Do you still want to stay in EU now?

MaxwellBygraves

This crude assault on Europe strikes at the very heart of Enlightenment values

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

mxp27824 wrote:

You've asked for links and been provided them. Your inability to read does not mean the information is not there to be read.

Nope. Not there. Just check all pages of the thread. And all I can find are links to reports on financial benefits, the FS industry and the origins of the EU.

Show me a picture of a nice suspension bridge, motorway, flood alleviation canal or secondary school etc, etc, that has been paid for entirely by EU money with absolutely zero percentage of the costs coming from the UK.

Just 'cos it's intangible doesn't mean it's not real...

And as for 'show me free stuff' - won't get very far in geopolitics & economics if that's what you want to get out of it.

finchy

The question is whether the EU is actually capable of reform. As I said a few pages back, there is such massive corruption in Eastern Europe and, from what I hear, the Mediterranean countries, that I really don't think we should be sending funds out there until there are proper controls on how that money is spent. Unless, of course, you're happy for your taxes to go straight into the pockets of crooks.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

The question is whether the EU is actually capable of reform. As I said a few pages back, there is such massive corruption in Eastern Europe and, from what I hear, the Mediterranean countries, that I really don't think we should be sending funds out there until there are proper controls on how that money is spent. Unless, of course, you're happy for your taxes to go straight into the pockets of crooks.

UK's hardly corruption free either. Just a bit more white collar.

Mikey23

OP... Yup

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

The question is whether the EU is actually capable of reform. As I said a few pages back, there is such massive corruption in Eastern Europe and, from what I hear, the Mediterranean countries, that I really don't think we should be sending funds out there until there are proper controls on how that money is spent. Unless, of course, you're happy for your taxes to go straight into the pockets of crooks.

UK's hardly corruption free either. Just a bit more white collar.

I know, but we do at least have more of a whistleblowing culture here. I wouldn't expect people to be quite so brazen about siphoning off public funding as those that I witnessed in Slovakia and Hungary.

EDIT: It's also the ease with which it is done that was so shocking for me. Taxpayers' money should not be handed over with so little accountability.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Presumably Stevo hasn't visited places like Sheffield which have hugely benefited from EU money when they were labelled objective 2 places and received direct investment - something which UK govts had struggled to do for a couple of decades.

The reason the UK pays more than it gets back is because it's richer than other states so has a responsibility to grow its neighbours so the overall EU pie gets bigger.

Just like West Germany pumped enormous amounts into East Germany after reunification.

I'm sure we can both pull up examples of where EU investment has worked or not worked. My own experience of EU northern largesse is that my home town is still an armpit even after getting EU funding.

But you are missing the point just like Ugo - the point here is that we should as a nation decide what and where we invest, not the EU. The refusal of the EU to recognise or respond to the desire for national self determination is what drives a lot of the resentment against it and will likely end up in the UK leaving the EU.

You do vote for the EU you know.... It's not some private club...! The UK has a say in it - proportional to its population! If anything, if the UK leaves, it still has to deal with the EU, but without having a say in what they do...

I guess you feel much more strongly about a 'nation' and the sanctity of it. I don't feel particularly strongly that the UK 'as a nation' should decide. I'm ok with an elected EU parliament.

I'm fairly mongrel, culturally and by blood so I don't feel a particular need for 'national' self determinism. I don't feel particularly British or whatever. I do feel European I guess. Unsurprisingly, my friends are the same (confirmation bias). Even professionally, I spend most of my time talking and meeting people from all across the world, so I never really come across nationalism in my daily life. Most of the time i come into contact with nationhood is on a practical level when I'm having to sort out visas etc, which is such a pain.

I explained my point about voting at an EU level in reply to Ugo back on page 5. Same point here.

I am also a bit of a mongrel by descent - family even more mixed. Like you I have spent a lot of my professional life in contact with people from all over the place so there is no 'small town' mentality on my part. But in the end I'm a Brit first. I dislike the EU for its attempted creeping takeover in so many areas of life and feel it has gone too far. I'm all for things like easy travel etc but I see no need for political/economic integration, centralisation and control on this scale. The EU could be a club we could happily stay in if it saw things the same way.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

I dislike the EU for its attempted creeping takeover in so many areas of life and feel it has gone too far. I'm all for things like easy travel etc but I see no need for political/economic integration, centralisation and control on this scale.

But that is the final objective.

And this is why.

johnfinch wrote:

I know, but we do at least have more of a whistleblowing culture here. I wouldn't expect people to be quite so brazen about siphoning off public funding as those that I witnessed in Slovakia and Hungary.

EDIT: It's also the ease with which it is done that was so shocking for me. Taxpayers' money should not be handed over with so little accountability.

ugo.santalucia

Stevo 666 wrote:

But you are missing the point just like Ugo - the point here is that we should as a nation decide what and where we invest, not the EU.

... and within the nation, it should be the the county and within the county the local council and within the council the self appointed local committee. You can go that route, but where it's implemented things are not necessarily better or less corrupted. Actually where you see micromanagement of budgets you see the most corruption, as these people are vitally never under the spotlight.

Within Italy, Sicily is a good example of why centralised power is not necessarily a bad thing

I don't think the problem within the EU is the centralised power... I think the EU has to recognise that one shoe might not fit all and has to allow for more flexibility and I agree.... fighting for things to change is good thing, having a tantrum and shouting around threatening to leave will have no effect or an ill one.

Right now the opinion of 26 members on UK politicians in Brussels is that they're a bunch of idiots... and chances are 26 to 1 they might even have a point.
If Cameron was due a 1.7 Bn tax rebate, would he say no, that's too much too soon?

EDIT: self determinism, sounds like a good idea, but when elections are always too close to call, tough choices are never on the agenda, because they are unpopular... so it's always: let's throw more money at the NHS which makes people happy and vote for us. I see the role of the EU as to impose all that legislation that Cameron or Milliband couldn't do because it's unpopular, yet necessary. The lesser level of accountability makes it easier.

Best initiative of the last 70 years? The Marshall plan... without it Italy would still be a rural bog hole with no place in the world and so would a lot of Europe. Did the US suffer as a result of giving all that money away? No, it did prosper add a result...

letap73

Supposing we came out of the EU because as a nation we had enough of incipient corruption within the EU and the wastage of the monies we put in - what would be the alternatives?

To retain roughly the same trading rights we would still have to contribute significantly to the EU without having a significant say in EU legislation.

Is it possible to come out completely pay no monies to the EU and survive independently or would it mean that we would have to form a trading block with the US for example?

veronese68

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Anyway... this is going off topic... I think all this conversation is pointless as you will NEVER leave the EU. You (and I say you as I have no right to vote in this country) will do what the financial institutions "tell you" to do, which is to stay... just like Scotland did a few weeks back... and that's that!

Unfortunately I think you may be overestimating the capability much of the population have for rational thought process and are underestimating how xenophobic they can be.

ugo.santalucia

Veronese68 wrote:

Unfortunately I think you may be overestimating the capability much of the population have for rational thought process and are underestimating how xenophobic they can be.

The way every campaign works is that the minority makes a lot of noise and grows in consence by saying things that appears obvious (we want to spend our own money... british jobs for British people and such nonsense)... then finds support here and there and grows even more. Politicians notice it and start aligning one way or the other depending of where it's convenient for their own survival. Then the polls kick in and get closer and closer... when they get close enough (and that's ALWAYS a few weeks before the main event is served), the people who really have the power (those who in real terms own the house you are paying back in instalments) decide to go one way or the other and seal the deal. Because it is obvious where the power wants to go in this specific case, this campaign has no hope, in the same way the Scottish campaign had no hope... they allowed it to get tantalisingly close, but there was never any doubt on the outcome, because ultimately folks go where the money is. One little word from the RBS and a few other key players and the 52/48 became 45/55 in the matter of 4-5 days... et voilla', democracy is served.

So who is really free to take decisions regardless of where the power goes? Only those who have nothing to lose, which in this country who live well beyond its means are such a tiny minority it's not even worth mentioning

veronese68

I hope you are right. Paranoia stirred up amongst the ignorant is a powerful thing and that's what worries me. The educated ones that can see the bigger picture but want some things to change do not worry me so much as they are the ones that will be influenced as you say.

ugo.santalucia

Veronese68 wrote:

I hope you are right. Paranoia stirred up amongst the ignorant is a powerful thing and that's what worries me. The educated ones that can see the bigger picture but want some things to change do not worry me so much as they are the ones that will be influenced as you say.

Look a thousand words mean nothing... it's all in this chart... the real meaning of this chart is that you no longer have any real decisional power in this country, which you have delegated to finacial institutions and it might not be a bad thing, if those are well managed... it's all in here

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

...One little word from the RBS and a few other key players and the 52/48 became 45/55 in the matter of 4-5 days... et voilla', democracy is served...

Are we really in a position where today's democracy can be described as blackmail? Truly sad if we are.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

...So who is really free to take decisions regardless of where the power goes? Only those who have nothing to lose, which in this country who live well beyond its means are such a tiny minority it's not even worth mentioning

I would argue that it is the majority who are living beyond their means, although they have a lot to lose.
Those who have nothing to lose are those well enough off not to worry, or those living off the State within the State's means (or maybe not but they won't care).
As your graph above clearly indicates.

veronese68

That is an interesting chart. I know traditionally in Italy people have rented whilst in the UK home ownership has always been a lot higher. Is it the same for other countries with similar debt percentages.

ugo.santalucia

PBlakeney wrote:

Are we really in a position where today's democracy can be described as blackmail? Truly sad if we are.
.

I would flip the coin... are countries with a low household debt in a better way? More often than not they are governed by morons... look at Russia!
My point is that financial institutions are better at picking our leaders than we are, sadly... look at Berlusconi in Italy (low household debt, people vote for their favourite clown).
I bet those who vote Farage have as an average a lower level of household debt than the rest of the country... I'd burn my bals on ashes if that's not the case...

Stevo_666

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I bet those who vote Farage have as an average a lower level of household debt than the rest of the country... I'd burn my bals on ashes if that's not the case...

I wonder how many people are trawling the internet for evidence that you're wrong? :P

ugo.santalucia

Stevo 666 wrote:

I wonder how many people are trawling the internet for evidence that you're wrong? :P

... and can't find it, because I'm not...

Stevo_666

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I wonder how many people are trawling the internet for evidence that you're wrong? :P

... and can't find it, because I'm not...

Probably not, but it's the thought that counts

ugo.santalucia

Stevo 666 wrote:

Probably not, but it's the thought that counts

Well, at least now you know why your little rebellion is doomed, innit?

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Are we really in a position where today's democracy can be described as blackmail? Truly sad if we are.
.

I would flip the coin... are countries with a low household debt in a better way? More often than not they are governed by morons... look at Russia!
My point is that financial institutions are better at picking our leaders than we are, sadly... look at Berlusconi in Italy (low household debt, people vote for their favourite clown).
I bet those who vote Farage have as an average a lower level of household debt than the rest of the country... I'd burn my bals on ashes if that's not the case...

Sad to say, but I also think that this is the case.
There is a saying along the lines of - If voting really worked then the general public wouldn't be allowed it.
But I cannot truly recall.

ugo.santalucia

PBlakeney wrote:

There is a saying along the lines of - If voting really worked then the general public wouldn't be allowed it.
But I cannot truly recall.

The way I see it is that if you are head of a bank you have numbers and projections to tell you what will happen in numbers if this and that happens and as much as they can screw them and they do occasionally, for the most they get them right, as banking has been making money for the past 6-700 years, comes peace or war.
Individuals are easily led by emotions and like leaves in autumn are easily pushed by any wind that brings a better smell. A good speaker can make you change your mind and this is the very essence of politics. Personally I think referendums are a bad idea... we vote and pay people to take important decisions, if they can't do them, then they might as well go home.

In Italy we had something close to 100 referendums since 1948... only 3 succedeed:

1) We chose to be a republic and not a monarchy, which nearly resulted in a civil war in 1948
2) We chose to allow for divorce (only the Vatican did mind, banks didn't care the slightest)
3) We chose to allow for abortion (same as above)

pblakeney

I would disagree with the basic point as I do not believe that all decisions should be made purely on a financial basis.

But I acknowledge that I am probably in the minority.

ugo.santalucia

PBlakeney wrote:

I would disagree with the basic point as I do not believe that all decisions should be made purely on a financial basis.

But I acknowledge that I am probably in the minority.

And in fact decisions that do not impact finances are left to the public with no intervention... you want capital pain? Vote for it... you want foreign languages compulsory in school? great... there is a great deal of decisions where banks don't have a say as they don't make much difference to big business, but they can make a difference to citizens... the EU membership is NOT one of them.

letap73

Ugo - if you so confident that a referendum would result in a yes vote to stay in the EU, why is David Cameron and the Tories so reticent to allow this referendum to happen - if anything they could score plus points over their rivals for allowing this referendum to happen.

DeVlaeminck

ugo.santalucia wrote:

[. Because it is obvious where the power wants to go in this specific case, this campaign has no hope, in the same way the Scottish campaign had no hope... they allowed it to get tantalisingly close, but there was never any doubt on the outcome, because ultimately folks go where the money is. One little word from the RBS and a few other key players and the 52/48 became 45/55 in the matter of 4-5 days... et voilla', democracy is served.

So who is really free to take decisions regardless of where the power goes? Only those who have nothing to lose, which in this country who live well beyond its means are such a tiny minority it's not even worth mentioning

The Scottish referendum was close enough that to say there was never a hope of it going the other way is a rather odd view. Yes the balance swung back towards the status quo in the last few days - not surprising really given it was the known against the unknown - your analysis that RBS made all the difference may have a little bit of truth in it but I suspect only a little bit. Don't forget there has never been a real consistent majority in Scotland wanting independence anyway - if you look at the polls over a number of years the vote in the referendum was well above the average support for leaving the UK.

ugo.santalucia

letap73 wrote:

Ugo - if you so confident that a referendum would result in a yes vote to stay in the EU, why is David Cameron and the Tories so reticent to allow this referendum to happen - if anything they could score plus points over their rivals for allowing this referendum to happen.

He has promised it...
It is entirely possible David Cameron believes that people have the power... at the end of the day they put him where he is now, so it rather flattering to think it's all to his merit.
Politicians like to think they have a lot of decisional power

ugo.santalucia

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The Scottish referendum was close enough that to say there was never a hope of it going the other way is a rather odd view. Yes the balance swung back towards the status quo in the last few days - not surprising really given it was the known against the unknown - your analysis that RBS made all the difference may have a little bit of truth in it but I suspect only a little bit. Don't forget there has never been a real consistent majority in Scotland wanting independence anyway - if you look at the polls over a number of years the vote in the referendum was well above the average support for leaving the UK.

Propaganda was one sided, which means at the end it got close... when it got really close, then big business moved one finger and restored the situation. There was no need for a big NO campaign... probably big business was hoping to get away without even have a say, but in the end they panicked a bit, so they had to say that mortgages would go up... people literally crapped themselves at the thought. We say 60% is a landslide, so 55% is a pretty strong margin.

It is impossible to say how the result would be without business intervention and without a bombarding YES campaign... in the end votes are bought and sold that way... ideology plays a minor role

letap73

ugo.santalucia wrote:

letap73 wrote:

Ugo - if you so confident that a referendum would result in a yes vote to stay in the EU, why is David Cameron and the Tories so reticent to allow this referendum to happen - if anything they could score plus points over their rivals for allowing this referendum to happen.

He has promised it...
It is entirely possible David Cameron believes that people have the power... at the end of the day they put him where he is now, so it rather flattering to think it's all to his merit

Correct he did promise it - most likely to win the previous election. I believe he has reneged on this promise because he and inner sanctum are afraid of what might happen.