Do you still want to stay in EU now?
Comments
-
letap73 wrote: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.
There is an election next year... you can't have another massive issue on the table... Cameron needs to make sure he will profit from a referendum... first of all he needs to win next year, which is far from a given.
If you look at the bigger picture, Britain is doing better than anyone in EU, so Cameron should be a winner, but people are still unhappy, so he has to find out what is that these lot want to vote for him. NHS is always a good card to play... give them more pills...left the forum March 20230 -
I think there is a bigger problem, and tbat is that C. Had no idea of either how to negotiate ( period as the yanks would say) or how to build an alliance within Europe. As far as reform goes He is pushing at an open door, but since he has no proposals for reform he just ends up looking pathetic and isolated. Having withdrawn his meps from all relevant institutions he has no internal influence. Had he behaved in a reasonable manner he would have had his meps in the right place to block this, as Maggie did in her day.
His cry of one last chance, having not yet tried, holds no credibility.
Immigration isn't everything, and the housing crunch for all the UK expats having to leave Spain and France and buy or rent here will be very painful, as will be the impact on the NHS, especially with the loss of so many EU citizens working in the NHS losing right of residence here. Or is that the real agenda, create a house price bubble for a feel good factor and a create a massive cause or reason why the NHs can't cope so needs more privatisation?0 -
There as been no sustained lead in the polls for independence and the final result jut reflects that. There is no need for your theory that big business controls all to explain that result.
As for the idea propagnda was one sided, in what way? The balance of the coverage in the media was probably in favour of the No campaign. It could be argued that Yes ran a better campaign, though it could equally be argued they just had the better arguments.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:There as been no sustained lead in the polls for independence and the final result jut reflects that. There is no need for your theory that big business controls all to explain that result.
As for the idea propagnda was one sided, in what way? The balance of the coverage in the media was probably in favour of the No campaign. It could be argued that Yes ran a better campaign, though it could equally be argued they just had the better arguments.
The yes campaign was better run, but it did shout foul every time business expressed an opinion, or said what it would do. Business does not vote, that's why so many anti business decisions are made by governments.0 -
I haven't read all of this thread but from what I have seen I can't recall anyone mentioning TTIP - the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership being negotiated between the US and EU.
'The key attack on democracy is an element of the treaty called investorstate dispute settlement (ISDS). If you are worried about the power of corporations over our democracy, be very afraid: ISDS in effect grants multinationals the same legal position as a nation-state itself, and allows them to sue sovereign governments in so-called arbitration tribunals on the grounds that their profits are threatened by government policies. Is this scaremongering, as TTIP supporters claim? Take Australia, which signed an investment treaty with Hong Kong in 1993. When Australia’s federal government introduced legislation to enforce plain cigarette packaging, the Asian arm of the cigarette company Philip Morris used the treaty to sue it.'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... kip-treaty
The EU is set to sign up only if ISDS is scrapped, whereas Cameron is lobbying to keep it in. Why? Simply because ISDS is beneficial to big business.
It won't be long before we're out of the EU by default and before we have a chance to vote on it.0 -
No way will the UK be "forced out" of the EU, there's no way the net 2bn hole in the EUs finances could be filled right now.
The issue with a vote, as was admirably proven with the Scottish vote, is that if you're not asking the populace to vote for anything substantial and clearly defined (what will the UK´s relationship be with the EU if it exits? Will it have free trade or only operate under GATT of the WTO? Will UK still allow free passage of labour? All will have to be negotiated ex post ), then it becomes a "you just have to have faith in brave new world" argument, and frankly few people have ANY faith in current UK politicians to produce something better than the status quo, so thats probably why it will never be put to a vote either.
The arguments for Britain remaining in the EU are many, but unfortunately they are terminally un-sexy and hard to sell as its difficult to disprove their presence under a theoretical alternative reality, whereas the "look at how those idiots in Brussels are destroying our Heritage/Finances/ working culture/cheese/sausages" are both easy to understand and very soundbiteable.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
Its a good chart, but only when cross referenced to some measure of GDP growth, the point being that household debt in a rising asset market is called leverage, in a declining one its poverty. US population has always been heavily indebted, and its only the recent defect hawks refusal to remember how Kensianism got us out of the great depression, and its corresponding blindness to looking at debt across the economic cycle which causes the problems we are in right now. With rising assets, banks are only too desperate to throw money at consumers, so as long as you have growth their ability to "control us" is pretty limited. And don't forget the old adage, if you owe a bank 500 quid its your problem, if you owe them 500k its theirs!ugo.santalucia wrote:
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
Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
Camoron if re-elected next year will renege on an EU referendum. He will toddle off to Brussels and try to re-negotiate the UK position with EU and they will give him the proverbial bird. He will return to Downing Street and state that they will have another go in a couple of years.. and so it goes on. We are in and there is no way out. The gravitational pull Brussel's power is like a black hole within Europe and the final outcome will unfortunately be a United States of Europe, run by an unelected political elite who think they know what is best. Those who get driven home every night in the fleet of EU black limousines have no connection with how their policies effect the 'little people' in every one of the member states.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0
-
Krandom man wrote:I haven't read all of this thread but from what I have seen I can't recall anyone mentioning TTIP - the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership being negotiated between the US and EU.
'The key attack on democracy is an element of the treaty called investorstate dispute settlement (ISDS). If you are worried about the power of corporations over our democracy, be very afraid: ISDS in effect grants multinationals the same legal position as a nation-state itself, and allows them to sue sovereign governments in so-called arbitration tribunals on the grounds that their profits are threatened by government policies. Is this scaremongering, as TTIP supporters claim? Take Australia, which signed an investment treaty with Hong Kong in 1993. When Australia’s federal government introduced legislation to enforce plain cigarette packaging, the Asian arm of the cigarette company Philip Morris used the treaty to sue it.'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... kip-treaty
The EU is set to sign up only if ISDS is scrapped, whereas Cameron is lobbying to keep it in. Why? Simply because ISDS is beneficial to big business.
It won't be long before we're out of the EU by default and before we have a chance to vote on it.
Isds is a pretty important measure to protect investors from politicians, particularly from nationalisation of a companies assets. It is not to protect profits, and it doesn't protect investors from changes to tax, or other fiscal deals that cost them.0 -
You are only probably right on that particlar point about UKIP voters debt Ugo (as the average age profile of UKIP supporters is pretty old IIRC). Shame about the restugo.santalucia wrote: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?
Not sure that the low average household debt of UKIP voters translates into a 'no' vote to leave the EU though.
Anyhow, it's not my little rebellion, it's the people's rebellion. Christ, I sound almost leftie "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Will you be moving to Tooting Wolfie?Stevo 666 wrote:Anyhow, it's not my little rebellion, it's the people's rebellion. Christ, I sound almost leftie
0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
You are only probably right on that particlar point about UKIP voters debt Ugo (as the average age profile of UKIP supporters is pretty old IIRC). Shame about the restugo.santalucia wrote: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? Not sure that the low average household debt of UKIP voters translates into a 'no' vote to leave the EU though.
Anyhow, it's not my little rebellion, it's the people's rebellion. Christ, I sound almost leftie
If you want to be the master of your own destiny, then stop borrowing money. When you borrow money the unwritten part of the agreement is that you will do exactly what the lender tells you to do.
My feeling is that the all Thatcher's (then become British) obsession about owning properties was just another way to exercise an extra degree of control on the population.
Whether you own it or the bank does, having a valuable asset makes you a slave to the property market and the property marketleft the forum March 20230 -
The wife's from Tooting so that'll do me. Anyway, stop distracting me, I'm busy drawing up a list of of people who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.Veronese68 wrote:
Will you be moving to Tooting Wolfie?Stevo 666 wrote:Anyhow, it's not my little rebellion, it's the people's rebellion. Christ, I sound almost leftie"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That would depend on thinking of your house as an investment rather than a home.ugo.santalucia wrote:Whether you own it or the bank does, having a valuable asset makes you a slave to the property market and the property market
I regard my house as a home and therefore not a slave to anyone.
If the value of my home drops then so does any potential new home. I am not trapped. I am free!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:If the value of my home drops then so does any potential new home. I am not trapped. I am free!
If the value drops, the market freezes... so only small flats for first time buyers would still have a market, everything else won't... so you would be trapped if you had to sell.
The all concept of having such a high household debt as a proportion of GDP relies on the house market going one way only... if you invert the trend it's big shxt!!left the forum March 20230 -
If I have to sell to move, then I have to sell but I would not be trapped. I would just make less profit, or even a loss, but I would not be trapped.ugo.santalucia wrote:PBlakeney wrote:If the value of my home drops then so does any potential new home. I am not trapped. I am free!
If the value drops, the market freezes... so only small flats for first time buyers would still have a market, everything else won't... so you would be trapped if you had to sell.
The all concept of having such a high household debt as a proportion of GDP relies on the house market going one way only... if you invert the trend it's big shxt!!
As I said earlier, decisions should not be made on a purely financial basis.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:If I have to sell to move, then I have to sell but I would not be trapped. I would just make less profit, or even a loss, but I would not be trapped.
As I said earlier, decisions should not be made on a purely financial basis.
The thing is... most people who would vote for an EU exit based on immigration and financial issues, would crumble if banks said "in case of a EU exit we cannot guarantee mortgages will stay at the current rate", just as enough Scots did to turn the tide.
At the end of the day what's more important? Having a few benefit seekers dipping their fingers in the common good or saving a couple of hundred quid a month on your mortgage? It's not even a contest....
Besides, all those retired Brits living the life in Spain and southern France, don't they take advantage of the local health services? DO we really want to swap some young Romanians workers for those 'soon to be carcasses"? How's that going to benefit the NHS?left the forum March 20230 -
Why would they be coming home?ugo.santalucia wrote:[
Besides, all those retired Brits living the life in Spain and southern France, don't they take advantage of the local health services? DO we really want to swap some young Romanians workers for those 'soon to be carcasses"? How's that going to benefit the NHS?
Millions emigrated long before the EU.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Why would they be coming home?ugo.santalucia wrote:[
Besides, all those retired Brits living the life in Spain and southern France, don't they take advantage of the local health services? DO we really want to swap some young Romanians workers for those 'soon to be carcasses"? How's that going to benefit the NHS?
Millions emigrated long before the EU.
So your idea of exiting the EU is to use it as a dump... get fresh blood in with skills we need and get rid of the old diabetic folks, who can seek treatment in Spain.
I would expect if a EU treaty no longer exists, non-tax paying residents (and tourists alike) are no longer entitled to use the local health service free of charge. Therefore they would need private coverage or get citizenship... for 60+ folks that might be an issueleft the forum March 20230 -
I have no plans for exiting the EU, I am only asking questions.ugo.santalucia wrote:So your idea of exiting the EU is to use it as a dump... get fresh blood in with skills we need and get rid of the old diabetic folks, who can seek treatment in Spain.
I would expect if a EU treaty no longer exists, non-tax paying residents (and tourists alike) are no longer entitled to use the local health service free of charge. Therefore they would need private coverage or get citizenship... for 60+ folks that might be an issue
Ask someone over 60 who has retired outside the EU. I imagine that there are quite a few coping quite fine.
As I have said earlier, the points being made for and against are very similar to the points made during the Scottish referendum.
The points made for and against in that referendum were equally full of holes. They will be the same in the EU referendum. Independence will not be the land of milk and honey, nor will it be the end of the World.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Agree with the principle about being debt free as a route being master of your own destiny, although very few countries are debt free and provided it is manageable it is not a major problem. Part of the UK problem stems from previous financial incontinence (plenty of other threads on that). Debt is not a problem for me personally, I owe nothing to anyone. And I couldn't care less what my house is worth, so disagree about being slave to the property market.ugo.santalucia wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You are only probably right on that particlar point about UKIP voters debt Ugo (as the average age profile of UKIP supporters is pretty old IIRC). Shame about the restugo.santalucia wrote: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? Not sure that the low average household debt of UKIP voters translates into a 'no' vote to leave the EU though.
Anyhow, it's not my little rebellion, it's the people's rebellion. Christ, I sound almost leftie
If you want to be the master of your own destiny, then stop borrowing money. When you borrow money the unwritten part of the agreement is that you will do exactly what the lender tells you to do.
My feeling is that the all Thatcher's (then become British) obsession about owning properties was just another way to exercise an extra degree of control on the population.
Whether you own it or the bank does, having a valuable asset makes you a slave to the property market and the property market
As for Thatcher 'exerting control' via property ownership - let's put that into the leftie conspiracy theory category unless you can back up your claim?
Didn't know there were 2 property markets? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nothing wrong with a reasonable amount of debt.
There's a reason the 'credit crunch' precipitated the 'great recession'.0 -
Just to wrap this up...
It's been nice to have an animated discussion without insulting each other... this stands as a clear example that we can argue and disagree without degenerating.
It's also a sign that when we remove the rotten apples things do get better! left the forum March 20230 -
-
If we are to cherry pick headlines.
Good money after bad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nding.html0 -
Ballysmate wrote:If we are to cherry pick headlines.
Good money after bad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nding.html
I (would) see that as a reason for reform not to leave.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If we are to cherry pick headlines.
Good money after bad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nding.html
I (would) see that as a reason for reform not to leave.
And if no-one else is interested in meaningful reform...?0 -
Not sure that hypothetical question has any grounding in today's reality.
More or less every member wants reform.0 -
I shall be happy for the UK (in whatever form) to remain in the EU. I do not think the EU ideal, but that doesn't persuade me that we should head for the exit.
I quite liked the EU when it was in the mid-teens in terms of members and before the Euro was introduced. I like it less now, but I do not see departure as an improvement.
People speak of the necessity of reform. This often means 'make it more favourable to me'. In truth, the EU is constantly evolving and reforming, as do almost all political and social institutions. Some of this reform may suit some members more than it does others.
There are weaknesses in the current structure of the EU. The UK (for a number of reasons) is on the wrong end of some recent changes, but that is in the nature of treaties and international groupings.
Having been (at many levels) fervently europhile in the Heath days, the Tory party became ever less enthusiastic under Thatcher. The Labour Party has also swung round much of the compass in its feelings over the EU. Blair took Sedgefield on a strongly anti-EU ticket, but swung with the prevailing wind when it was expedient to do so.
I'd be all for staying in. I'm glad that Scotland stayed in the UK, although I'd happily see Ireland peacefully reunited under Dublin.... Apart from that, I am strongly for the status quo. It is convenient (in view of my opinions) that I find Farridge and his gurning minions as depressing as they are nauseating. I'd hate to agree with someone like that...
But happily, I don't.0 -
I thought you had wrapped this one up? We even let you have the last wordugo.santalucia wrote: "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
