    1975 pamphlets: http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm – no mention political union, only trade.

    http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-growth-of-euroscepticism – Trade. First mention 'political ideas' & 'European Superstate' was made by Margaret Thatcher in a speech to the Bruges Group 1988 “But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy. Indeed, it is ironic that, just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power & decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the State in Britain only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.“


    supranational relationship: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2723472/Democracy-No-Britain-s-judicial-dictatorship-s-time-revolution-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html

    “How absurd that the question of whether or not prisoners should get the vote rests on a decision by a supra-national court comprised of judges for whom no one has ever had the chance to vote.

    “We may kid ourselves that we live in a parliamentary democracy, but the reality is that we are ultimately governed by a judicial dictatorship, accountable to no one, with its power base in Strasbourg.”


    EU's achievements: Who's to say that some of these wouldn't have happened had we not been in the EU. As for the Single Market, don't have to be in political union in order to take advantage of it.

    I have nothing against immigration in controlled numbers, but the UK is becoming overcrowded & we're being told WE MUST take more migrants. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-can-be-done
    “12. To reduce net migration free movement of labour within the EU must be addressed. This migration more than doubled over the course of the last Parliament & now stands at over 170,000 a year. It is likely to remain high in the medium term... While the principle of free movement is one that all member states sign up to, the EU was until 2004, not only a smaller group of countries but a group that was also at similar levels of wealth. Today the EU comprises 28 hugely different countries with a significant wealth disparity between the richest & poorest. In 2013 the UK had a GDP per capita of €29,600 (around £23,700) compared to Bulgaria at €5,500 (around £4,400). This creates a massive economic incentive to migrate from poorer to wealthier countries. There were no such disparities when the Treaty of Rome was signed or even when the UK joined, in 1973.“


    British culture: the British have always been accommodating towards other cultures, provided they never infringed on its way of life. With the Industrial Revolution, which started in the UK, it had a profound effect on the cultural conditions of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_the_United_Kingdom

    The UK willingly accommodated many cultures without problems. However, their laws did not form part of living or working here. We had law based on Magna Carta & Common Law. Since when has Sharia Law had to do with UK?

    We know our Armed Forces are being chopped, as is our Police Force, leaving UK defenceless. For all the good EU has done, to me, it's nothing more than sugar pills. Cameron has further announcements to make but will wait 'til after the Referendum. I wonder why. Easy to guess, though!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RE: Culture - the point is that cultures that mix, merge, assimilate and share, have been shown to thrive and grow. Whereas cultures that introvert, that isolate and look inwards - are shown to fade.

      What this boils down to is people's fear of difference and change. Your very comment shows this level of prejudice and paranoia. "Since when has Sharia law had to do with UK? (sic)" - A good question, as it has had, currently has, and has no plans to have - anything at all to do with the jurisdiction of Sharia Law.

      https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

      "While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law.

      Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters, although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts."

      RE: Our services - if you think the UK is currently defenseless... you are very demonstrably wrong. If you want to reduce the domestic terrorist attacks - then perhaps we should stop our aggressive foreign policy in the middle east that has caused nothing but death and destruction in the name of profit and greed, along with the assistance of the radicalisation of misguided people, all too eager to declare us their enemy.

      If you think the EU hasn't benefited you, ask yourself if you would prefer less clean air, more polluted rivers and beaches, cheaper communication and travel, paid holiday as a legal right, a more prosperous country, or a more stable Europe with no war between the major nations since it's inception.

      Delete
  4. RE: Border control. The comment said "since 2010". Home office figures show that 6000 EU nationals have been turned away between 2010 and 2016.

    RE: Pamphlets - I've addressed that. "A government pamphlet sent to households made reference to sovereignty and the need to share it. Whilst no clear reference was made to a European Union - at the time this was still an aspirational notion. Indeed the opposing pamphlet made reference to the paranoid notion that Britain was to merge with other countries to form a single nation. In summary - the issue you feel was kept from the people was being debated and discussed."

    You are blaming a vote for not including information on something that was not invented, yet had been discussed. For some reason you think that people's ignorance of the facts and history is a valid excuse for this. I strongly disagree.

    Re: Supranational - If you are going to take the word of the Daily Mail as evidence of anything other than someone's subjective opinion, then you will end up hating everything.
    Has the columnist considered that UK judges are not elected by the public? Is he aware that since 2005 wherever criminal sanctions are involved by Community law, they cannot be decided without full democratic control by the European Parliament? It seems to me that this person is simply not happy about foreign people telling him what to do. Be careful whose opinion you side with on this.

    RE: EU's achievements - that is irrelevant. Whether the UK could have done those things - it didn't. The EU did. Why didn't it do them before?

    RE: Immigration - Firstly the UK is not full. We use 2.27% of our area in England, we are 50th in population density Worldwide, 190th in terms of birth rate, and we have an ageing population. There is no set population cap in the UK for a very good reason - we aren't even close to full.

    The UK isn't full, EU immigrants are shown to have a positive effect on the economy, the strain on services is more dependent on the lack of funding our governments have provided, immigrants are shown to use services such as the NHS less, the housing crisis is only related to immigration as part of population growth, immigration has a smaller effect on wages than is advertised (the rest coming from erosion of worker's rights, demonising of unions, no decent living wage, rises in technology). Etc etc...

    If your issue is overpopulation, then it has to be examined with a strategy to lower birth rates in combination with lowering immigration - this is never discussed.
    If your issue is overcrowding - then it should be recognised that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a population cap or required density. This is because we simply aren't full (in any objectively measurable way).
    If your issue is burden on services, then it has to be examined with a comprehensive understanding of government funding - which it never is.
    If your issue is on housing - then you don't understand the housing crisis and how it would very much still be a problem if we had stopped immigration 5 years ago.
    If your issue is on wages, then it has to be examined with an appreciation of how the last 3 decades of UK governments have prioritised business over the worker. Resulting in a drop in real wages unprecedented since Victorian times. This in combination with rises in technology (and immigration - which has helped our ageing population fill gaps in employment at the expense of increasing worker supply) - is what is causing the drop. But Brexit think's it's just immigration.

    The sad fact is that UKIP are offering up immigrants as a scape goat for any and every complicated economic problem they can muster. They know fully well that their supporters will not research the issues, and many will fill in the gaps with their own prejudices. If you want to know the root of our economic issues then look to government, and the continuing deregulation of of private sector resulting in ever more irresponsible business and politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RE: Border control. Comment said "since 2010". Home office figures show that 6000 EU nationals have been turned away between 2010 and 2016.

      COM: Mr Raab said: 'This week those campaigning to stay in the EU pointed out that 6,000 EU nationals have been turned away from the UK since 2010. That is absolutely right.  'But, 67,000 non-EU nationals were refused entry.' That is ten times the number, even though we've had double the number of European nationals visiting the UK over that period.

      It's also a small number to the 40,000 missing illegal immigrants, confirmed by Theresa May & Immigration Watch.

      Not to mention http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19637409 174,000 illegal immigrants that overstayed their visas.

      Added to that, the UK Border Force says the agency is not fit for purpose, it further adds fuel to the claim that nobody's sure how many immigrants are here. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659629/UK-Border-Force-officers-agency-not-fit-for-purpose


      RE: Pamphlets - I've addressed that. "A government pamphlet sent to households made reference to sovereignty and the need to share it. Whilst no clear reference was made to a European Union - at the time this was still an aspirational notion. Indeed the opposing pamphlet made reference to the paranoid notion that Britain was to merge with other countries to form a single nation. In summary - the issue you feel was kept from the people was being debated and discussed.

      COM: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9770633/The-EU-so-where-did-it-all-go-wrong.html
      “The economic woes underlined another problem that was essentially of Britain’s, not Europe’s, making: the consistent failure of British politicians to be honest with the public about what membership actually involved. As Sir Stephen Wall, a senior Foreign Office diplomat closely involved in British European policy, put it, “ultimately misleading impressions” were given to voters over many years for reasons of “fear” that they would not accept the truth if told it. That is never a sustainable position in any open democracy. Heath’s 1971 White Paper on entry had promised no “erosion of essential national sovereignty”. This, as many have conceded, was quite untrue: European law did and does override British law, and more and more of it was coming down the tracks from Brussels.”

      “The result, in 1991, was the Maastricht treaty, renaming the European Community the “European Union”, and paving the way for the euro and the “social chapter”, which extended Brussels’ powers into a swathe of new areas.
      The UK won opt-outs from both these things, but there, essentially, was sown the seeds of today’s arguments. It could be said that Britain did not move away from Europe, but that it moved away from us. The British people joined, and were happy to join, a common market. They did not sign up to a social chapter, a single currency or any moves down the road to a superstate.”

      It amazes me you can argue with that last sentence. I'm on the people's side. How were they supposed to know the UK was planning political union? They believed it was merely under discussion – as you say. You cannot vote on what may or may not happen.

      Even allowing for Heath's speech admitting the issue was political & then the fact that people could have found out more had they wanted to - times back then were different. They didn't have the internet and many would not have wanted to spend hours and hours in a library. And, as you said, political union was merely being discussed; it wasn't a concrete proposal.

      RE - You are blaming a vote for not including information on something that was not invented, yet had been discussed...

      COM: You said people should have been aware of the political union. Now you're saying 'political union had not been invented' and was merely being discussed. I'm confused. What exactly do you mean?

      Delete
  5. In past replies you've said I should be careful what sources I quote. I am. Not all newspapers give the whole truth and most cannot be classed as impartial, but that doesn't mean to say everything they write is untrustworthy.

    Re:Supranational…Has the columnist considered that UK judges are not elected by the public? Is he aware that since 2005 wherever criminal sanctions are involved by Community law, they cannot be decided without full democratic control by the European Parliament? It seems to me that this person is simply not happy about foreign people telling him what to do. …

    COM: Neither am I. If they were elected by the people of Britain, fine; unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, not fine. Even the member states' elected representatives no longer act for the interests of their people and that's why there are so many conflicts and violent demonstrations within the countries of these member states: the people's concerns are simply ignored. Does the EU want civil war everywhere? They aren't doing anything to prevent it.

    Whilst you say the EU aren't dictators, they aren't truly democratic either. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) “Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

    RE: EU's achievements - that is irrelevant. Whether the UK could have done those things - it didn't. The EU did. Why didn't it do them before?

    COM: The UK was not coping as well as Europe, but I believe they would have done in time.


    RE: Immigration - Firstly the UK is not full. We use 2.27% of our area in England, we are 50th in population density Worldwide, 190th in terms of birth rate, and we have an ageing population. …

    COM: 40,000 illegal migrants being 'lost'. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/627732/migrant-crisis-asylum-UK-thousands-illegal-immigration-Home-Office)
    175,000 overstayed their visas. They then want to bring their families, and their children will have families of their own, etc.etc
    Not to mention the ones WE MUST take and, of course, Turkey joining. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/eu-referendum

    RE - The UK isn't full, EU immigrants are shown to have a positive effect on the economy, the strain on services is more dependent on the lack of funding our governments have provided, immigrants are shown to use services such as the NHS less, the housing crisis is only related to immigration as part of population growth, immigration has a smaller effect on wages than is advertised (the rest coming from erosion of worker's rights, demonising of unions, no decent living wage, rises in technology). If your issue is overpopulation, then it has to be examined with a strategy to lower birth rates in combination with lowering immigration - this is never discussed. If your issue is overcrowding - then it should be recognised that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a population cap or required density...

    COM: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530125/This-worryingly-crowded-isle-England-officially-Europes-densely-packed-country.html
    The House of Commons report says the number of people living in every square kilometre in England will rise from 411 now to 419 in 2015, to 433 in 2020 and to 460 in 2030.
    By 2046, an astonishing 494 people will be living in each square kilometre. The equivalent figure for France will be just 115, for Germany 204 and the Netherlands 421.
    By 2015, England will also be more than three times more packed than Poland – where an estimated one million of the arrivals under Labour originated from. The research raises concerns about how the UK’s infrastructure can cope with the increased pressure on schools, hospitals and roads.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The UK is a beautiful country and the people living here wants it kept that way. They can see with their own eyes the problems being faced. Whether these are due to levels of immigration or government underspending or a bit of both is open to question. “The Office for National Statistics has already warned that Britain must make room for almost 10million more people over the next 25 years – the equivalent of building a city even larger than London.
      “The increase, mainly a result of immigration and high migrant birthrates, will push numbers to 73.3million by 2037.”


      RE - If your issue is burden on services, then it has to be examined with a comprehensive understanding of government funding - which it never is. If your issue is on housing - then you don't understand the housing crisis and how it would very much still be a problem if we had stopped immigration 5 years ago. If your issue is on wages, then it has to be examined with an appreciation of how the last 3 decades of UK governments have prioritised business over the worker. Resulting in a drop in real wages unprecedented since Victorian times. This in combination with rises in technology (and immigration - which has helped our ageing population fill gaps in employment at the expense of increasing worker supply) - is what is causing the drop. But Brexit think's it's just immigration.

      COM: Immigration doesn't help. https://fullfact.org/economy/are-wages-going-down-because-immigration/
      Discusses the housing market, workers and wages.

      Brexit is mainly about the issue of political union: 'Trade with Europe, but not controlled by her.' We want Britain to be a self-governing nation and not be ruled by Brussels.


      The sad fact is that UKIP are offering up immigrants as a scape goat for any and every complicated economic problem they can muster. ... If you want to know the root of our economic issues then look to government, and the continuing deregulation of of private sector resulting in ever more irresponsible business and politics.


      COM: UKIP doesn't blame migrants for everything; in fact, they blame mainly the EU and Cameron. However, immigration adds fuel to the problems we face.
      https://fullfact.org/europe/poverty-apprenticeships-and-house-building-factchecking-prime-ministers-questions/
      “The EU's free movement of people is damaging UK nationals' employment prospects and has contributed to the 1.6 million British people remaining unemployed”—Anne Marie Morris MP
      "1.7 million people are unemployed in the UK, according to the latest estimates. That’s an unemployment rate of around 5%.


      RE: Culture - the point is that cultures that mix, merge, assimilate and share, have been shown to thrive and grow...

      COMMENT: I am not against any culture. Cultures enrich life: Chinese who set up takeaways, or the Indians with their restaurants, the Moroccans and many others, too. What the EU has done is turn all 28 member states into one European mess, where that member's own culture is no longer recognised. The EU now wants to create its own culture. http://ec.europa.eu/culture/tools/culture-programme_en.htm

      The EU is not a country, but acts as if it is. It already has its own anthem, flag, police and military. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      Delete
    2. What this boils down to is people's fear of difference and change. Your very comment shows this level of prejudice and paranoia. "Since when has Sharia law had to do with UK? (sic)" - A good question, as it has had, currently has, and has no plans to have - anything at all to do with the jurisdiction of Sharia Law. 

      https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

      "While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law.

      Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters...none can overrule the regular courts."


      COM: http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2016-006-eu-replacing-english-common-law-with-repressive-corpus-juris/
      “...1998, when Brussels called an interparliamentary conference to look at the Corpus Juris project and to ask the participants, “How ready are the people of your country for a Europe-wide single system of criminal justice?”.
      There was an outcry!
      “The EU came to realise how inflammatory it was potentially, and how it would really frighten the monkee (Britain) who would escape their clutches if they put it on the agenda again. So it disappeared from the radar. The BBC and other media decided it was a non-story. The Telegraph was prevailed upon to shut up. And there it has remained until now.”
      Soon our regular courts will no longer exist. What then?

      And what about the European Arrest Warrant. For someone, like yourself, who won't accept anything without evidence, how do you justify the EAW?
      “The main fruit of this has been the European Arrest Warrant. A provision was and is that a EAW should not provide any indication of evidence of a prima facie case, and the receiving country is not allowed to ask for any evidence, but has to trust the requesting country blindly.”

      At present, the EU is holding off on this until after our Referendum. Why?
      “...once Brussels sees that we are locked inside, and no longer have a quick way out, then they will wheel out Corpus Juris once more, and we will get the full nine yards of it.
      “This will be the case if the Brexit referendum returns a victory for the IN vote. The tragedy at present is that we are heading for the vote with 99% of the electorate in complete and blissful ignorance of this specific, looming, threat to our personal freedom and its safeguards from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.”

      We have the internet today and information is freely available but, as with the 1975 ref., how many are aware of just how deep 'political union' goes? It might be said once or twice about the EU having contol over all aspects of our lives, but how many (particularly the in-camp) are aware of the affect this will have on them!

      Regarding “people's fear of difference and change”, it appears you are very much afraid of it. The out-camp are not. We are not afraid to effect change. You want to keep the situation as it is, whether you know the full facts or not, because you're afraid to change and take a chance.


      RE: Our services - if you think the UK is currently defenseless... you are very demonstrably wrong. If you want to reduce the domestic terrorist attacks - then perhaps we should stop our aggressive foreign policy in the middle east that has caused nothing but death and destruction in the name of profit and greed, along with the assistance of the radicalisation of misguided people, all too eager to declare us their enemy. 

      COM: I agree. Nonetheless our defences are being taken away and centralised within Brussels.


      If you think the EU hasn't benefited you, ask yourself if you would prefer less clean air, more polluted rivers...


      COM: Improvements in the environment could have been achieved without the EU. May have taken a bit longer, but I believe they would eventually have been achieved. Britain joined NATO in 1948 and it has kept the peace. We don't need the EU for that.

      Delete
    3. Re: Border Control. You really need to read what you are posting. 6000 EEA nationals have been turned away for criminal records. 67 000 non EEA nationals have been turned away for a host of reasons. (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-9-grounds-for-refusal)
      Re: The illegal immigrants. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are those that overstay their visa conditions. There is no reason to assume that the EU is responsible for any errors in administration or lack of resources the Home office suffers. I don't see this as evidence we 'don't have control of our borders' in the slightest.
      ***
      Re: EU forced as a lie. I have shown you quite clearly that the issue was discussed. I have given you evidence of a politicians speech you say you haven't heard. Pamphlets you say don't openly discuss a union that wasn't anything more than an aspiration (although they do discuss the concept), and a background of political history that showed what was being attempted. I strongly contest your attempts to ignore simple facts and historical evidence that dispute your claim this was a lie. Firstly - I think people did know about this, as I've shown there was plenty of evidence. Secondly - those that didn't can't use their ignorance to state something they didn't research/understand/acknowledge was later a lie. To me this seems like a myopic attempt to re write history to suit an argument you (and the people you claim to represent) disagree with.
      It amazes me you think you are on 'the peoples side'. You are simply on the side of the people that don't want to be in the EU. There are plenty of people that disagree with you, and plenty of people that are able to listen to a speech and read a pamphlet.

      "You said people should have been aware of the political union. Now you're saying 'political union had not been invented' and was merely being discussed. I'm confused. What exactly do you mean?"
      I'm saying that the concept of the political union was being discussed. And that concept was discussed clearly at teh time of the referendum. I have shown you evidence of where. You are saying that the Union wasn't being discussed clearly - to which I have pointed out there was no Union - only the concept or aspiration.
      ***
      Re: sources you quote. I actually criticised the Daily Mail for being a hateful subjective excuse for a newspaper, that rarely backs it's sensationalist anecdotal stories up with any form of hard evidence. The story you link is good evidence of that.
      Re: EU Democracy. You still have not been able to show any evidence of the Union being "run like a dictatorship". Simply linking to definitions of democracy are of no use to this conversation - you will need to show which part of the Union you think is a dictatorship. I think you will find the EU meets the criteria you post of both "government by the people" - The European Parliament; and "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" - the MEP elections. Also the Council of the European Union has one elected head of state from each nation.
      You are comparing the European Court of Justice with the elected parliaments of nations. This is a skewed comparison - as I pointed out to you that UK courts comprise of apointed judges. The EU courts are no different, infact they are more democratic as the court consists of one judge per member state.
      ***

      Delete
    4. Re: The EU's achievements. As I said to you - it is irrelevant whether the UK could or would have done these things. The EU did do them. And you have benefited from them - whether you like it or not. With regards to the UK not coping - well thanks to the EU, the UK economy grew and enjoyed 4 decades of propsperity.
      Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe.
      ***
      Re: The UK being full. The Daily Mail can write what it wants (being careful to state England and not the UK which would invalidate it's claim) - but it doesn't change the fact the UK isn't full. As I said to you: " If your issue is overpopulation, then it has to be examined with a strategy to lower birth rates in combination with lowering immigration - this is never discussed. If your issue is overcrowding - then it should be recognised that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a population cap or required density..."
      You give the stat of 73.3 million by 2037 - which is entirely unhelpful as there is no population cap proposed. That number is meaningless unless compared to a number that represents a limit. Why is there no limit proposed? Becuase we aren't close to full.
      In summary - you aren't concerned with the population density of the UK. You simply think there should be less foreigners and you are using statistics that do not support your arugment to suggest the situation is a problem that needs fixing. It simply isn't. I've shown you how it isn't. If your issue is overpopulation then where is your calls to reduce the birth rates (which account for aproximately 50% of population increase in this country). An objective economic argument would want to spread the difference between both causes to fix the problem. An irrational argument mis represents the facts to suit their own opinion.
      ***
      Re: UKIP / Immigration scapegoats. UKIP blame immigration for the following issues: (1) Overpopulation (2) Strain on UK services / Housing (3) Unemployment / Reduction of wages (4) Erosion of culture. UKIP primarily blame the EU for immigration (freedom of movement). Immigration is (mistakenly) the primary issue of concern in this referendum thanks to UKIP.
      (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11447132/Nigel-Farage-Ukips-immigration-policy-is-built-on-fairness.html) - Linked to in the UKIP manifesto on immigration.
      What I attempted to show you above was that each of these issues has a larger context, and other contributing factors. By ignoring or not acknowledging these, and blaming immigration solely, UKIP are suggesting prejudiced policy. Policy which is all to readily lapped up by ignorant people, that don't research even the basic facts of these issues.
      I'm not sure if you read the fullfact link you posted - but if you were using the section on unemployment to make your point, perhaps you missed the section that stated: "Immigration from other EU countries hasn’t been found to significantly affect unemployment."
      A 5.4% unemployment rate (current UK rate) is no terrible thing. The fact it is distorted with zero hour contracts and a falling real wage does dilute this achievement somewhat - but that is not realted to the EU (it is the fault of this UK government), and only related to immigration in the context of population growth. Unemployment within working class jobs (and middle class increasingly) is far more the result of rises in technology.

      Delete
    5. Re: Culture. Well I'm very glad you are happy to eat foreign food. But your comments above suggest you are someone that judges people on where they are born before whether they are able to work, able to contribute to society, or a valid addition to the growth of the UK.
      Please stop quoting your "power corrupts" line. As I've shown you it does not describe the EU any more than it describes UK politics. It simply makes you sound paranoid.
      ***
      Re: Sharia courts. I'll refer you to the plainly simple concluding point that I quoted above: "they aren't courts of law."
      ***
      Re: The EAW. I don't justify the EAW in any way. It's not my job to defend the EU's every principle - I never said it was perfect. It does strike me as somewhat hypocritical that someone might suggest our borders are not controlled, and that criminals are getting through - and then attack the same organisation for implementing an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union.
      ***
      Re: Our defences. The UK is part of NATO. Why shouldn't it's defences contribute to the defence of the EU?
      ***
      Re: Your final paragraph. The EU kept the peace between European nations. No small achievement after the same nations just spent a half century fighting the world's most destructive wars in history.
      Improvements in the environment were achieved through the EU. If you want evidence of one such issue, look to the recent VW emissions scandal and see that our own government lobbied to reduce air emissions prior to this news story being reported. They were blocked by the EU. What government can claim to act in the benefit of it's own people by actively attempting to reduce the quality of the air we breath?
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/26/uk-tried-to-block-tougher-eu-car-emissions-tests
      You refuse to acknowledge any benefit of the EU, and you continue to produce misconceptions, half truths and irrational conclusions as to why things would be better out.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. We will have to beg to differ. You've given evidence in support. I, on the otherhand, can't ignore people who have been right in the past with no evidence, but such evidence became apparent later. I call it intuition.


      I don't dispute the evidence you've quoted. Professor Vernon Bogdanor I like a lot, as he comes across totally impartial. The Guardian's ok.


      Nick Clegg told Nigel Farage that his idea of a European Army was “a dangerous fantasy.” It certainly wasn't. How could Clegg have been so wrong? How could Farage have been so right?

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary We know why Cameron is making redundant our Armed Forces. When Cameron says he's opposed to…,he then says he's in agreement with… Watch this space, as they say!

      FullFact https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-debate-european-air-force/ can only print what they've been told by the relevant source. Doesn't mean to say it's true! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVhxNhSsiJI we shall see in time who's correct.


      Whilst not denying the EU did some good, I now believe it's going in the wrong direction. http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/the-future-of-europe-a-speech-by-tony-blair/ as Blair himself said, “… The rationale for Europe today is not peace; it is power.”


      Whilst there's corruption in both the EU and our Parliaments, at least with our Parliament we can kick the government out at elections. There's no chance of that with Brussels. Hence my point, 'power corrupts…' It is not paranoia.


      http://www.eu-facts.org/en/roots/index.html EU could be classed a 'corporate dictatorship' and http://www.eu-facts.org/en/lisbontreaty/index.html things I didn't know about the Lisbon Treaty.


      As NATO works closely with the EU and has more experience, it could be said it's NATO that's kept the peace, not the EU.


      When I said I was on the people's side, I meant the people who believed they were voting for trade only in the 1975 Referendum. You cannot vote on a concept or aspiration, like the political issue. It has to be concrete.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/june/6/newsid_4586000/4586791.stm This link is completely unbiased. The BBC has quoted the memories of people who voted in that Referendum.

      I have nothing further to say on this matter, but I fully understand why people believed they were voting for trade only.

      Delete
    8. Regarding Sharia Law. There is concern over which way it's heading. BBC Daily Politics & Sunday Politics - “The use of Sharia, or Islamic religious law, is growing in Britain, with thousands of Muslims using sharia councils to help resolve family and financial disputes each year. But ccrossbench peer Baroness Cox wants to make it illegal for Sharia courts to act as legal courts in arbitration cases. Her private member's bill has passed through the Lords and is due to be debated in the Commons later this month.” http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jun/29/sharia-courts-illegal-advice-claims – not paranoia, but a real concern.


      Finally, I do not quote misconceptions, half truths or irrational conclusions as to why things would be better out. In fairness, it depends on who the prime minister is. A strong leader would make Britain great again. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/11/i-resigned-tell-truth-leaving-eu-british-chambers-commerce?CMP=share_btn_fb - “It is these people who, like me, have done business around the world, who know that taxpayers’ money that Brussels currently wastes could instead be invested in Britain: in public services, in infrastructure and in such things as steel production. We will be able to make our own trade deals around the globe, just like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. Most importantly, we will be able to take back control of our own affairs, political and economic, giving us more certainty in a very uncertain world.”

      As I said before, it is the people who want to stay in the EU that's afraid of change, not those who want to leave.

      Delete
    9. Re: The 1975 Referendum - I don't know what else to tell you. I have shown you very clear evidence that the issues you initially claimed as "not speaking the truth" - were being discussed. Instead you are openly admitting that you prefer to ignore this evidence and chose the anecdotal claims of people you know. So it's very difficult to see your views as anything other than irrational on this issue. Certainly adds an element of hypocrisy to you stating that remain arguments are 'half truths' when you won't acknowledge any truth that doesn't fit your own viewpoint. You call it intuition. I call it irrational prejudice.
      ***

      Re: The EU corruption / Power - The Irony in stating as an example that you can't kick the government out at elections, whilst arguing on a debate about whether the UK votes to leave the EU in a referendum can't be lost on you?
      Your point of power corrupts does not solely apply to the EU (as I've said twice). It is not a fair criticism to attack the EU for issues that happen outside of the EU, in every single nation all over the world. Look at the MP expenses scandal, the Panama papers, Cash for access to name but a few examples of corruption in the UK government. Yes the EU has corruption - all politics does. It is not a sensible conclusion to assume we should leave the EU due to a reason that affects every nation including our own irrespective of any political union.
      ***

      Re: NATO / EU - The EU has led to peace between the major European nations. I wouldn't suggest it is the only thing that has. But when you consider the two world wars (and the fact many causes of the second came from the first), I think it's fair to assume that the EU has helped. Indeed the desire for peace is often cited as a reason the EU was able to be implemented, in comparison to past pre WWII failures to reach a consensus.
      http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1945-1959/index_en.htm
      ***

      Re: The People's side - Exactly. The people who think the same way you do. The people that are ignorant of the actual facts showing proof they are mistaken. You can indeed vote on aspirations - most political manifestos are nothing more than ambitions and hopes, many of which are not achieved. This particular aspiration was discussed as a concept. The fact it wasn't spelt out in exact terms and timeframe was that it was only an aspiration.
      The goal of the EU has always been a political and trade union between European nations. When people ignore crucial aspects of history, that does not give them licence to claim they were lied to.
      ***

      Re: Sharia Law - The councils you describe cannot overrule the regular courts. There is no plan to replace UK law with Sharia Law. Are you suggesting that Muslim immigrants are not integrating with UK society? This is nothing but Islamaophobia. Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK population. The link you give has a headline "DOZENS of sharia courts are giving illegal advice" - further stating an estimated number of 85. I don't think anyone rationally minded would suggest this is evidence that UK culture, law or way of life is being in anyway eroded or damaged.
      ***

      Delete
    10. Re: The EU membership fee - The EU Membership fee is objectively explained here:
      https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
      That 8.5 billion buys us quite a bit. We would lose it all. You need to investigate the benefits of the EU.
      We get to be part of the single market which has increased GDP for this country.
      We get access to free trade and removal of non-tariff barriers have helped reduce costs and prices for consumers. Increased trade to the EU also creates jobs, and new business to further trade with.
      We get removal of customs barriers mean 60 million customs clearance documents per year no longer need to be completed, cutting bureaucracy and reducing costs and delivery times.
      We get the not so quantifiable benefits such as the indirect economic benefits brought in from trade, investment and import/export markets, International students, Higher education staff and student exchange, cultural and travel benefits, research cooperation, consumer protections, security and intelligence coordination (to name a few).
      We get to invest into structural funds that aim to build up the weaker economies of Europe, ultimately opening new markets, labour opportunities and trade - not to mention being a remedy to the supposed end of days problem of people all flocking to the richest cities for jobs (equality being the aim).
      We get the historic benefits, the cleaner air and beaches, the equal rights, fairer pay, and overall peace and prosperity the EU has provided.
      And we get all this for £23 million a day (due to the money we get back from our rebate, and payments made to farmer's subsidies and poorer areas of the UK like Wales and Cornwall). It's less if you count the payments made to the private sector (such as research grants) which were 1.4 billion in 2013.
      To claim that this fee is 'taxpayers money that Brussels wastes' is simply ignorant of the facts. A child can see the amount of money spent, but even expert academics struggle to quantify the benefits received. Their effects are complicated, and dynamic. But judging by the four decades of prosperity and growth since we joined, I think there is evidence we are getting good value for money.
      ***

      Re: My claim your arguments are irrational - I don't wish in any way to insult you. But I stand by my comment. Thus far in this comment exchange you have claimed the UK government lied to voters, when it didn't. You claimed the UK doesn't have control over it's borders when it does. You stated the UK is defenceless when it isn't. You claimed the EU is non democratic when it is - and further labelled it a dictatorship, when questioned you have been unable to specify which part is ran by a dictator. You claimed the UK has no influence in the EU, when it demonstrably has. You compared the EU courts to Parliament, you have misunderstood the relationship between a country and a Supranational organisation. And when shown the achievements of the EU - you prefer to write them off as things the 'UK could have done'.
      Each and every one of your claims above is ignorant of very clear facts, some of which I've done my best to point you to. Your reluctance to even acknowledge the majority of these is what leads me to conclude your opinions are not based on rational facts. You prefer to cling to an irrational hatred of the EU.

      Delete
  6. Re: The 1975 Referendum - I don't know what else to tell you. I have shown you very clear evidence that the issues you initially claimed as "not speaking the truth" - were being discussed. Instead you are openly admitting that you prefer to ignore this evidence and chose the anecdotal claims of people you know. So it's very difficult to see your views as anything other than irrational on this issue. Certainly adds an element of hypocrisy to you stating that remain arguments are 'half truths' when you won't acknowledge any truth that doesn't fit your own viewpoint. You call it intuition. I call it irrational prejudice.
    ***

    COM: You are misreading what I have plainly said. Even though the political issue was being discussed, it would not have formed part of the 1975 Ref., as it was just an 'aspiration' (your description, not mine. I would certainly not describe it as being something people hoped for). It had not been written in any manifesto and had not formed part of the Referendum. The political issue, including voting, was different back then. Clearly there was confusion at the time (which you deny) as some people were aware of the political issue and some weren't. BUT those that were aware of the political issue, did they really understand what it meant?

    Going back to 1974, even Heath asked himself what was meant by European Union. He didn't know and neither did James Callaghan. (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/18/in-out-referendum-eu-1975-all-over-again). "The possibility one day of monetary union did not figure in the campaign. But soon after the 1974 election, James Callaghan, who was foreign secretary, had asked the same question as Heath, and Burrows was allowed to continue his quest to work out what was meant by "European union".

    So, a year before the 1975 Referendum, neither Heath nor Callaghan knew exactly what was meant by 'European Union'. Whatever the discussions re the political issue, certainly left a lot of confusion. Maybe that's why the referendum focussed on trade, because they knew people would be happy with that.

    We'll soon be holding the Referendum again. Cameron has said he has announcements he'll be making after it, not before.We'll soon see whether my beliefs are based on irational prejudices or intuition.



    Re: The EU corruption / Power - The Irony in stating as an example that you can't kick the government out at elections, whilst arguing on a debate about whether the UK votes to leave the EU in a referendum can't be lost on you?
    ***

    COM: I said, "Whilst there's corruption in both the EU and our Parliaments, at least with our Parliament we can (not can't, as you've quoted) kick the government out at elections." I was talking there in the context of 'corruption', not whether the UK votes to leave the EU in a referendum.



    Your point of power corrupts does not solely apply to the EU (as I've said twice). It is not a fair criticism to attack the EU for issues that happen outside of the EU, in every single nation all over the world. Look at the MP expenses scandal, the Panama papers, Cash for access to name but a few examples of corruption in the UK government. Yes the EU has corruption - all politics does. It is not a sensible conclusion to assume we should leave the EU due to a reason that affects every nation including our own irrespective of any political union.
    ***

    COM: I was referring to the amount of power being given to Brussels/EU in the context of eventually leading to 'absolute authority', not in the context of scandals such as the Panama papers etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re: NATO / EU - The EU has led to peace between the major European nations. I wouldn't suggest it is the only thing that has. But when you consider the two world wars (and the fact many causes of the second came from the first), I think it's fair to assume that the EU has helped. Indeed the desire for peace is often cited as a reason the EU was able to be implemented, in comparison to past pre WWII failures to reach a consensus.
    http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1945-1959/index_en.htm
    ***

    COM: Fair enough. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) Although NATO was formed in 1949, the signing of the Treaty of Brussels in 1948, which the UK took part in, was considered a pecurser to NATO. However, Gerard Batten MEP comments:

    "Over 1945-1949, peace was kept in Europe by the British and US armies stationed in Germany; from 1949 onwards, by NATO and the continued presence of predominantly US and British troops to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc. France left NATO in 1959 and did not fully re-join until 2009. The disintegration of the old Soviet Union in 1991 removed the main military threat to Europe, but new risks have arisen. These can best be countered by NATO and co-operation between democratic nation states, not by European political and economic integration.

    "Democratic nations tend to settle their differences by diplomacy, not war. The biggest threat to peace in Europe is posed by the creation of an undemocratic, centralised 'United States of Europe' and the removal of powers of democratic accountability and control from its citizens.
    The EU intends to create its own armed forces by merging those of its member states, all in order to enforce its Common Foreign and Security Policy. The safest future for Europe lies in democratic nation states co-operating with each other and in an alliance, such as NATO, of independent states set up to counter external threats. Abdicating control of our foreign, security and defence policy to the EU will, as a minimum, have unpredictable results, and potentially will be a recipe for disaster.

    I have no doubt you will not accept the above comments, in which case we'll just have to see how events unfold.



    Re: The People's side - Exactly. The people who think the same way you do. The people that are ignorant of the actual facts showing proof they are mistaken. You can indeed vote on aspirations - most political manifestos are nothing more than ambitions and hopes, many of which are not achieved. This particular aspiration was discussed as a concept. The fact it wasn't spelt out in exact terms and timeframe was that it was only an aspiration.
    The goal of the EU has always been a political and trade union between European nations. When people ignore crucial aspects of history, that does not give them licence to claim they were lied to.
    ***

    COM: So when I read political pamphlets/literature in the run-up to an election, maybe the party will achieve some, all or none of those aims. Basically, a party can say whatever it wants in order to get people's votes. If elected, they don't have to worry about implementing any of it. Is it any wonder people lose faith in politicians and why so many people don't bother voting! I really believe it was different back in 1975.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re: Sharia Law - The councils you describe cannot overrule the regular courts. There is no plan to replace UK law with Sharia Law. Are you suggesting that Muslim immigrants are not integrating with UK society? This is nothing but Islamaophobia. Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK population. The link you give has a headline "DOZENS of sharia courts are giving illegal advice" - further stating an estimated number of 85. I don't think anyone rationally minded would suggest this is evidence that UK culture, law or way of life is being in anyway eroded or damaged.
    ***

    COM: Will just have to see how it develop over the coming years.



    Re: The EU membership fee - The EU Membership fee is objectively explained here:
    https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
    That 8.5 billion buys us quite a bit. We would lose it all. You need to investigate the benefits of the EU.
    We get to be part of the single market which has increased GDP for this country.
    We get access to free trade and removal of non-tariff barriers have helped reduce costs and prices for consumers. Increased trade to the EU also creates jobs, and new business to further trade with.
    We get removal of customs barriers mean 60 million customs clearance documents per year no longer need to be completed, cutting bureaucracy and reducing costs and delivery times.
    We get the not so quantifiable benefits such as the indirect economic benefits brought in from trade, investment and import/export markets, International students, Higher education staff and student exchange, cultural and travel benefits, research cooperation, consumer protections, security and intelligence coordination (to name a few).
    We get to invest into structural funds that aim to build up the weaker economies of Europe, ultimately opening new markets, labour opportunities and trade - not to mention being a remedy to the supposed end of days problem of people all flocking to the richest cities for jobs (equality being the aim).
    We get the historic benefits, the cleaner air and beaches, the equal rights, fairer pay, and overall peace and prosperity the EU has provided.
    And we get all this for £23 million a day (due to the money we get back from our rebate, and payments made to farmer's subsidies and poorer areas of the UK like Wales and Cornwall). It's less if you count the payments made to the private sector (such as research grants) which were 1.4 billion in 2013.
    To claim that this fee is 'taxpayers money that Brussels wastes' is simply ignorant of the facts. A child can see the amount of money spent, but even expert academics struggle to quantify the benefits received. Their effects are complicated, and dynamic. But judging by the four decades of prosperity and growth since we joined, I think there is evidence we are getting good value for money.
    ***

    COM: The Single Market is questionable whether we really benefit from it. (http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/myth-and-paradox-of-the-single-market/) From Gerard Batten MEP: "The EU and the Single Market are not the same thing. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are members of the Single Market but not the EU. The EU has 28 members, the Single Market has 31. We do not need to be in either the EU or the Single Market in order to trade with member states. Many countries trade with the EU without finding it necessary to join the EU or the Single Market - for example China, India, Japan, the USA, etc. World Trade Organisation rules prevent the erecting of arbitrary or unilateral trade barriers. Outside the EU, Britain could negotiate a trade deal with the EU from a position of strength. " The EU will definitely want to trade with us, even if we are outside of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. COM: The Single Market is questionable whether we really benefit from it. (http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/myth-and-paradox-of-the-single-market/) From Gerard Batten MEP: "The EU and the Single Market are not the same thing. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are members of the Single Market but not the EU. The EU has 28 members, the Single Market has 31. We do not need to be in either the EU or the Single Market in order to trade with member states. Many countries trade with the EU without finding it necessary to join the EU or the Single Market - for example China, India, Japan, the USA, etc. World Trade Organisation rules prevent the erecting of arbitrary or unilateral trade barriers. Outside the EU, Britain could negotiate a trade deal with the EU from a position of strength. " The EU will definitely want to trade with us, even if we are outside of it.

    AND "Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a major trading nation. Outside the EU, those countries who have signed trade deals with the EU would certainly want to continue mutually beneficial trading arrangements with the UK. They would have a great incentive to quickly agree to a continuation of trade on the same, or very similar, terms. When Britain regains its seat on the WTO and control of its own international trade policy, we could also no doubt negotiate better trade deals for ourselves - as we did for hundreds of years before we joined the EU." AND bearing in mind we are now living in 2016, our negotiation skills would be that much better. I really don't understand why the EU has to negotiate on our behalf.

    (http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Briefing_1502_The%20EU%20Jobs%20Myth_web.pdf) UK's economy and the EU.

    (http://uk.businessinsider.com/reasons-why-uk-leaving-the-eu-brexit-is-a-good-idea-2015-10) If the out-camp has half-truths, so does the in-camp.

    Cleaner beaches could have been implemented by ourselves and as for cleaner air, the Clean Air Act was passed in the UK in 1956, long before we joined the European Community.



    Re: My claim your arguments are irrational - I don't wish in any way to insult you. But I stand by my comment. Thus far in this comment exchange you have claimed the UK government lied to voters, when it didn't.

    COM: Show me where I've said the UK government lied to voters. I did say they didn't tell the voters the truth, but that's not the same as lying. You should learn to read more carefully what I write and stop accusing me of saying things I haven't!



    You claimed the UK doesn't have control over it's borders when it does. You stated the UK is defenceless when it isn't. You claimed the EU is non democratic when it is - and further labelled it a dictatorship, when questioned you have been unable to specify which part is ran by a dictator.
    ***

    COM: Ok, in the true meaning of 'control of borders' we have got control of ours. Fom a layperson's point of view: free movement of people; the numbers of people that can come, the difficulty in sending people back if they commit crimes here, because of their human rights etc., leads to the impression we have no control of our borders. However, the EU can be blamed (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/22/foreign-national-offenders-revoke-human-rights-act) for the difficulty in returning criminals back to their own country if found guilty of a crime here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You claimed the UK has no influence in the EU, when it demonstrably has...

    COM: Not a great deal. It is one of the reasons why Cameron, and Blair in the past, wants as many immigrants to come to the UK, because the more populated it becomes, the more influence they will have in the Council of Ministers.



    You compared the EU courts to Parliament...

    COM: I have not to my knowledge compared EU courts to Parliament. Show me where I have done that.



    ...you have misunderstood the relationship between a country and a Supranational organisation. And when shown the achievements of the EU - you prefer to write them off as things the 'UK could have done'...

    COM: If you're talking about Ireland and The Lisbon Treaty in connection with the EU then I have not misunderstood the relationship at all. (http://www.free-europe.org/english/2008/02/what-the-treaty-of-lisbon-does/). You will find evidence here on that fact.“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
    - Former French President V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007.
    Is that how a Supranational organisation works?
    This link (https://globalpoliticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/a-historical-fact-buried-by-the-mass-media-the-eu-has-been-use-since-the-end-of-2007/), although it won't be accepted by you, does add weight to the above link. There's no smoke without fire.



    Each and every one of your claims above is ignorant of very clear facts, some of which I've done my best to point you to. Your reluctance to even acknowledge the majority of these is what leads me to conclude your opinions are not based on rational facts. You prefer to cling to an irrational hatred of the EU.
    ***

    COM: "...very clear facts..."? Anything but clear, as I have pointed out if you care to read the links properly.

    The way the EU is portrayed today, I can understand why you speak highly of it. I do not have an irrational hatred of the EU, but I can see it for what it really is, whereas you can't. The King has got no clothes. I could even describe it as a trojan horse! My evidence for this goes back to 1940 when we were still at war.

    Read (http://www.eu-facts.org/en/roots/index.html). Plenty of links describing the formation of what was to become the EU. And one of the reasons why I described the EU as being like a trojan horse has nothing to do with immigration or refugees or ISIS or any such people, but with political control of Europe on behalf of the chemical/drug Cartel - (http://www.eu-facts.org/en/alternative/index.html) a dictatorship of corporate interests. I have shown you why it's a form of dictatorship and not a true democratic organisation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: The 1975 referendum - The political issue was all that could be discussed. The entity of the European Union did not exist. How could it possibly be discussed in detail? The aspirational notion (as Professor Vernon Bogdanor puts it), was discussed. The idea of a political union with Europe.
      Your Guardian link does not support your view. It is an opinion piece discussing both Heath and Callaghan questioning of the EMU. The quote you are specifically referring to is not in reference to whether or not to join in political union - more what an economic union would be, and how would joint economic policy work.
      ***
      Re: Your supposed 'intuition' - I am unsure as to whether you are aware of the definition of irrational prejudice? Most people prefer to base an opinion on the merits of a thing based on some evidence that then informs their views. You seem to think that ignoring evidence and claiming you know better than expert views, concrete evidence and decades of fact - is somehow an acceptable position? Have you not considered that perhaps there is a reason your views are not supported by evidence?
      ***
      Re: Political corruption - Your comparison is besides the point. We can hold referendums and leave if the EU is no longer in the national interest. The idea that we have lost sovereignty is utter nonsense.
      With regards to absolute authority - you earlier claimed to understand how a supranational organisation worked. You are stating paranoia here that seem to refute that earlier claim.
      ***
      Re: Nato / EU - I think the opinion of one UKIP MEP does not add any weight whatsoever to your claims that the EU hasn't contributed to peace (the relevant point here). Batten states the 'new risks' can be countered by "cooperation between nation states" and then offering no explanation of why claims that this is contradictory to political and economic union in Europe (pretty much well described as cooperation between nation states). Another shining example of UKIP intellectualism.
      The fact you see being part of a union, or cooperation as synonymous with phrases such as abdication shows exactly the irrational prejudice I have been referring to. There simply isn't any fact supporting this view - and yet you cling to it regardless.
      ***
      Re: Pamphlets - Have you ever seen a party achieve every single one of it's manifesto aims? Have you never heard of a politician backtracking their words, breaking their promises or in general claiming a pragmatic compromise? Do you really think these are new concepts?
      ***
      Re: Sharia Law - Sharia Councils are not UK law. People who live in the UK obey UK laws or are disadvantaged or punished where appropriate. Your evidence of 85 councils is not indicative of the views of a UK Muslim population of over 2.7 million people. We will not 'just have to wait and see'. We can clearly see right now that your suggestion this is an erosion of UK culture is utterly nonsensical, and the actions of a relative few are not a justifiable description of the whole.
      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/03/muslims-integrated-britain

      Delete
    2. Re: The Single Market - By all means take one of the many benefits I list and offer an alternative view. The report on the single market looks interesting. There are differing opinions after all, the economic complexities of EU membership suggest there should be. The point is to show you that the membership fee is not wasted by Brussels (as you claim). The benefits are long, difficult to quantify for sure - but most definitely not a waste to the UK economy.
      We will always trade with Europe for sure - but leaving the EU and assuming we will negotiate a preferable agreement is no guarantee. Politically the UK will have burnt many bridges with the EU leaders, economically we need them more than they need us, and the social perception from Europe will be that the UK wants to take more and give less. Not the best diplomatic starting off point.
      ***
      Re: Your Brexit Utopian vision - All based on uncertainty. The IEA report claims "We can say with certainty that 3-4 million jobs are not at risk if the UK leaves the EU". Which is every bit as irrational as someone claiming the 3-4 million jobs (which are 'dependent' on the EU) would be lost. I think it's fair to assume that some businesses would pull out immediately
      https://next.ft.com/content/a433d6f6-fa69-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b
      Others could close or relocate due to possible disadvantageous new agreements
      http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/leaving-eu-would-cause-a-serious-shock-to-uk-economy-new-pwc-analysis/
      And some would undoubtedly be ok. The fact that the businesses themselves are worried should tell you more than what politicians are promising.
      Your business insider link is full of the recent problems affecting the EU - with little mention of the decades of prosperity and growth it has caused. Yes the stronger nations are propping up the weaker ones - that is the very point of the EU. If all the nations begin to share your opinion, then there is no union or cooperation.
      The clean air act was not a definitive law that simply made all British air perfect. There have been a series of measures, including the EU Legislation to reduce sulphur emissions by 73% between 1990 and 2002. This is worth comparing against UK attempts to block new EU legislation that would force member states to carry out surprise checks on the emissions of cars, raising fresh questions over ministers’ attitude to air pollution and their conduct in the Volkswagen scandal.
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/26/uk-tried-to-block-tougher-eu-car-emissions-tests
      You are still refusing to acknowledge any benefit the EU has given to the UK. Whatever the UK could have done - it did not, without the resources and benefit of the EU.
      ***
      Re: Borders - I don't care what the impression is among UKIP voters. We very clearly do have control of our borders. This phrase would only resonate with a person that has never passed through UK customs. With regards to the criminal point, the very article you link to leads with the line: 'The deportation of foreign nationals blocked by European legislation is a small proportion of cases but media coverage has been huge'. Are you reading these links yourself?

      Delete
    3. Re: UK influence in EU - The UK has 13% voting weight in the EU Council of Ministers (based on proportion of population). The fact that the UK does not always win the votes is (as I've said) democracy in action. It still voted on the winning side nearly 90% of the time over the past six years, according to academics at the London School of Economics.
      https://fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/
      When did you compare the courts with Parliament? You criticised the EU courts for not being democratically elected. Your link to the Daily Mail story claimed 'How absurd that the question of whether or not prisoners should get the vote rests on a decision by a supra-national court comprised of judges for whom no one has ever had the chance to vote'. Courts are not elected - they are appointed. The EU court is democratically split between member states -making it more democratic than most.
      When the quote (you gave) states 'We may kid ourselves that we live in a parliamentary democracy' - that is the comparison between the court and the Parliament. What the author means is that [he thinks] it is absurd that a foreigner decides law in the UK - which is all the Daily Mail is concerned with. A point you allude to when you say 'Neither am I. If they were elected by the people of Britain, fine; un elected bureaucrats in Brussels, not fine'. You are confusing the role of a parliament (elected representatives) and a court (appointed law makers).
      ***
      Re: Supranational organisation - I am not talking about the Lisbon treaty no. I am pointing out that you seem to think the UK is being taking over by the EU (with utterly no evidence to support your theory). The articles you are linking to (here and pretty much throughout) are all opinion pieces - they are not evidence. If you want to analyse the evidence these opinion writers are putting forward, that would be a start, but simply quoting to someone whose headline agrees with your take is getting you confused (several times you have linked to stories that do not support your points).
      ***
      Re: Your final paragraphs -
      "I do not have an irrational hatred of the EU, but I can see it for what it really is, whereas you can't". Right, well I am afraid that when you make a claim that has no evidence to back it up - and when you ignore a fair bit of evidence that suggests you are wrong, then that is an irrational hatred, whether you like it or not.
      " I have shown you why it's a form of dictatorship and not a true democratic organisation." You actually haven't. Not in one single case. You have shown me several opinion pieces that some have disagreed with your view (I assume you didn't read them), some are bigoted paranoia (with no facts themselves), and some are basing their views on confused analysis. You've given one useful report on the single market, which I will read as it looks interesting and well researched. Everything else is opinion - not evidence.
      The EU is not a dictatorship, it has no dictator. The EU is democratically organised, as is evident in its structure, and it's history. If the EU is serving corporate interests, then no worse than the UK government is (this is our point on political corruption, that you seem to think is limited to the EU).

      Delete
  11. Re: The 1975 referendum - The political issue was all that could be discussed. The entity of the European Union did not exist. How could it possibly be discussed in detail? The aspirational notion (as Professor Vernon Bogdanor puts it), was discussed. The idea of a political union with Europe.
    Your Guardian link does not support your view. It is an opinion piece discussing both Heath and Callaghan questioning of the EMU. The quote you are specifically referring to is not in reference to whether or not to join in political union - more what an economic union would be, and how would joint economic policy work.
    ***

    COM: As I said before and still maintain, your view on the political issue being nothing more than an aspirational notion was just that. Unless a person was really interested in politics, I can perfectly understand why some believed they were voting for trade only. Whilst you say it was a political issue and was being discussed, and you've shown me the evidence, there was so much confusion at that time as to exactly what 'political union' meant that the whole issue was not clear enough to enable people to make an informed choice. As nothing definite was given on the matter and the focus was on food, jobs and trade, it gave some people the mpression they were voting only on the issue of trade. The government badly wanted a 'yes' outcome. They weren't going to focus on any issue that was controversial and lead to a 'no' majority.

    The point of raising the issue of the EU is because that's what it later became. (http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7253) page 7:
    Mr Callaghan in April 1974 told EC leaders:
    “Callaghan also explained why the Government and the British people were questioning the current terms of EEC membership. They were concerned about (amongst other issues): 'The concept of a European Union, which Mr Callaghan described as quite unrealistic and not desired by our peoples, certainly not by the British people'…”
    Merely a concept back then, but still of concern to the government for them to raise it with the EC leaders. Who would have thought back then that political union would become what it is today. Had they known that so many powers would be taken away from the UK and centralised within Brussels and that so many European laws would override British Law, the outcome would have been so very different. People who believed that it would lead to that, without evidence, would be classed as irrational by you but, nonetheless, it's happened or in the course of happening.




    Re: Your supposed 'intuition' - I am unsure as to whether you are aware of the definition of irrational prejudice? Most people prefer to base an opinion on the merits of a thing based on some evidence that then informs their views. You seem to think that ignoring evidence and claiming you know better than expert views, concrete evidence and decades of fact - is somehow an acceptable position? Have you not considered that perhaps there is a reason your views are not supported by evidence?
    ***

    COM: As I've explained previously and in my above comments, 'evidence' is not always apparent. I question the fact that the EU is getting bigger and bigger; accepts everybody and anybody; takes away powers from member states and centralises them within Brussels. Banking, taxation, pensions – all being controlled by Brussels, or soon will be. We will be left totally dependent on them and that is not a good thing. If you can't see the dangers in this, without evidence telling you it's dangerous, well, in time, you'll find that out for yourself.

    ReplyDelete

  12. Re: Political corruption - Your comparison is besides the point. We can hold referendums and leave if the EU is no longer in the national interest. The idea that we have lost sovereignty is utter nonsense. 
    With regards to absolute authority - you earlier claimed to understand how a supranational organisation worked. You are stating paranoia here that seem to refute that earlier claim.
    ***

    COM: If you set up an organisation that you know is going to cause controversy, which you don't want, you will initially make it acceptable to people, with there being no evidence to show its real controversial nature. When the time is right and when it's too late for anything to be done about it, it's true nature will be revealed. I give it 5 years before you start to see the real controversial nature of Brussels/EU. Obviously they are not going to lay their real plans out in black-and-white evidence.

    You say “we can hold referendums and leave if the EU is no longer in the national interest.” Can we indeed? Be interesting to see what happens if the OUTERS win the Referendum. It won't be the result the EU will want. So they won't accept it. The same as they didn't with the Dutch-Ukraine issue.




    Re: Nato / EU - I think the opinion of one UKIP MEP does not add any weight whatsoever to your claims that the EU hasn't contributed to peace (the relevant point here). Batten states the 'new risks' can be countered by "cooperation between nation states" and then offering no explanation of why claims that this is contradictory to political and economic union in Europe (pretty much well described as cooperation between nation states). Another shining example of UKIP intellectualism. 
    The fact you see being part of a union, or cooperation as synonymous with phrases such as abdication shows exactly the irrational prejudice I have been referring to. There simply isn't any fact supporting this view - and yet you cling to it regardless.
    ***

    COM: It's a matter of commonsense. When the government gives up its defences (Cameron is making redundant all of ours, or soon will be), at a time when they're needed the most (in view of the Paris and Brussels' attacks and the fact that London was told it would be next), calling it an irrational prejudice is totally foolhardy.




    Re: Pamphlets - Have you ever seen a party achieve every single one of it's manifesto aims? Have you never heard of a politician backtracking their words, breaking their promises or in general claiming a pragmatic compromise? Do you really think these are new concepts?
    ***

    COM: That's why I never had any interest in politics until 2009 and if it wasn't for UKIP, I still wouldn't.



    Re: Sharia Law - Sharia Councils are not UK law. People who live in the UK obey UK laws or are disadvantaged or punished where appropriate. Your evidence of 85 councils is not indicative of the views of a UK Muslim population of over 2.7 million people. We will not 'just have to wait and see'. We can clearly see right now that your suggestion this is an erosion of UK culture is utterly nonsensical, and the actions of a relative few are not a justifiable description of the whole. 
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/03/muslims-integrated-britain

    COM: I'll take your evidence for it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Re: The Single Market - By all means take one of the many benefits I list and offer an alternative view. The report on the single market looks interesting. There are differing opinions after all, the economic complexities of EU membership suggest there should be. The point is to show you that the membership fee is not wasted by Brussels (as you claim). The benefits are long, difficult to quantify for sure - but most definitely not a waste to the UK economy. 
    We will always trade with Europe for sure - but leaving the EU and assuming we will negotiate a preferable agreement is no guarantee. Politically the UK will have burnt many bridges with the EU leaders, economically we need them more than they need us, and the social perception from Europe will be that the UK wants to take more and give less. Not the best diplomatic starting off point. 
    ***

    COM: The EU is in the midst of a great struggle to keep it together, which is probably why it needs the UK so badly. If we do leave, other countries will follow suit and that will definitely lead to the collapse of the EU. Whilst the EU has done some good, and I acknowledge that, the downside far outweighs the good. When an organisation starts using force to enforce what it wants, it's on a very slippery slope. When people are ignored, their frustrations will sooner or later erupt into violence, which we are seeing happening around the world - and the blame lies fairly and squarely with the EU, who panders to the multinationals and big corporations. You may well say that each member state has its own representative but when those representatives act in their own interests instead of the interests of their country, it won't be long before real violence and trouble erupts.




    Re: Your Brexit Utopian vision - All based on uncertainty. The IEA report claims "We can say with certainty that 3-4 million jobs are not at risk if the UK leaves the EU". Which is every bit as irrational as someone claiming the 3-4 million jobs (which are 'dependent' on the EU) would be lost. I think it's fair to assume that some businesses would pull out immediately
    https://next.ft.com/content/a433d6f6-fa69-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b
    Others could close or relocate due to possible disadvantageous new agreements
    http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/leaving-eu-would-cause-a-serious-shock-to-uk-economy-new-pwc-analysis/
    And some would undoubtedly be ok. The fact that the businesses themselves are worried should tell you more than what politicians are promising. 
    Your business insider link is full of the recent problems affecting the EU - with little mention of the decades of prosperity and growth it has caused. Yes the stronger nations are propping up the weaker ones - that is the very point of the EU. If all the nations begin to share your opinion, then there is no union or cooperation. 
    The clean air act was not a definitive law that simply made all British air perfect. There have been a series of measures, including the EU Legislation to reduce sulphur emissions by 73% between 1990 and 2002. This is worth comparing against UK attempts to block new EU legislation that would force member states to carry out surprise checks on the emissions of cars, raising fresh questions over ministers’ attitude to air pollution and their conduct in the Volkswagen scandal.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/26/uk-tried-to-block-tougher-eu-car-emissions-tests
    You are still refusing to acknowledge any benefit the EU has given to the UK. Whatever the UK could have done - it did not, without the resources and benefit of the EU. 
    ***

    ReplyDelete
  14. COM: I have acknowledged the good the EU has done. I'm not disputing it. As for businesses, much is based on irrational prejudices or, as with the CBI (as an example), they receive grants from the EU – and let's face it, you don't bite the hand that feeds you!!! Where payments, grants, money are concerned, people have no honour (especially if a business). And this brings me on to jobs. How many jobs have been lost, businesses closed down or ruined since being in the EU? You may well argue that that was down to our government, not the EU, but the government had to make cuts in order to send the EU its money. When a representative of a country puts the EU first, over and above its own country, all 'respect' for that representative – whatever little there was – is simply blown away.




    Re: Borders - I don't care what the impression is among UKIP voters. We very clearly do have control of our borders. This phrase would only resonate with a person that has never passed through UK customs. With regards to the criminal point, the very article you link to leads with the line: 'The deportation of foreign nationals blocked by European legislation is a small proportion of cases but media coverage has been huge'. Are you reading these links yourself?

    COM: The article highlights the stupidity of the Human Rights Act in not being able to deport criminals on account of some ridiculous European legislation. You need to read the whole article to realise that!




    Re: UK influence in EU - The UK has 13% voting weight in the EU Council of Ministers (based on proportion of population). The fact that the UK does not always win the votes is (as I've said) democracy in action. It still voted on the winning side nearly 90% of the time over the past six years, according to academics at the London School of Economics.
    https://fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/
    When did you compare the courts with Parliament? You criticised the EU courts for not being democratically elected. Your link to the Daily Mail story claimed 'How absurd that the question of whether or not prisoners should get the vote rests on a decision by a supra-national court comprised of judges for whom no one has ever had the chance to vote'. Courts are not elected - they are appointed. The EU court is democratically split between member states -making it more democratic than most. 
    When the quote (you gave) states 'We may kid ourselves that we live in a parliamentary democracy' - that is the comparison between the court and the Parliament. What the author means is that [he thinks] it is absurd that a foreigner decides law in the UK - which is all the Daily Mail is concerned with. A point you allude to when you say 'Neither am I. If they were elected by the people of Britain, fine; un elected bureaucrats in Brussels, not fine'. You are confusing the role of a parliament (elected representatives) and a court (appointed law makers). 
    ***

    COM: I am sure the French or Germans would be more than happy for us, the British, to determine laws in their country and start telling them how they should live their lives. I think not! In all honesty, you're not going to find anyone who really cares about his or her country to be happy having a foreigner telling them how they should live and enforcing laws to that effect. It would lead to WW3.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cameron wants more voting weight/influence. He'll only get it by increasing the UK's population by whatever means. Whatever those 90% of the winning votes were that Cameron voted for, one wonders how beneficial or otherwise they would have been for the UK. Figures don't mean anything to me. I would prefer to know exactly what it was he voted on and whether or not it would have benefited the UK. Cameron is very good at lying. His so-called “deal” for Britain was a complete and utter shambles, yet he made out he had achieved something wonderful that would go down in history. (In the wrong job. Should have been a comedian.) It turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on. Strangely, Nigel Farage said that that was exactly what would happen a year before it did!
    The introduction of the red card, which I believe Cameron believes is a 'special' card, but isn't – (http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/red-card-red-herring/) not according to this report.



    Re: Supranational organisation - I am not talking about the Lisbon treaty no. I am pointing out that you seem to think the UK is being taking over by the EU (with utterly no evidence to support your theory). The articles you are linking to (here and pretty much throughout) are all opinion pieces - they are not evidence. If you want to analyse the evidence these opinion writers are putting forward, that would be a start, but simply quoting to someone whose headline agrees with your take is getting you confused (several times you have linked to stories that do not support your points). 
    ***

    COM: You are either misreading the links I've quoted or not understanding the context in which they were quoted, as with the Human Rights Act.
    When an organisation takes over, or starts to take over, key areas of a country's set-up, ie. banking, pensions, taxes etc., making that country dependent on it and replacing that country's defences with its own, one has to ask why. It's not for the good of the country. So who's going to benefit from it? Why would Brussels want to go to such lengths?
    NATO is a Supranational organisation, but doesn't take over people's lives the way the EU does. It hasn't set itself up to be a superpower, the way the EU has. It's been claimed that the reason the EU was originally set up was to stop wars between major countries and thought if they established it on a trade issue that countries would be less willing to fight one another. Oh yes, Germany is the dominant factor in all of this. A country that started WW2 with its unprovoked attack on Poland. Personally, I'd rather have NATO doing its job of keeping the peace and for the political aspect of the EU never to have come into existence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Re: Your final paragraphs -
    "I do not have an irrational hatred of the EU, but I can see it for what it really is, whereas you can't". Right, well I am afraid that when you make a claim that has no evidence to back it up - and when you ignore a fair bit of evidence that suggests you are wrong, then that is an irrational hatred, whether you like it or not. 

    COM: Where does the evidence come from is what I'm interested in. I know you quote FullFacts, but HOW do they get their 'evidence'? Is it from the EU's website? Or from any of the websites dealing with the political/european union, or from some independence source? WHERE does that evidence come from? In fairness, we can all read an organisation's website to find out more. It only tells you what it wants you to know, it's not evidence of anything.

    I have shown you why it's a form of dictatorship and not a true democratic organisation." You actually haven't. Not in one single case. You have shown me several opinion pieces that some have disagreed with your view (I assume you didn't read them), some are bigoted paranoia (with no facts themselves), and some are basing their views on confused analysis. You've given one useful report on the single market, which I will read as it looks interesting and well researched. Everything else is opinion - not evidence. 
    The EU is not a dictatorship, it has no dictator. The EU is democratically organised, as is evident in its structure, and it's history. If the EU is serving corporate interests, then no worse than the UK government is (this is our point on political corruption, that you seem to think is limited to the EU). 

    COM: I never said corruption was limited to the EU and I do read all my links. You have either misread them, as you did previously, or mis-understood them in the context they were written. I sometimes do show both sides of the debate, not just my own – doesn't mean to say I haven't read the link. With 'evidence' I need to know where it comes from. Is it truly impartial? If it comes from the organisation's own website, I wouldn't call it impartial, not even evidence.

    This has been a worthwhile debate and, from both sides, we have said all we can on the matter. Your knowledge on the workings of the EU is a lot more extensive than mine. I have a tendency to class it all EU. People in general would understand what I'm talking about, but not if I talked about the Council of Ministers etc. You obviously don't believe intuition, because it's not based on evidence, just an inner knowing, which is hard to prove until it happens. However, many do know what I'm talking about, because they have experienced it and Nigel Farage has spoken many times of the way things would go if the EU didn't take steps to stop it, usually a year or even longer, before it happened. His debate with Nick Clegg and the setting up of an EU Army – which Clegg knew nothing about – but nonetheless, it's now beginning to happen, despite lack of evidence back then. So you carry on accepting 'evidence', and taking note of 'experts' for your information but in five years' time, you're going to see a very different EU (if it manages to survive that long) and you will begin to question just how valid 'evidence' really is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The simple fact is, that given a wealth of evidence, as objective and varied as I can find them for you (Fullfact is just one source I've used - it's independent and objective, they list their sources on each link) - you choose to refute ALL of it. You haven't offered any evidence on many of your points (most point to opinion columns), and the little you have is often contradictory to your points.

      So in addition to not believing the facts, you offer nothing by way of rebuttal other than your own 'intuition'. Of course your opinion isn't rational.

      I will carry on basing my opinion on facts, and a mix of sources on both sides. You are of course free to continue to believe whatever you want, but when you can't acknowledge evidence that is put infront of you - I would seriously start to question why you have the opinions you do. As with most UKIP supporters I would suggest from the points you have raised on Europe, Muslims and immigration that you are in favour of them only as they provide simplistic arguments that are often taken outside of their full economic context (such as immigration, such as EU membership benefits/cons) and use them to appeal to people that are ignorant of the whole picture, and are willing to adopt their views as they coincide with existing prejudices.

      Delete
    2. I'll give it 5 years maximum and you are going to see with your own eyes what the EU has become, assuming we're in it, or it hasn't collapsed completely.

      From the horse's mouth himself, Juncker : (http://www.euractiv.com/section/science-policymaking/news/juncker-admits-europeans-have-lost-faith-in-the-eu/) admitting people have lost faith in the European project due to too much interference from them in their lives. Something which you quite clearly fail to appreciate.

      Finally, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/uk-obliged-judgments-of-european-courts-official-document-from-m/?utm_content=buffer8a68b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer) - UK 'obliged' to accept judgments of European courts, official document from ministers ahead of EU referendum reveals.

      I will never ever understand how anyone would rather have unelected bureaucrats running their lives for which they can't do anything about, as opposed to electing one's own representatives to act for them on their behalf. Cameron owes his allegiance to Merkel, not to the people of Britain. He is not a prime minister in the true sense, because he doesn't run this country. He has been demoted to nothing more than a 'glorified manager', taking his orders from Merkel.

      Delete
    3. You can give it 10 years or 100 years, if you don't base your assumptions on rational facts then anything that happens to support your points will be largely coincidence.

      Again you show your ignorance of how the EU works. We don't have unelected bureaucrats 'running our lives' (at least anymore than we have in the UK). We elect our heads of state that form the European Council - this decides the overall direction and political strategies of the EU. We elect the MEPs that form the EU parliament that pass EU law and ratify agreements. The EU commission acts as the equivalent of our civil service (which is also not elected). Having a non elected commission that swears an oath to be independent ensures that commissioners do not act solely in the interests of their resident country. It proposes new laws - but these laws have to be passed by the elected parliament.

      By commissioners remaining neutral from the political system and swearing an oath - the design is that the EU's interests are served rather than politicians acting in the interests of their constituents and being only concerned with re-election. They are changed every five years, proposed by the council and elected by the Parliament. They are part of a democratic system, just not one that you vote for. It's a complicated system, but I think it works better one large parliament. Finally the court of justice we have mentioned before. It's made up of one appointed judge from each member state. Designed to stop one country getting a monopoly of power.

      The EU is undoubtedly democratic. People that criticise this issue can't prove otherwise - they simply don't want to be part of a supranational cooperation. They also seem blissfully unaware that the 21st century actually requires international cooperation. If you want to follow an isolationist model of politics that's your business, but be aware that even nations like Iran and Cuba that previously did are realising they cannot continue, North Korea is virtually the only state that wants no or very few positive relations. Fine precedents of the international community you are picking for a Brexit to emulate...

      To suggest Cameron owes his allegiance to Merkel is simply ridiculous. I don't think Cameron is a very good Prime Minister, and I don't think he is putting the interests of the majority of the country ahead of the interests of the few rich that he represents - but that is a Tory government issue, nothing to do with the EU.

      If you think a world leader should have no influence from other powerful nations - then I am afraid you have no idea how international politics works in the 21st century. That doesn't mean our leaders 'owe alleigance' or are 'glorified managers'. It means they are subject to cooperation and compromise - which will be the situation in or out of the EU. Again you are using your own ignorance as reasons to leave, a small amount of research would allow you to see how incorrect your assumptions are.

      Delete
    4. My assumptions are not irrational. The EU wants to be a superstate and is already working towards that goal with the creation of its EU Army, Police state, etc. etc. It is setting itself up to become the United States of Europe. Martin Schultz said "US have one currency, one Central Bank and one Govt. Europe has one currency, one Central Bank and...17 govts! Cannot go on like this." As you will find no evidence in support, allow me to spell out my thinking to you: The EU has one currency, one Central Bank. It now needs just one government. It's just a matter of time before Parliament / Westminster, as we know it, ceases to exist and be taken over by Brussels.

      Juncker has already said the EU / Brussels interferes too much in everybody's lives, which is making the European project more and more unpopular. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the repesentatives of the Member states ignores their people, they do so at their peril. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, the EU must come first. I accept the reason for this, but do not accept that the EU should be put first. When there is great dissatisfaction with the citizens within the EU, as there is now, with demonstrations involving over 100,000 people in each individual state, then the people should be put first. Since this is not going to happen, I really don't see the EU surviving.

      I wish you would stop saying I said or insinuated things I never did. I admitted you know more about the workings of the EU and Council of Ministers etc. than I do. I admitted I intend placing it all under the heading EU. BUT never said I didn't like being part of a 'supranational cooperation'. I don't know where you got that from. I simply said that NATO is a supranational organisation and they don't control our lives the way the EU does. Neither did I mention anything about 'isolation politics'. You're assuming that is what will happen if we're lucky enough to get Brexit. A country can enter into cooperation, without being fully integrated, with other countries. We will remain with NATO, but without the political control. I'm all for cooperation and compromise, but not control.

      IG Farben goes right back to 1940 (http://www.eu-facts.org/en/roots/index.html), perhaps even further back than that (The IG Farben/Nazi coalition plans for a “New Europe”). I think one of the documents mentions as far back as 1936. I can understand why they want to set themselves up as a superstate, but not at the cost of freedom!

      Finally, in connection with trade, you said Member states are told what deals are made and they vote on it; nothing is ever done behind closed doors. I disagree. And the evidence for that is with TTIP between the EU and US.

      Delete
    5. Actually I said 'The EU is undoubtedly democratic. People that criticise this issue can't prove otherwise - they simply don't want to be part of a supranational cooperation.' I did however insinuate you, as you allude at several points to the EU not being a democratic organisation. I would suggest from your first two paragraphs above (not to mention your previous posts), that you clearly don't want to be part of supranational cooperation, as you have assumed the EU is slowly assuming sovereign power over it's nation states. There is no evidence to support this. Each time you choose to ignore the facts, you simply sound more ignorant - I'm sorry I've no wish to insult you, but you aren't sounding rational in any way.

      If you think the EU controls the UK - then (again) you don't understand what a supranational organisation is. When you look these issues up - does it not disturb you that there are no objective sources to confirm your opinion? I'm wondering how you decide to ignore all the evidence available and cling to fear and paranoia that is entirely unfounded?

      I have no idea why you think you don't have freedom within the EU. You haven't been able to point to a single part of the structure that takes it away? What is it that makes you assume this?
      I suspect as I said above - that what you really mean, is that you don't like any foreign interference in your affairs (you admitted before you don't like being told what to do [by foreigners]). You think the EU isn't democratic because the UK doesn't get it's way all the time. You think the EU is 'ignoring the people' - when what you actually mean is ignoring the people with your opinion. You don't like the EU, and you don't actually have a rational reason as to why (you certainly haven't been able to give one in this lengthy exchange). It's this attitude that reinforces my comments above - it's not the democratic argument that bothers you, it's the fact that democracy consists of people that aren't British.

      On TTIP - I'm afraid to inform you that almost all Free Trade agreements are conducted in secret. I never claimed deals weren't conducted with transparency - in this respect (again) the EU differs in no way from other nations. Brexit arguments seem to think that TTIP is a good reason to leave the EU. This is a flawed argument for several reasons: For starters we could still find ourselves subject to it - depending on the negotiation of a proposed Brexit and the terms agreed. Secondly - our government (under any likely party) would push for it in some form or another (by their own admission in their party manifestos). If not named TTIP, a similar worded agreement for sure. Finally - replacing FTAs with the EU with dozens of smaller FTAs around the world (as Brexit claim would be a superior economic choice to trading through the EU single market), could lead to dozens of TTIP esque deals creating worse economic trade conditions as far as our public services and assets are concerned.

      The UK is pushing TTIP as much as any country in Europe. Every party in the UK with a sizeable presence in parliament favours it. If you think a vote for Breixt is to remove TTIP you are kidding yourself.

      This is a link to an opinion piece that lists reasons why TTIP is not a good reason to Brexit:
      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no-we-cant-protect-ourselves-from-ttip-by-leaving-europe-heres-why-a6853876.html
      This is a list of the UK party's stance on TTIP from their manifestos last year:
      http://www.waronwant.org/media/ttip-and-2015-election-where-do-parties-stand

      Even UKIP are for TTIP. Not in name, and standing out against it for sure... but you will find that they are for the contents of the agreement, just not the fact it's being negotiated by the EU. This combined with Farage's unclear position on privitisation of the NHS makes for worrying policy from a consistently worrying party.

      Brexit is by far the riskier option if TTIP is a concern.

      Delete
  17. I have read the above claims agaisnt Brexit and the following comments. The given report does not provide factual information and could mislead many people. Paragraph 1. The 1973 referendume was illegal. The electorate were intentionally misled. Had the situation with the EEC/EU have been as it is now - no-one would have voted for it! Much of the activities of the EU are carried out in secret - the treaties to which the report referes to were not made public, now were the effects of those treaties made known to the electorate - they only found out much later! it is the right of the people to be fully informed of any governmental changes that may affect them, and they are rightfully allowed to vote on these procedures. This has been denied to the people!
    Para. 2. The people were informed that this Union was for a single market. Far from being a single market - that proved to be unsuccessful - it ws proved that a global market was necessary to maintain our balance of payments. Stability? When there is so much dissent among the member countries? Prosperity? When the GDP has been steadily and constantly reducing from the time we joined? Democracy? When member counties are forced by the EU into procedures that they neither wanted and that were unnecessary? Democracy? When hundreds of EU policies objected to by British ministers were passed without further discussion with those ministers?
    Para 3. So before the EU, the UK had nothing to do with the rest of Europe?
    Para 4. It has been shown that a Union of countries cannot perform efficiently. The whole infrastructure of every single country has been made far more complex, with far more administrative issues involved, creating complete chaos and a plethora of errors. The US became a union State more than 400 years ago - the politics of the US leave much to be desired, it is not the success story that it would have people beleive. It is not a desirable situation that would be good for Europe - exhorbitantly increasing national debt, extrememly high crime rates, poor health services, etc.,
    Para 5. Speaks for itself - single governance in countries worldwide have shown that the countries are far more successfully managed. The UK does not want to rely on 27 other countries having to agree to the laws and policies that it wishes to introduce!
    The report does not even mention that our industries were forced to close in order to support this claimed single market! That millions of people were thrown out of work - a situation that still has not been resolved - for there are now more out of work than ever before in UK history! The report fails to mention the importance of our fishing industry and how this has been sold out due to the EU arrangements. There is no mention of our steel industry - how this has been allowed to deteriorate due to the EU policies! There is no mention of the immigrants enticed to Europe by the EU to create a ower paid workforce! The most damaging effects of belonging to the EU - is that it has appeared to assume that as a Union of Countries it has sufficient power to interfere in other nations affairs. The EU has been to the forefront of the unrest in the Gulf States and has continually goaded Russia! This does not bode well for the UK, a christian country where peace is paramount. It is wrong! The EU is wrong! it's policies are far too intrusive in to everyones lives!

    ReplyDelete