Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

IMF join in; 3 of the top 5 sources of finance and vote holders - USA, Germany and France. Interests, interests, interests.

Both sides are spouting BS - figures and fear. Whether we remain or leave, neither know what will happen in the future. Personally, I think the UK is on a different path; unlikely to replace the Pound with the Euro and not moving toward Europa - the EU is a vision of Europe, it isn't Europe. Sometimes, even though you love each other, you have to move on. Even if the result in June is remain, I feel somewhere down the line the UK will leave; the divergence becoming too much. But I can't say to someone, this will happen and you are wrong.

With regard to not doing something because of difficulty and uncertainty; raising children, taking to the seas, sky, and space etc.? It's a wonder some people get out of bed.

As a whole I don't think security and trade are issues:

Security - Re terrorism in the UK, what difference? Europol blocking the UK? Any block would be met in kind. Europe and World wide? NATO v EU, and I don't see it being the latter.

Trade - If someone makes a decent return from you, they'll trade. Are Germany and France going to give up their healthy slices of GBP 60 Billion surplus? Despite the white flag waving from Remain, it isn't just the EU who can impose tariffs, the UK can, if it wishes, return fire should the EU play silly buggers. Product regulation also goes both ways. At worst I see a different mix of businesses - some old gone, some new sprout. Of course this is where an issue arises on an individual basis - e.g. someone fearing for their job.

Immigration:

Those violently opposed to any immigration on one side, open door supporters on the other, major parties not dealing with valid concerns - all part of the problem. Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrats all helped bolster/create space for UKIP.

My take/two cents:

You are told anyone using the nearest city's main train station can come and stay at your home. People start arriving - most are helpful, but some are troublemakers and you wish you could get rid of them. As your place fills, you begin building an extension, but you can't build it fast enough. You can't keep up with the rate at which people are arriving - conditions worsen.

Alternatively, you decide who comes to stay and can choose a rate which allows you to deal with the numbers. You match the people to the jobs you need doing, reduce the number of troublemakers, and can complete extensions before the place fills.

If we leave, there is no guarantee we will get our act together - better control re matching immigration to our needs and resources, but there is a chance. If we stay in the EU, we remain unable to control one component.

For my part, at the moment, I'm for Leave; because I believe we are on a different path and don't see the point in hanging around, don't see a problem re security and trade, and would like more control re immigration from a common sense point of view.

Cheers,

OW

I think the Brexiters are either naively or cynically ignoring the European perspective on a UK exit.  We see the EU as being purely about trade; from a European perspective it is much more about politics and the European vision.  That's not to say that there are not other EU countries (Greece and Spain) that have reason to consider their own membership, indeed, there are, and this is the very reason why I think that, regardless of whether it makes it more difficult to ship wine and BMW's to the UK, the French and the Germans will make 'an example' of the UK and make it extremely difficult for us to negotiate both an exit and a new trade deal.

Hi Bluedog,

I'm not sure Brexiters or the Eurinators see the EU purely about trade; the EU blindly pushing toward Europa and batting away common sense and democracy if they dare get in the way is probably one of the big turn offs. As for the EU's wrath, it isn't a reason to stay.

Cheers,

OW

I saw an interview  earlier where it was claimed that the impact of exit would be 10% of gdp. The host reacted with incredulity asking if it would really be worse than the great crash, than the impact of the first world war etc etc but we won't see that reported, we will just see the initial claim of 10%. The government has used all of its influence and all of its resources to support staying in, even though a fair few former senior members support brexit, and still the message they push is one of fear. Surely there must be something  positive about staying in?

OscillateWildly posted:

Hi Bluedog,

I'm not sure Brexiters or the Eurinators see the EU purely about trade; the EU blindly pushing toward Europa and batting away common sense and democracy if they dare get in the way is probably one of the big turn offs. As for the EU's wrath, it isn't a reason to stay.

Cheers,

OW

dayjay posted:

I saw an interview  earlier where it was claimed that the impact of exit would be 10% of gdp. The host reacted with incredulity asking if it would really be worse than the great crash, than the impact of the first world war etc etc but we won't see that reported, we will just see the initial claim of 10%. The government has used all of its influence and all of its resources to support staying in, even though a fair few former senior members support brexit, and still the message they push is one of fear. Surely there must be something  positive about staying in?

Indeed. We keep 20 days statutory holiday, maternity leave, competition legislation, investment, European workers paying tax...

Just over a month to go, thank goodness. 

Hi Hungryhalibut,

Wouldn't a Labour government cement the legislation?

Good weekend,

OW

dayjay posted:

I saw an interview  earlier where it was claimed that the impact of exit would be 10% of gdp. The host reacted with incredulity asking if it would really be worse than the great crash, than the impact of the first world war etc etc but we won't see that reported, we will just see the initial claim of 10%. The government has used all of its influence and all of its resources to support staying in, even though a fair few former senior members support brexit, and still the message they push is one of fear. Surely there must be something  positive about staying in?

I suppose that claiming that Britain (not necessarily you or me as specific individuals, but country as a whole) will be better off, safer and stronger if we remain in the EU than if we leave, doesn't constitute "something positive" ? I happen to think it IS a positive outlook. (not sure it is realistic, but it is positive !)

The "negative" Team would have claimed that "if we leave the EU we will be worse-off, insecure and have no influence in global affairs"

Hungryhalibut posted:

dayjay posted:

I saw an interview  earlier where it was claimed that the impact of exit would be 10% of gdp. The host reacted with incredulity asking if it would really be worse than the great crash, than the impact of the first world war etc etc but we won't see that reported, we will just see the initial claim of 10%. The government has used all of its influence and all of its resources to support staying in, even though a fair few former senior members support brexit, and still the message they push is one of fear. Surely there must be something  positive about staying in?

Indeed. We keep 20 days statutory holiday, maternity leave, competition legislation, investment, European workers paying tax...

Just over a month to go, thank goodness. 

We already have most of those things Nigel and I haven't seen anyone who supports leaving suggesting that we lost them

We have as much a chance of winning Eurovision as we have of winning the World Cup.  Astonishing how popular we are across Europe, apart from with politicians and members of large financial institutions of course.

Boris has finally made my mind up with him saying Hitler & Napoleon had failed at unification and the EU was "an attempt to do this by different methods".        Thanks Boris but I don't  want loony toones in my politics on 23 June  ........... I get the feeling the other Brexit group leaders & Farage are wishing Boris would take his rambling gibberish & go play somewhere else,  problem is none of them appear to be standing up & giving us a more level headed pitch,  or do they want him to be the Brexit mouthpiece.  The added danger is when Our Dave moves over as we get closer to 2020,  Gorgeous George seems to have lost favour & its very likely the Eurosceptics & bruised Brexits will win the vote for PM Boris.  I might go vote MRLP as at least they do what they say on the label.    

The following abstract from a UK Civil Aviation Authority Information Notice (IN) does, IMHO, illustrate some of the absurd "administration" situations that we have to cope with as part of the EU

1 Introduction

1.1 This IN is intended to notify publication of ORS4 No. 1163 “UK Licence Validation Requirements for Holders of ICAO Annex 1 Flight Crew Licences” which provides a general exemption from the requirements of Annex III to Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011.

1.2 Due to pressure on the EU legislative programme, there has been a delay in the actions necessary to permit the UK CAA to extend the derogation from Annex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011, which expires on 8 April 2016.  The UK has therefore issued a general exemption, under Article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 for the period 8 April – 7 May 2016, in the terms outlined below.  After this period, European Legislation will be in place permitting the UK to derogate from Annex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011 into 2017.

2 Scope

2.1 The Civil Aviation Authority, on behalf of the United Kingdom, pursuant to article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008, has exempted any holder of a pilot  licence issued by a third country in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention who intends to operate a non-commercial flight in an aircraft registered in a Third Country from the requirements of paragraph A of Annex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011. 

2.2 The Civil Aviation Authority, on behalf of the United Kingdom, pursuant to article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008, has also exempted any holder of a pilot licence issued by a third country in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention who intends to operate a non-commercial flight in an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, from the requirements of paragraph A of Annex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011.

Appart from being virtually unreadable, it illustrates how slow the EU admin processes are, how inflexible the EU can be, how each Nation can (and has to) develop its own "derogations" from EU Standards in order to actually function sensibly, how the EU has developed its own rules which are often at variance with Global Rules (in this case ICAO - the International Civil Aviation Organisation" and how the UK has to introduce a "derogation to an existing derogation" to overcome a one-month delay by the EU !!!!

I bet Sir Humphry would be delighted to transfer to Brussels. Talk about useless jobs.

Woe unto ye lawyers...

''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'' - Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI"

(Yes, it's actually out of context, but it's so good that way.)

Mike-B posted:

Boris has finally made my mind up with him saying Hitler & Napoleon had failed at unification and the EU was "an attempt to do this by different methods".        Thanks Boris but I don't  want loony toones in my politics on 23 June  ...........     

Agreed, Mike. In fact I'd rather not have this sort of rhetoric in our politics full stop. Boris seems increasingly to be modelling himself as a UK Trump. 

A two part BBC documentary about the UK's relationship with Europe, presented by Sgt. Bilko (a.k.a. Nick Robinson)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e...us-1-an-island-apart

dunno what they're like i haven't watched them yet,

it's nice outside and i can feel bike ride coming on....

Frank F posted:

I was seconded to the Commission some years ago and my own view based on my experience is that remaining in EU is essentially a good idea but only once the Commission has had its' wings severely clipped, the Federal integration targets are removed and other countries wake up to the potential of German domination. Cameron failed miserably in his attempt to re-negotiate but is it not too late to negotiate with other disgruntled EU States to make bigger changes and to alter the Treaty?

 

Frank, I think in general I agree.

First, Cameron was pathetic in terms of his initial proposals and in his "success". He was even more pathetic in the tone of his negotiations, turning them into "demands" and "exceptions" unique to the UK rather than as beneficial reforms for the entire EU.

Secondly, the Commission needs to be cut down to size and become the efficient implimentor of EU Parliamentary decisions and National derogations.

Thirdly, the UK could take the lead to reform the Treaty. But it will require a far more charismatic and statesman-like leader than Cameron for this to be effective. (no, Boris doesn't fit the bill either !!) OTOH, such a move doesn't need to happen immediately, so time for a new leader to emerge.

Mike-B posted:

Boris has finally made my mind up with him saying Hitler & Napoleon had failed at unification and the EU was "an attempt to do this by different methods".        Thanks Boris but I don't  want loony toones in my politics on 23 June  ........... I get the feeling the other Brexit group leaders & Farage are wishing Boris would take his rambling gibberish & go play somewhere else,  problem is none of them appear to be standing up & giving us a more level headed pitch,  or do they want him to be the Brexit mouthpiece.  The added danger is when Our Dave moves over as we get closer to 2020,  Gorgeous George seems to have lost favour & its very likely the Eurosceptics & bruised Brexits will win the vote for PM Boris.  I might go vote MRLP as at least they do what they say on the label.    

Those who reacted to the interview - media/social media - took it to another level.

Cheers,

OW

Frank F posted:

I was seconded to the Commission some years ago and my own view based on my experience is that remaining in EU is essentially a good idea but only once the Commission has had its' wings severely clipped, the Federal integration targets are removed and other countries wake up to the potential of German domination. Cameron failed miserably in his attempt to re-negotiate but is it not too late to negotiate with other disgruntled EU States to make bigger changes and to alter the Treaty?

 

Somewhere down the line something gives, but which way?

USA - a state is achieved,

Czechoslovakia - peaceful separation,

Yugoslavia - violent separation.

Cheers,

OW

out out out then many will follow who want a super state run by germany

I read somewhere that the Out campaign believe that grammar and punctuation are a concept foisted upon us by Johnny Foreigner.

Frank F posted:

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English". In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the"k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter. In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen ve vil tak over ze vorld!

 Apologies to our German friends but not to Angela

 

 

brilliant.

The behaviour, language and level of debate coming from some politicians this week has sunk to a disturbingly low level.

In no particular order, I have not been impressed with :-

• David Cameron
• Sidiq Khan
• Donald Trump
• Boris Johnson
• Zak Goldsmith

Given the importance of our relationship with the EU (either IN or OUT) and our relationship with the USA, I had expected a far more informed and statesman-like debate about our future. Instead we seem to have senior politicians behaving worse that spoilt children.

Most of them are only in it for themselves, with little concern for the longer term. Trump and Johnson will say whatever they think will make them popular, Goldsmith is an idiot, and Cameron is terrified of his rabid right wing. That leaves Sadiq Khan, who has acquitted himself rather well. Future leader? We'll see. But at least he has some principles, unlike the other four. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Most of them are only in it for themselves, with little concern for the longer term.

This is the reason I don't understand the exiteers bleating on about democracy.

What is the better option.

Laws/policies implemented by somebody who does so for the good of themselves or political party. IE democratically elected UK government, whose policies are purely based on winning votes and maintaining/winning power

Laws/policies  implemented by somebody who does so for the good of everybody. IE unelected EU commission, who doesn't need to base it's decisions on opinion polls.