Unofficial Hexus Brexit Straw Poll - In, Out, Undecided?

[Saracen]

...

Our current economic problems are nothing to do with the EU but down to poor economic management by countless governments - remember we still use the pound and are not part of the Euro.

....

Our current economic problems are down to a complex blend of factors, among which are previous government decisions AND the impact of the EU/Euro. But the single biggest overt factor is the credit crash, the effects of which we're still dealing with. And that did not originate in the EU or, at least not directly, the UK either.

However, the EU is doing very poorly economically, certainly compared to the UK, the US or pretty much the rest of the world. And the EU doing poorly is PART of why our recovery is very slow, precisely because it's a major trading partner and is in the poop.

The question then becomes why the EU is doing so poorly. The answer, in very large part, the the disastrous effect of the entirely politically motivated Euro project. The desire, and indeed need, for a single currency is political, not economic. There are economic advantages, if it's done well, for sure, but the driving force is political, namely, "integration".

Remember, behind everything the EU does, stands for, and was set up to achieve, is "ever closer union". Monetary union is a central, key, critical, fundamental and absolutely indispensable core component in that, without which so much else cannot and will not follow.

So, the biggest single component in the EU's current economic problems are the horrendously incompetent, if not illegal, manner in which monetary union was conducted, treating highly industrialised economies like Germany, and yes, even the UK, and southern countries like Greece, with indefensibly large "cheap" money following like a torrent from a burst riverbank downhill. One currency requires one interest rate, and with such diverse economic structures and cycles as Germany and Greece, that always was a blindingly obvious disaster waiting to happen.

For some years before the crash, we had arguments here, and I've had them elsewhere too, about whether the UK should join the Euro or not. Lots of patronising remarks about those saying "no" being little Englanders, xenophobes, lost in the days of Empire unaware they'd gone, or being irrationally fond of the Queen's head on coins. I (among others) pointed out that a single interest in such circumstances was a recipe for disaster.

Why?

Because all economies are cyclic. They go up, and down. The problem is that both amplitude and phase vary. Some cycles are shorter than others, and some much larger in effect. Even within a single country, these both vary over time. Gordon Brown got at least one really big decision right, which was that the UK would be monumentally stupid to join the Euro UNLESS his key economic tests were met, and those tests essentially amounted to those cycles being in harmony. And not just in harmony at a given point in time, like a specific year, but the duration of the cycles were synchronised over at least the medium term.

Why? Because the principle mechanism of monetary policy is interest rates, and we'd of necessity give up control, call it "sovereignty" if you like, over that if we'd joined the Euro. Interest rates of the Eurozone would be set by the ECB in the interests of the EU, not the BofE in the inrerests of the UK. And, as stated, this would be a sacrifice to the political God of the EU, "integration", union.

Trouble is, if economic cycles aren't harmonised, what you end up with is monetary policy in one country, say .... Greece, needs to be doing one thing to deal with their current economic cycle, while the economic cycles of, say, Germany and France are requiring sonething else. Guess which side of that bargain is going to win, and which get defecated on ftom a great height? Yup, that's right. And for confirmation, ask the Greek people how "union" is working out for them.

Put all that together, the varying economic cycles, the political drive for union, theresulting Euro project, and then the credit crash providing the (externally originating) economic shock, and you have the core components of the EU's current doldrums.

Or at least, you do when you add in one more politically motivated factor, that being "enlarge, enlarge again, then enlarge dome more".

It's been the remorseless enlargement campaign that turned the Euro project from dubious into disaster, because that enlargement went from largely similar Northern European type economies with at least broadly similar economic structures, to the vastly different ones of southern Europe, eastern Europe, the Balkans etc.

So yes, part of our economic situation is directly due to the political ambitions of the EU. It's not the only factor and not even probably the largest, but it's in the mix as indeed are lots and lots of entirely home-grown decisions.


Going back to interest rates for a moment, one thing to consider, and it's an example of what I mean by "differing economic structures" is the different degrees to which a population are home-owners (with mortgages) or renters (without).

If a country, or a central bank for a group of countries like the Eurozone, feels tge need yo tighten or loosen monetary policy, the first and certainly fastest tool at it's disposal is interest rates. But who gets hit hardest and most by increases? Mortgage payers, that's who. If a central bank rate goes up, traditionally retail rates follow very quickly (usually days if not hours) and money disappears from consumer spending power pretty much instantly as mortgage payments rise.

But if one country has 70% of homes owner-occupied and another country has 30%, the impact on consumer spending is going to be FAR greater on the first country, because of that 70%, than the second even if the same single rate change applies everywhere. A 0.5% rise has far more effect in a country with high mortage levels and low rentals thsn elsewhere.

Yet, as we saw with how Greece was treated, the big powers in the EU will do what suits them, regardless of the devastation it causes in Greece.

Niw remember that the UK is one of, what, two EU states that is either not a Euro member or treaty-committed to working towards joining snd eventually doing so. A VERY real consideration of staying in is that if we do, we will be bound by any collective decisions but almost alone in bring outside that Eurogroup power block.

One argument being made for Remain is that the UK is heavily dependent on services. A critical one of those is financial services (banking, insurance, pensions, etc) for which the UK is a leading world player, and to which the UK economy is MUCH more dependent than any other EU state, or the EU as a whole.

So, like mortgages and interest rates, when it comes to decisions over the impact of, say, financial regulation, what priority are the other 27 going to give to the disproportionate effect it'll have on the UKs most important economic sector? My guess is about the same as Greece got.


For me, the key economic question is who gets to make decisions on such matters? London, or Brussels?

Even London isn't necessarily ideal. Just ask the Scots, or at least, the SNP. After all, the SNP are forever bitching about how the Westminster government is more focussed on the 58m of us not in Scotland and the 5m that are get decisions imposed. As if somehow the 5m get to decide for the 58m.

But guess what. The question for anyone that got this far in this post is .... how much priority will the 440m EU citizens that aren't in the UK give to the 63m that are, if THEIR interests are, for example, best served by tight financial regulation and never mind the devastating effect it has here.

As far as the economy goes, for sure there are risks to leaving. There are advantages and disadvantages. But there are risks to staying, too. It is not a decision between a stable, static secure EU and the cold, scary unknown world outside. It is a decision between a degree of risk by leaving, or a degree of risk by staying, but staying in a project whose central, core theme is ever greater union, with all that that enrails. Staying is NOT a vote for the comfortable status quo, but for a rather different unknown future as a half-hearted semi-detached non-Euroclub state in a body determinedly focussed on the Euro project and "ever closer integration".

This vote is entirely about picking your preferred blend of risks and opportunities, and about where decusions are made and on the basis of exactly what priorities.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Our current economic problems are down to a complex blend of factors, among which are previous government decisions AND the impact of the EU/Euro. But the single biggest overt factor is the credit crash, the effects of which we're still dealing with. And that did not originate in the EU or, at least not directly, the UK either.

However, the EU is doing very poorly economically, certainly compared to the UK, the US or pretty much the rest of the world. And the EU doing poorly is PART of why our recovery is very slow, precisely because it's a major trading partner and is in the poop.

The quwstion then becomes why the EU is doing so poorly. The answer, in very large part, the the disastrous effect of the entirely politically motivated Euro project. The desire, and indeed need, for a single currency is political, not economic. There are economic advantages, if it's done well, for sure, but the driving force is political, namely, "integration".

Remember, behind everything the EU does, stands for, and was set up to achieve, is "ever closer union". Monetary union is a central, key, critical, fundamental and absolutely indispensable core component in that, without which so much else cannot and will not follow.

So, the biggest single component in the EU's current economic problems are the horrendously incompetent, if not illegal, manner in which monetary union was conducted, treating highly industrialised economies like Germany, and yes, even the UK, and southern countries like Greece, with indefensibly large "cheap" money following like a torrent from a burst riverbank downhill. One currency requires one interest rate, and with such diverse economic structures and cycles as Germany and Greece, that always was a blindingly obvious disaster waiting to happen.

For some years before the crash, we had arguments here, and I've had them elsewhere too, about whether the UK should join the Euro or not. Lots of patronising remarks about those saying "no" being little Englanders, xenophobes, lost in the days of Empire unaware they'd gone, or being irrationally fond of the Queen's head on coins. I (among others) pointed out that a single interest in such circumstances was a recipe for disaster.

Why?

Because all economies are cyclic. They go up, and down. The problem is that both amplitude and phase vary. Some cycles are shorter than others, and some much larger in effect. Even within a single country, these both vary over time. Gordon Brown got at least one really big decision right, which was that the UK would be monumentally stupid to join the Euro UNLESS his key economic tests were met, and those tests essentially amounted to those cycles being in harmony. And not just in harmony at a given point in time, like a specific year, but the duration of the cycles were synchronised over at least the medium term.

Why? Because the principle mechanism of monetary policy is interest rates, and we'd of necessity give up control, call it "sovereignty" if you like, over that if we'd joined the Euro. Interest rates of the Eurozone would be set by the ECB in the interests of the EU, not the BofE in the inrerests of the UK. And, as stated, this would be a sacrifice to the political God of the EU, "integration", union.

Trouble is, if economic cycles aren't harmonised, what you end up with is monetary policy in one country, say .... Greece, needs to be doing one thing to deal with their current economic cycle, while the economic cycles of, say, Germany and France are requiring sonething else. Guess which side of that bargain is going to win, and which get defecated on ftom a great height? Yup, that's right. And for confirmation, ask the Greek people how "union" is working out for them.

Put all that together, the varying economic cycles, the political drive for union, theresulting Euro project, and then the credit crash providing the (externally originating) economic shock, and you have the core components of the EU's current doldrums.

Or at least, you do when you add in one more politically motivated factor, that being "enlarge, enlarge again, then enlarge dome more".

It's been the remorseless enlargement campaign that turned the Euro project from dubious into disaster, because that enlargement went from largely similar Northern European type economies with at least broadly similar economic structures, to the vastly different ones of southern Europe, eastern Europe, the Balkans etc.

So yes, part of our economic situation is directly due to the political ambitions of the EU. It's not the only factor and not even probably the largest, but it's in the mix as indeed are lots and lots of entirely home-grown decisions.


Going back to interest rates for a moment, one thing to consider, and it's an example of what I mean by "differing economic structures" is the different degrees to which a population are home-owners (with mortgages) or renters (without).

If a country, or a central bank for a group of countries like the Eurozone, feels tge need yo tighten or loosen monetary policy, the first and certainly fastest tool at it's disposal is interest rates. But who gets hit hardest and most by increases? Mortgage payers, that's who. If a central bank rate goes up, traditionally retail rates follow very quickly (usually days if not hours) and money disappears from consumer spending power pretty much instantly as mortgage payments rise.

But if one country has 70% of homes owner-occupied and another country has 30%, the impact on consumer spending is going to be FAR greater on the first country, because of that 70%, than the second even if the same single rate change applies everywhere. A 0.5% rise has far more effect in a country with high mortage levels and low rentals thsn elsewhere.

Yet, as we saw with how Greece was treated, the big powers in the EU will do what suits them, regardless of the devastation it causes in Greece.

Niw remember that the UK is one of, what, two EU states that is either not a Euro member or treaty-committed to working towards joining snd eventually doing so. A VERY real consideration of staying in is that if we do, we will be bound by any collective decisions but almost alone in bring outside that Eurogroup power block.

One argument being made for Remain is that the UK is heavily dependent on services. A critical one of those is financial services (banking, insurance, pensions, etc) for which the UK is a leading world player, and to which the UK economy is MUCH more dependent than any other EU state, or the EU as a whole.

So, like mortgages and interest rates, when it comes to decisions over the impact of, say, financial regulation, what priority are the other 27 going to give to the disproportionate effect it'll have on the UKs most important economic sector? My guess is about the same as Greece got.


For me, the key economic question is who gets to make decisions on such matters? London, or Brussels?

Even London isn't necessarily ideal. Just ask the Scots, or at least, the SNP. After all, the SNP are forever bitching about how the Westminster government is more focussed on the 58m of us not in Scotland and the 5m that are get decisions imposed. As if somehow the 5m get to decide for the 58m.

But guess what. The question for anyone that got this far in this post is .... how much priority will the 440m EU citizens that aren't in the UK give to the 63m that are, if THEIR interests are, for example, best served by tight financial regulation and never mind the devastating effect it has here.

As far as the economy goes, for sure there are risks to leaving. There are advantages and disadvantages. But there are risks to staying, too. It is not a decision between a stable, static secure EU and the cold, scary unknown world outside. It is a decision between a degree of risk by leaving, or a degree of risk by staying, but staying in a project whose central, core theme is ever greater union, with all that that enrails. Staying is NOT a vote for the comfortable status quo, but for a rather different unknown future as a half-hearted semi-detached non-Euroclub state in a body determinedly focussed on the Euro project and "ever closer integration".

This vote is entirely about picking your preferred blend of risks and opportunities, and about where decusions are made and on the basis of exactly what priorities.

But the problem is that again the credit crash was not an EU originated issue and neither was the two previous large recessions in the 80s or 70s.

Too many of the leave people paint leaving the EU as a panacea for solving our economic problems and that is in a world where everyone else is moving closer together.

And that is the problem blamegaming does - it ignores the fact the whether in or out governments make poor economic decisions and trying to appropriate the blame onto others is an easy short term fix.

Likewise the EU as an entity can make poor decisions just like another union of states called the USA also has made poor decisions.

It is a weird argument that since the EU made mistakes it is pointless.

Everbody makes mistakes including our own governments.

So what about the good things the EU brings?

Some of us younger people look at it differently to the benefits it had brought us - even things like the ease of movement or the fact I have several friends who are European who live and work here who would not be here if the EU was not an entity.

Then add that to the labs I know who got EU funding for important research which this country and so on.
natureK also has some of the highest debt in the world - you cannot simply blame the EU for that too.

The leave campaign is promoting the exit as an easy kludge to solve the problems we have now.

When those problems don't go away easily it will be others who will blamed.

If you look at the wider world you see what happens.

The whole referendum is a pointless waste of time - it is only wasting taxpayers money and either way we will still be stuck with all the same problems.

We should be working together to solve our problems not shatter into a million fighting tribes.

[Galant]

Frederick Forsyth on the BBC's 'Any Questions?' program talking about 'Government by Deception' cited in a blog here (BBC program itself is here - first question, starts at 1:58):

"Author and former MI6 spy Frederick Forsyth appeared on the BBC’s Any Questions panel a few weeks ago, but his comments were buried beneath Boaty McBoatface, tax returns and sex in high places. This is a pity (plus ça change), because the hidden agenda of the EU really isn’t that hidden any more, and the indifference of the people to the future of democracy is seemingly proportionate to the ignorance of the media commentariat, most of whom simply dismiss Freddie Forsyth as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and peddler of myths.

When asked by Any Questions host Ritula Shah ‘Will the security risk increase for Great Britain?’, he doesn’t answer directly, but instead quotes Jean Monnet – Postmodern Pater Europae – who professedly wrote in 1952:

Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super state, without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to Federation.

Frederick Forsyth expounded:

You (may wonder) what swivel-eyed loon on the extreme right of the party gave vent to that? That was actually Jean Monnet.. the founder of the European Union, quite clearly militating for government by deception.. It is still the prime methodology of the EU; it is government by deception.

You are going to be persuaded, if possible, to believe what you are told and what you are told will be that it’s all about trade, which is what we thought it was when we entered the European Economic Community, known as the Common Market. We were not told what it would evolve into.

What is the EU? It is not about trade: we can have trade. It’s not about profits, or profitability or prosperity: we can have that to… we’ve traded for hundreds of years. It’s about two alternate governmental systems. We have a participatory parliamentary democracy in this country, that governs our country, we think. Across in Brussels, it’s not a parliamentary democracy; it’s very much a coercive bureaucracy; a committee that is the supreme power in the continent of Europe.

It’s about.. sovereignty..; the right of the British people to be governed by the people they wish, in the way they wish, which is being taken away from us. Part of that taking away is that we are no longer allowed.. to decline a career gangster.. from inside the EU.. If we had our sovereignty back.. we could say “No, you are not coming in”.. The Swiss can say it, but we can’t. The Swiss are not in the EU, but they trade vigorously with the EU: 80% of their exports go to the EU; 44% of ours.. But you are being persuaded with every bulletin that comes from David Cameron that it is about trade: it is a con.

All of which is undoubtedly true, except for one point of imaginative sympathy. Frederick Forsyth says that our sovereignty “is being taken away from us”. No, it really isn’t: our traditions of common law, ancient rights and jurisprudence have been given away incrementally by successive generations of our own elected leaders, with the full consent and authority of Parliament. Therein lies the real ‘conspiracy’, affirmed by our reason and experience, and the only remedy to restore truth, justice and freedom is to Vote Leave on 23rd June."

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Frederick Forsyth on the BBC's 'Any Questions?' program talking about 'Government by Deception' cited in a blog here (BBC program itself is here):

"Author and former MI6 spy Frederick Forsyth appeared on the BBC’s Any Questions panel a few weeks ago, but his comments were buried beneath Boaty McBoatface, tax returns and sex in high places. This is a pity (plus ça change), because the hidden agenda of the EU really isn’t that hidden any more, and the indifference of the people to the future of democracy is seemingly proportionate to the ignorance of the media commentariat, most of whom simply dismiss Freddie Forsyth as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and peddler of myths.

When asked by Any Questions host Ritula Shah ‘Will the security risk increase for Great Britain?’, he doesn’t answer directly, but instead quotes Jean Monnet – Postmodern Pater Europae – who professedly wrote in 1952:

Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super state, without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to Federation.

Frederick Forsyth expounded:

You (may wonder) what swivel-eyed loon on the extreme right of the party gave vent to that? That was actually Jean Monnet.. the founder of the European Union, quite clearly militating for government by deception.. It is still the prime methodology of the EU; it is government by deception.

You are going to be persuaded, if possible, to believe what you are told and what you are told will be that it’s all about trade, which is what we thought it was when we entered the European Economic Community, known as the Common Market. We were not told what it would evolve into.

What is the EU? It is not about trade: we can have trade. It’s not about profits, or profitability or prosperity: we can have that to… we’ve traded for hundreds of years. It’s about two alternate governmental systems. We have a participatory parliamentary democracy in this country, that governs our country, we think. Across in Brussels, it’s not a parliamentary democracy; it’s very much a coercive bureaucracy; a committee that is the supreme power in the continent of Europe.

It’s about.. sovereignty..; the right of the British people to be governed by the people they wish, in the way they wish, which is being taken away from us. Part of that taking away is that we are no longer allowed.. to decline a career gangster.. from inside the EU.. If we had our sovereignty back.. we could say “No, you are not coming in”.. The Swiss can say it, but we can’t. The Swiss are not in the EU, but they trade vigorously with the EU: 80% of their exports go to the EU; 44% of ours.. But you are being persuaded with every bulletin that comes from David Cameron that it is about trade: it is a con.

All of which is undoubtedly true, except for one point of imaginative sympathy. Frederick Forsyth says that our sovereignty “is being taken away from us”. No, it really isn’t: our traditions of common law, ancient rights and jurisprudence have been given away incrementally by successive generations of our own elected leaders, with the full consent and authority of Parliament. Therein lies the real ‘conspiracy’, affirmed by our reason and experience, and the only remedy to restore truth, justice and freedom is to Vote Leave on 23rd June."

A classic example of blaming others for our problems.

So what happens when there are still problems?

That is the whole kludge the leave campaign is using - if we leave 100% of all our problems will go away. Some of their tones smack of Nationalism and all the same rubbish. Saw that in one country I lived in. 100000 died because of it. Always blaming some country or some internal enemy for problems.

All the ones shouting the most became rich.

This is no different than the Scots blaming the English for all their problems too.

So after the Brexit will it be blame the Scots? Muslims? Asians? Polish? Atheists?

I would really like to see the demographics of those who vote either way.

[Galant]

Cat, I agree with you about the problem of blaming others. I also agree that for some that's their main perspective in voting 'Out'. However, I disagree with you that it's relevant to the actual discussion about whether to remain in the EU or not. Those who take this perspective need an attitude adjustment. I doubt whether reasoning with them would be a fruitful endeavour (although that's a gross generalisation). Either way though, their attitude doesn't affect the real question of in or out. The truth is I fully expect such an attitude to persist no matter the outcome.

Instead, I think it's better to look, as far as possible, at the realities of what in or out will/might mean for Britain. It's not 'the blame game' to try to consider the situation to determine if one option or the other is preferable or beneficial.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Cat, I agree with you about the problem of blaming others. I also agree that for some that's their main perspective in voting 'Out'. However, I disagree with you that it's relevant to the actual discussion about whether to remain in the EU or not. Those who take this perspective need an attitude adjustment. I doubt whether reasoning with them would be a fruitful endeavour (although that's a gross generalisation). Either way though, their attitude doesn't affect the real question of in or out. The truth is I fully expect such an attitude to persist no matter the outcome.

Instead, I think it's better to look, as far as possible, at the realities of what in or out will/might mean for Britain. It's not 'the blame game' to try to consider the situation to determine if one option or the other is preferable or beneficial.

But it's the blame game - the fact we have a referendum is enough to show people want to blame the EU for our issues. That is the whole point as people are more worked up about something which is not going to solve our main problems which have been caused by poor decisions over the last 50 years by successive UK governments and factors which are not due to the EU?

WHY are we wasting money and effort on a snap referendum in a few months but yet we are having no serious discussion as a country on trillions of pounds of debt, us getting stuck in a religious war or the fact we have helped cause a blasted refugee catastrophy which screwing up so many of our European neighbours who never asked for this.

No let's try and blame the EU first.

Maybe we should have had a referendum on MRA4 or the super carriers or us destroying Libya or interfering in the ME the latter two which had potential to really cause massive long-term problems for this nation.

No referendum or public consultation on why most of the people who profited and caused our economic problems got away with no punishment.

No referendum or public consultation on the UK government giving up primary responsibility for the NHS and mass selling parts of it off.

No referendum or public consultation on the parliament act or snoopers charters which erode our basic rights.

The referendum is just a deflection from trying to look at the real problems which are mostly self inflicted and there needs to be a lot of self reflection of the catastrophic errors our party's keep making. Leaving the EU won't solve it - the same errors will be made and all the same lot will still keep plundering this country.

We need to eat humble pie and deal with it.

[HalloweenJack]

MR4A was a waste of money since BAe have not been brought to book for the awful mismanagement of that and other projects, it also didn't work (think AEW3). we are buying P8 - 9 aircraft for 25% of what was already spent on the MR4A (which still didn't work)

the carriers are fine - just IMO the wrong aircraft to fly off them.

messing with the ME instead of leaving them to kill themselves is our undoing - just because they weren't `our` dictators didn't mean they didn't control the unruly populations; now look at Iraq , Libya and Syria. Putin stepped up to the plate with Syria and said enough is enough Washington.

remember the USA isn't our `friend` especially after the support they gave argentina in 1982!

but that's by-the-by

I am still voting leave , and I have my own reasons, of which is USE by stealth

edit:


again I say look at the brakes the libdems put on the government - sad to say but the house of lords is actually defending `the little people` for a while time Cameron gets rid of them

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

MR4A was a waste of money since BAe have not been brought to book for the awful mismanagement of that and other projects, it also didn't work (think AEW3). we are buying P8 - 9 aircraft for 25% of what was already spent on the MR4A (which still didn't work)

the carriers are fine - just IMO the wrong aircraft to fly off them.

messing with the ME instead of leaving them to kill themselves is our undoing - just because they weren't `our` dictators didn't mean they didn't control the unruly populations; now look at Iraq , Libya and Syria. Putin stepped up to the plate with Syria and said enough is enough Washington.

remember the USA isn't our `friend` especially after the support they gave argentina in 1982!

but that's by-the-by

I am still voting leave , and I have my own reasons, of which is USE by stealth

edit:


again I say look at the brakes the libdems put on the government - sad to say but the house of lords is actually defending `the little people` for a while time Cameron gets rid of them

As opposed to masking our more important problems by stealth.

The EU is the least of our problems but the constant media bombardment about EU this and EU that has meant nobody is screaming for referendums or public consultations on the more posts important matters which do affect this country.

This is what the parties want - people to see a mythical EU superstate boogeyman.

Then they can be seen to be acting on it appeasing the public that they are doing something while they actually do nothing which will solve any real problems.

Then with the media attention focussed in that they can do more crap in plain sight. The whole fact that the government relinquished responsibility for the NHS is not known by many people.

Classic deflection,ie,bad news day tactics.


Yet looking at the world now more and more countries are forming economic and cultural blocks. Countries like the US and India are superstate themselves. They all have problems but last time I checked the US and India are not in fear of collapsing.

Maybe since I lived part of my life abroad I probably don't fear different cultures so probably why I am not scared like others are.

United we stand,Divided we fall.

[HalloweenJack]

the tories have sold off every nationalised industry since forver - british gas , british telecom , the railways , energy , royal mail.

not a lot of the family silver left - NHS and schools are both heading that way with the `every school an academy`; it is UK PLc after all.

did you get a vote in Lisbon? or Maastricht? I didn't , whilst many countries DID. both the tories and labour signed us up to the USE , which is nothing like the common market. we happily traded outside of the superstate before for hundreds of years and if LEAVE , then we will again - in fact some say the EU is actually holding us back.

I don't fear different cultures - what this country needs is a long period of a coalition - not single party rule.

[Biscuit]

the tories have sold off every nationalised industry since forver - british gas , british telecom , the railways , energy , royal mail.

not a lot of the family silver left - NHS and schools are both heading that way with the `every school an academy`; it is UK PLc after all.

How exactly is leaving going to help any of that?!

[Saracen]

But the problem is that again the credit crash was not an EU originated issue and neither was the two previous large recessions in the 80s or 70s.

....

And I made the point that it didn't originate in the EU. But the quote I used said "nothing to do with" the EU. It is the very structure and nature of the EU, the slow, cumbersome bureaucratic nature of the EU that in large part made it hopelessly inept at responding to the crash that meant our trade has been so sluggish. We've dropped from about 53% of our trade (see note) drop to about 45%, because most of the EU is, and for years has been, slughish or stagnant.

The reason for that is the same as why the effectiveness and decisiveness of any organisation run by committee decreases exponentially in reaction to the size of the committee. You know what they say about a committee of X people? An organisation with 2X legs, all trying to go in different directions, and no brain.

Yes, there are advantages, both to in and out, just as there are risks to in and out.

This is partly why I'm frustrated by both official camps .... the utter lack of a dispassionate acceptance that ANY decision is not a case of all black or all white, but is going to be picking your preferred shade of grey. As far as I'm concerned, anyone pretending staying in is all doom and disaster is as misguided as anyone pretending leaving is all doom and disaster. Similarly, neither choice is all sunshine, motherhood and apple pie, either.

Our membership is not the sole source of all our problems, and leaving is not a universal panacea to those problems either.

I do utterly agree with Gove on one thing, though. Some recent statements from BRemain are very patronising. The notion that the Treasury can accurately model where our ecomony will be 14 years hence is absolutely farcical since they seem incapable of predicting it in 14 weeks and being in the right 'ballpark'.

Similarly, the governments "facts" leaflet, which I actually read, wasn't "the facts". It was nakedly glossy propaganda designed to try to justify a pre-determined position. It made NO attempt to present both sides of an issue and justify why to come down one way or the other.

Actually, that's two things. I guess that means my number forecasting is of Treasury standard.



Note : Figures exclude the Rotterdam effect, and ignore transhipping.

[peterb]

the tories have sold off every nationalised industry since forver - british gas , british telecom , the railways , energy , royal mail.

not a lot of the family silver left <---snip

But all those industries suffered from chronic underinvestment by successive Governments. Those who remember the GPO as it was before it was de-nationalised will rember mechanical exchanges, shared party lines and any choice of telephone instrument so long as it was black and you rented it.

But those assets are now profitable and paying tax in the UK, so contributing to the economy.

However, that really has nothing to do with the in/out campaign.

[The Hand]

There was a good documentary on BBC2 just now, "Europe: Them or Us"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...-of-the-people

Second part of a two part series, worth a watch imo.

[Galant]

But it's the blame game - the fact we have a referendum is enough to show people want to blame the EU for our issues.

For a great deal of people. But I'd argue that such individual issues aren't the main reasons to vote in or out. I've said a few times that what's important in the referendum is to take a look at the EU as a whole, look at the direction it's heading in - both where it's come from, where it's come to and where it wants to go, and decide if that's a train you want to be on. Economy, security, immigration, welfare, workers' rights etc. all of them are secondary issues - issues that will still be there on either side of this referendum decision, issues that you're right in saying won't be solved by just apportioning blame. Instead, the primary issue is one that will affect how a country will go about solving these issues, and how many options will be available to it when solving these issues, will be different depending upon this vote. The primary issue is one of sovereignty and democracy and the rights of an individual nation to determine its own course and solutions. Entering the Euro will eliminate options. For example, the remaining in the EU will force the UK to join the Euro. That is a set path, a decision, a choice being made now about how to solve an economy issues. When economic problems arise, and they will, Britain's lot will be closely tied to the EU and will mean waiting upon the EU, depending upon the EU, and working along with the EU in ways dictated, in part, by the EU. And as part of that it will mean, as Saracen has said, trusting in the leaders of the EU, those elected by many nations, and the great many unelected officials, to have the UK's interests at heart, and not sacrifice the UK in some way, small or great, for the betterment of the EU.

The same will be true for other issues.

In this referendum the issue is one way very simple. Don't fret too much about questions that cannot be answered. Instead, focus your energy on the questions that do have answers. Determine those answers, and make a decision based upon what you can and do know.

Does the UK want to be permanently tied to the EU in every area and form part of a United States of Europe, with a single currency, a central government, and joint welfare, constantly seeking balance between all the member nations, or does the UK want to retain it's independence as an individual nation, able to set its own policies, which can include finding ways to work closely and beneficially with Europe and other nations around the world, in whatever way works best?

It might have been someone in this thread who said it, but being in the EU is like being a child at home, with many benefits but limited freedom and authority, whereas coming out of the EU is more like being an adult, with greater responsibility and risk, but freedom to choose and act.

I don't care to blame the EU for anything. At all. Except perhaps the lies that have been told, by UK politicians and others, about the nature of EU advancement.

I just don't want ever closer, never ending union with Europe, and put the life of my nation in the hands of European bureaucrats, elite and just even European voters.

Eurovision anyone?

[flearider]

we tried it it din't work so why not try somthing else ? trade will not be hurt in any way shape or form we will still buy off the eu they need it as much as we do .. but it will allow us to change the way we trade with everyone else ..
yep the pound may go down for a while .. but this helps us selling.
to let your Neighbor run your house hold is not a good thing .. and there are many that are doing that and not even voted in ?
take the bass limits (yes i fish) upping the quota for net caught but telling the weekend angler he has to throw his back ?? made up by a nonelected prat in a suit who's had a few quid thrown his way ?

lets just see what happens .. it really can't be as bad as it is now ?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

For a great deal of people. But I'd argue that such individual issues aren't the main reasons to vote in or out. I've said a few times that what's important in the referendum is to take a look at the EU as a whole, look at the direction it's heading in - both where it's come from, where it's come to and where it wants to go, and decide if that's a train you want to be on. Economy, security, immigration, welfare, workers' rights etc. all of them are secondary issues - issues that will still be there on either side of this referendum decision, issues that you're right in saying won't be solved by just apportioning blame. Instead, the primary issue is one that will affect how a country will go about solving these issues, and how many options will be available to it when solving these issues, will be different depending upon this vote. The primary issue is one of sovereignty and democracy and the rights of an individual nation to determine its own course and solutions. Entering the Euro will eliminate options. For example, the remaining in the EU will force the UK to join the Euro. That is a set path, a decision, a choice being made now about how to solve an economy issues. When economic problems arise, and they will, Britain's lot will be closely tied to the EU and will mean waiting upon the EU, depending upon the EU, and working along with the EU in ways dictated, in part, by the EU. And as part of that it will mean, as Saracen has said, trusting in the leaders of the EU, those elected by many nations, and the great many unelected officials, to have the UK's interests at heart, and not sacrifice the UK in some way, small or great, for the betterment of the EU.

The same will be true for other issues.

In this referendum the issue is one way very simple. Don't fret too much about questions that cannot be answered. Instead, focus your energy on the questions that do have answers. Determine those answers, and make a decision based upon what you can and do know.

Does the UK want to be permanently tied to the EU in every area and form part of a United States of Europe, with a single currency, a central government, and joint welfare, constantly seeking balance between all the member nations, or does the UK want to retain it's independence as an individual nation, able to set its own policies, which can include finding ways to work closely and beneficially with Europe and other nations around the world, in whatever way works best?

It might have been someone in this thread who said it, but being in the EU is like being a child at home, with many benefits but limited freedom and authority, whereas coming out of the EU is more like being an adult, with greater responsibility and risk, but freedom to choose and act.

I don't care to blame the EU for anything. At all. Except perhaps the lies that have been told, by UK politicians and others, about the nature of EU advancement.

I just don't want ever closer, never ending union with Europe, and put the life of my nation in the hands of European bureaucrats, elite and just even European voters.

Eurovision anyone?

Our economic issues,or the religious war we have got caught into are nothing to do with the EU and being more independent still didn't stop us getting trillions of pounds into debt. People keep blaming the EU and thinking of it as some boogeyman yet virtually all the problems which are affecting this country and the most important ones at that have been caused by our politicians and the people in this country - not the EU.It does not prevent the poor decision making by 50+ years of postwar governments in this country.

Plus being more independent will not save us from issues caused well outside of our control,ie,like in the US and China.

The laughable excuses about the EU destroying our freedoms - yes because the Parliament Act,Snoopers charters,Mass surveillance of the public in secret,etc are all down to the EU right?? Oh,wait - it was our UK born and bred lot who enacted all of that.

What happened to all the people in this country(including the politicians) who screwed up and those who profiteered from the last two recessions?? They got away with it. That was nothing to do with the EU stopping us.

We went and destroyed so many countries directly and indirectly in Africa and The ME in the last 20 years together with the French and the US to "show off" we were great world powers. None of the other European countries wanted that,yet they showed solidarity with us and joined in and now they are paying the ultimate price for being tarred with the same brush.

The same goes with us causing the massive refugee problems which the REST OF EUROPE is bearing the brunt off. We are NOT.

They still showed soladarity with us despite it.

Too many in the UK have all this fears of EU this and EU that,since they are stuck in a mentality that it is a world power which ruled the world. We are the ones who must rule over all others,and goodness grief if some other countries might have some sway over us,since all those Europeans(which WE ARE BTW) are all out to get the UK and DESTROY US. The Germans obviously couldn't do it in two world wars,so now they use the EU as a fifth column to subjugate Blighty.

Best to leave those pesky blighters.

Then we privatise most of our companies and key utilities who end up being owned by China,India,US,etc who end up having far more effect in this country anyway. Maybe some of you need to be more worried about CORPORATE governance than the EU.


Guess what?? That time has passed that we were a great world power and it died a death in WW2. People need to look forwards and not backwards at a legacy.


Being magically independent does not solve the problem in a world when EVERYBODY who is ANYBODY on the world stage is fostering closer and closer union and ties with like minded countries. Too many are short sighted about what is happening in the next few decades with an increasing world population and strain on resources.

The blocs will be increasingly important and Europe as a block will be able to hold its own,not little fiefdoms scared of working together with the nations they are closest to culturally.

If the UK has such terror on working together with Europe,how the heck do you think we are going to work with anybody else?? Most of the world is culturally very different from us and there are plenty of countries still sore about how we treated them like a 100 years ago. They have even less respect for us then the French.

It would not even matter so much if had metric tons of natural resources or lots of overseas territories - we don't and the Victorians knew that. That is why they went around the world making sure they secured them.

Do you honestly think the UK on itself will be able to fight off the US,China,India,and blocks like BRICS for resources and any sort of influence in the next 50 years. Do you honestly think people will listen more to a United European block with 750 MILLION people with nearly a $19 TRILLION DOLLAR GDP,or just another country with a fraction of that.

If people think that,I have lots of bridges to sell them.

But OFC we are a world power since we have nukes,right? People will respect us for that?

Oh wait,the missiles are US licensed and our nukes rely on the US for designs. The US can just deny our world power status whenever they feel like it.