Are we In or Out?

[clarkete]

47 minutes ago, Alanhathaway said:

As chuck d said, Don't believe the hype! Out, out & out.

This referendum has been an absolute disgrace with poor representation on both sides who are only interested in what's in it for them- but to say that a vote for out will bring on the economic collapse of this country, third world war etc is complete sh*te. If this was the case why did neither Cameron or Osborne happen to mention all of this a year ago....? Sadly the spotlight for Brexit is led by Johnson & Farage so a vote for out is seen as a vote for them. 

Fundamentally, people are frightened of change. For me, it comes down to whether you want you want an unelected government where you have only around 10% representation and where billions are wasted on a yearly basis or whether you'd prefer it to be run by an elected government in this country for better or worse. Asl yourself why would a Spanish/French/German MEP be interested in the needs of you? Forget the rest of the white noise as know one really knows for sure.

And lastly, for anyone who doesn't believe the EU wastes considerable amounts of money please read this, it is criminal that it is allowed to occur but the French has the power to veto and amplifies exactly why the EU does not work:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html

  

All you've believed is hype, it's just that yours is backed by the billionaires who don't pay tax that own the newspapers.

I elect my representatives at every level - district council, county council, mp, mep.  All that leaving the eu achieves is that we no longer have an effective representation at that stage - hence why all our allies within and outside the eu believe we should remain.

There's a list here of all the folks and organisations who back the remain campaign and not just the tired cliche that the exit camp say about folks on the gravy train- there are unions, scientists, healthcare professionals, everything. 

What have the exit camp got?  A bunch of spivs and some rich folk who care about immigration, how much tax they pay and whether they can exploit the workers more.

http://www.strongerin.co.uk/experts

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, musky said:

Not quite. The EU wants to reserve the right to exclude state funded provision of services which isn't quite the same thing. 

Not state provided healthcare. It's specifically excluded and has been since February.

 

37 minutes ago, musky said:

As for workers' rights, throwing the EU into direct competition with NATA and the lower protection available on the other side of the Atlantic is sure to to have implications for EU workers. And it's still far from clear how the investment court will interpret the right of corporations to challenge legislation that impacts on their profits. 

It doesn't fill me with great hope. 

 

True ... but which is stronger? The 500 million people of the EU, or the UK's 60M who keep voting for tories?

 

[ourkid1984]

45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The UK didn't ever grant money to charities & good causes before the EU?

FFS, I despair.

We might have shit govt, but if they're really as shit as you're imaging and want everyone but the rich to die, do you think they'd be happy members of a club that did these sorts of things that helped the poor to live?

If the UK govt didn't support the projects that "the EU funds", do you know how they'd stop the EU funding them? It would be by refusing to make up the rest of the money, which then makes the project ineligible for any EU money. It's a breeze for the UK to stop - and save money from - if the UK wants to stop them.

 

The problem is with you is that you read something that you disagree with and make up things that people have said. This happens mostly in discussions about politics in a similar way to how red top papers do the same.

I have not said that the UK government had never granted money to charities and good causes. I know that they have. I just don't think in current times they would as much as previously.

And of course the current government and any past or future government will support good causes funded by eu money. They would get too much hassle if they blocked money going to a cause that is generally seen as good.

You clearly know a lot about politics. That doesn't mean your views are the only views that matter. 

[RichardWaller]

8 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

If eFests polls were indicative of what the general public thought then we wouldn't be having this referendum

Sad but true!

Very true! You've just indirectly reminded me of this, which I found half amusing and half disturbing... A reminder that the British public is wrong about nearly everything

[ourkid1984]

2 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Very true! You've just indirectly reminded me of this, which I found half amusing and half disturbing... A reminder that the British public is wrong about nearly everything

I loved that article. Wish they updated it.

[RichardWaller]

3 minutes ago, ourkid1984 said:

I loved that article. Wish they updated it.

It's funny, could've been summat from Private Eye or Daily Mash or summat but it's real... Disturbing at the same time though, people can be so willfully wrong and ignorant, it's destructive!

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, ourkid1984 said:

The problem is with you is that you read something that you disagree with and make up things that people have said. This happens mostly in discussions about politics in a similar way to how red top papers do the same.

I have not said that the UK government had never granted money to charities and good causes. I know that they have. I just don't think in current times they would as much as previously.

PMSL at the first bit - which is your second bit.

If the UK govt doesn't want to grant money via the EU, it simply refuses to chip in as it's obliged to for the EU to part with its bit of the money. That's how the system works. There is only EU money if there's also UK money.

And the bit that comes from the EU used to come from the UK, but the power was transferred (along with the UK money to fund the bit that comes back again). In your version of the world, the UK decided to give the EU a power it doesn't want the EU to have, and also allowed the EU to define how the UK spends its own money.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[DeanoL]

It's a union.

It's about its members standing together to present a stronger, unified front. It's about, at any given moment in time, the stronger members helping to pick up the weaker members, to stop them from falling.

The minute this entire referendum debate got framed as "What is best for the UK?" and not "What is best for Europe?" the "out" campaign won the moral victory.

Would we be better off economically right now if we left? I don't know. I shouldn't have to figure this shit out, I'm no economist. I elect a government to work this stuff out for me. But even if we were, we don't know if that would still be true in a year. Or in five years.

Meanwhile, technology improves, borders get naturally more porous, oceans gets smaller as transport gets quicker and I can play video games with friends on the other side of the world. Globalisation is continuing, and the idea of running away from that, from isolating ourselves and thinking we will be just great on our own sounds like crazy talk.

I don't think we, a nation, ever got over losing the empire. We still seem convinced that our tiny little island, far smaller than most EU countries, is a special snowflake. That we should have special treatment like exemption from the single currency and Schengen. Because it's just that damn important to have us in it because we are just that damn special. We are not. Our power on a global scale right now comes from being one of the leaders of the EU. And that leadership position is basically from historical precedent. I want to stay in, but damn some days I look at us and wish we would leave just so everyone would finally understand how insignificant a political entity we actually are.

 

[clarkete]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I want to stay in, but damn some days I look at us and wish we would leave just so everyone would finally understand how insignificant a political entity we actually are.

That would be a heck of a post-Pilton come down  

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

It's a union.

It's about its members standing together to present a stronger, unified front. It's about, at any given moment in time, the stronger members helping to pick up the weaker members, to stop them from falling.

The minute this entire referendum debate got framed as "What is best for the UK?" and not "What is best for Europe?" the "out" campaign won the moral victory.

I'd say you've got a little logical fail going on there, at least from one angle. If you buy into the 'union' idea it automatically becomes the 'best for the UK' even while your own wants might not be always be the winning idea.

It's around that angle that my own support for the EU comes, despite it being a million miles away from The World Ruled By Neil. I find hope in the idea that an extreme idea gets less likely to 'win' as you make the group bigger that it has to win over - and in humanity's timeline will flatten out some of the wilder variations.

It's my own belief that the only 'socialism' that'll work will be the amount of 'social' that 'the people' will support in enough numbers. If Marx was right then we'll only get there by violent and destructive revolution, but if he wasn't then us people need to get our act together - with the emphasis on 'together'.

[ourkid1984]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL at the first bit - which is your second bit.

If the UK govt doesn't want to grant money via the EU, it simply refuses to chip in as it's obliged to for the EU to part with its bit of the money. That's how the system works. There is only EU money if there's also UK money.

And the bit that comes from the EU used to come from the UK, but the power was transferred (along with the UK money to fund the bit that comes back again). In your version of the world, the UK decided to give the EU a power it doesn't want the EU to have, and also allowed the EU to define how the UK spends its own money.

 

 

It's funny that you don't see that that's what you do, not all the time granted but you do it. I really hope you haven't pissed yourself laughing. If you have hope you have a change of clothes.

I get how the UK and the eu work together. 

"In your version of the world, the UK decided to give the EU a power it doesn't want the EU to have, and also allowed the EU to define how the UK spends its own money."

The point I made is that there are many good causes and charities that is funded by money from the EU. I don't believe that all of those would of been funded if we were out of the EU and yes I know those good causes have received that money through acceptance from the UK government but that does not mean the UK government would have think to fund them in the first place and this is where I have my doubts. 

This does not mean that by agreeing what the EU spends it's funds on the UK government would fund it it just means that they agree that it's a good idea. 

 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, ourkid1984 said:

It's funny that you don't see that that's what you do, not all the time granted but you do it. I really hope you haven't pissed yourself laughing. If you have hope you have a change of clothes.

I get how the UK and the eu work together. 

"In your version of the world, the UK decided to give the EU a power it doesn't want the EU to have, and also allowed the EU to define how the UK spends its own money."

The point I made is that there are many good causes and charities that is funded by money from the EU. I don't believe that all of those would of been funded if we were out of the EU and yes I know those good causes have received that money through acceptance from the UK government but that does not mean the UK government would have think to fund them in the first place and this is where I have my doubts. 

This does not mean that by agreeing what the EU spends it's funds on the UK government would fund it it just means that they agree that it's a good idea. 

 

Solely by the EU?

By that I don't mean that good cause's sole income. I mean is the chunk of money that's come via an EU funding initiative come solely from EU funds? (as opposed to really being something like "you can have this 20% if your own govt puts in the other 80%)

I'd be interested to know of some examples, if your answer to that is yes.

[Alanhathaway]

40 minutes ago, clarkete said:

All you've believed is hype, it's just that yours is backed by the billionaires who don't pay tax that own the newspapers.

I elect my representatives at every level - district council, county council, mp, mep.  All that leaving the eu achieves is that we no longer have an effective representation at that stage - hence why all our allies within and outside the eu believe we should remain.

There's a list here of all the folks and organisations who back the remain campaign and not just the tired cliche that the exit camp say about folks on the gravy train- there are unions, scientists, healthcare professionals, everything. 

What have the exit camp got?  A bunch of spivs and some rich folk who care about immigration, how much tax they pay and whether they can exploit the workers more.

http://www.strongerin.co.uk/experts

Leaving the EU means we wouldn't NEED representation at that stage and your elected reps who you take the time and effort to vote for will have far more influence on the decisions that you want in your own country. And I'm not interested in which politician's/heads of business support which side to be honest, both sides have their fair share of twats.

You mention 'allies' which I note is a word that seems to get thrown around a lot lately, firstly we are not at war (except with terrorism and nothing about being in the EU is going to change that) and secondly- do you honestly think the likes of the USA do anything that is not in their own interests first and foremost? I don't see the USA pushing for an 'Americas' that includes their neighbours such as Mexico. For our 'allies' such as the USA to threaten Britain with trade agreements issues if we leave, only further supports the HYPE surrounding this- lets not forget it is the very same 'cousins across the pond' that led us to an invasion of Iraq based on pure lies. And what happened there- arguably the subsequent rise of ISIS as a result. So lets drop the whole Allies term as each country has their own agenda and that will not change I'm afraid. The idea logy behind the EU I can absolutely understand, but the reality is somewhat different and it just doesn't work. 

We have one of the strongest economies in the world and to think that everyone is going throw their toys out of the pram and stop doing business with us because we don't want be in their gang is ridiculous. As for the link you mention, well they all say its 'probable, likely, could happen' and so on. Nobody knows for certain and this is the very same people who failed to see the banking crisis coming, world recession and so on. I wouldn't place too much faith on the elite getting it right on this one either.

What I do know as fact is that every month the EU packs up their offices in Brussels and moves the entire parliament to Strasbourg for a fews days at a cost of £93,000,000 a year! Now this is a just small example, but how in this day and age can that be justified, and yet there is nothing that can be done about it as the French will veto, it so we continue to waste much larger sums of our money on this. And that is why the EU does not work.         

[bunfight]

34 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If Marx was right then we'll only get there by violent and destructive revolution, but if he wasn't then us people need to get our act together - with the emphasis on 'together'.

Marx could not have foreseen the power of the Internet. Revolution has come on leaps and bounds in the past twenty years. A worldwide leftward drift is possible in the next generation. It's important that we call out the tactics employed by the right in the 80's though because that was when we shifted our collective moral compass. Greed is actually NOT good.?

[Jamie D]

Already voted in. My parents are unfortunately daily mail readers and were voting out. I'm interested to hear if they've changed their minds now the daily mail seems to have changed theirs.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That's utter bullshit.

1. the EU system replaced the UK system of funding these things.

2. the EU doesn't order the UK govt to give the rest of the money to top up the small amount the EU gives, the UK tops it up because it's something the UK would have funded itself in the days before the EU.

Really, stop mugging yourself. The *ONLY* difference is the fucking sign on the wall!!

 

which funnily enough happened before there was ever an EU.

I'm fully in favour of the EU, but your idea of the EU showering the UK with grants it wouldn't have otherwise is utterly and totally factually wrong.

 

I've never said it showers us with grants. 

I just don't beleive that the same level of money would have been given by a UK government (especially a Tory one) in the same (geographical) places it was spent through the EU channels.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, bunfight said:

Marx could not have foreseen the power of the Internet. Revolution has come on leaps and bounds in the past twenty years. A worldwide leftward drift is possible in the next generation. It's important that we call out the tactics employed by the right in the 80's though because that was when we shifted our collective moral compass. Greed is actually NOT good.?

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the thing to watch out for. There's a lot (most) of what Blair did I disagreed with, but one thing I don't disagree with him about: no one will thank you for making them poorer.

I admire your optimism that "a worldwide leftward drift is possible in the next generation" tho i don't really see any hopeful signs, I see more of the opposite. Tweaking at the edges will be about it, I reckon.

[Alanhathaway]

Anyone know if Radiohead are playing this year?

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Alanhathaway said:

Anyone know if Radiohead are playing this year?

some say they're in, and others say they're out.

 

[JiltedJames]

Good read this.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/eu-referendum-parliament-leaders-david-cameron-david-mitchell

 

[clarkete]

13 minutes ago, Jamie D said:

I'm interested to hear if they've changed their minds now the daily mail seems to have changed theirs.

Ooh have they?

 

 

19 minutes ago, Alanhathaway said:

Leaving the EU means we wouldn't NEED representation at that stage and your elected reps who you take the time and effort to vote for will have far more influence on the decisions that you want in your own country. And I'm not interested in which politician's/heads of business support which side to be honest, both sides have their fair share of twats.

You mention 'allies' which I note is a word that seems to get thrown around a lot lately, firstly we are not at war (except with terrorism and nothing about being in the EU is going to change that) and secondly- do you honestly think the likes of the USA do anything that is not in their own interests first and foremost? I don't see the USA pushing for an 'Americas' that includes their neighbours such as Mexico. For our 'allies' such as the USA to threaten Britain with trade agreements issues if we leave, only further supports the HYPE surrounding this- lets not forget it is the very same 'cousins across the pond' that led us to an invasion of Iraq based on pure lies. And what happened there- arguably the subsequent rise of ISIS as a result. So lets drop the whole Allies term as each country has their own agenda and that will not change I'm afraid. The idea logy behind the EU I can absolutely understand, but the reality is somewhat different and it just doesn't work. 

We have one of the strongest economies in the world and to think that everyone is going throw their toys out of the pram and stop doing business with us because we don't want be in their gang is ridiculous. As for the link you mention, well they all say its 'probable, likely, could happen' and so on. Nobody knows for certain and this is the very same people who failed to see the banking crisis coming, world recession and so on. I wouldn't place too much faith on the elite getting it right on this one either.

What I do know as fact is that every month the EU packs up their offices in Brussels and moves the entire parliament to Strasbourg for a fews days at a cost of £93,000,000 a year! Now this is a just small example, but how in this day and age can that be justified, and yet there is nothing that can be done about it as the French will veto, it so we continue to waste much larger sums of our money on this. And that is why the EU does not work.         

I want representation within europe, as we can be part of a larger group with a common aim, which is exactly what happens with politics at every level.

We are involved in several wars in different places and at different levels of activity.  The link I referred to included comments from experts who refer to our security and how of course we're better off if we cooperate and share information.

And please don't cite us being "led" anywhere by the US, Blair has been most explicit about what his intentions were, hence the dodgy dossier.

Nobody in the exit camp refers to the economic argument now - that argument is lost and they know it.  The fact you link to a two year old article about a comparatively small amount of money just emphasises how little you have to go on. 

We have a veto too, that's one of the things that pricks the balloon of so many of the points people have tried to make during the out campaign thus far.

The one thing they have left is immigration, the question is how much will they push it during the next month?

 

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'd say you've got a little logical fail going on there, at least from one angle. If you buy into the 'union' idea it automatically becomes the 'best for the UK' even while your own wants might not be always be the winning idea.

I'm not saying we couldn't win the "best for the UK" argument, it's just that the framing of it that way is to approach the question with an already nationalistic bent.

[Alanhathaway]

58 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Ooh have they?

 

 

I want representation within europe, as we can be part of a larger group with a common aim, which is exactly what happens with politics at every level.

We are involved in several wars in different places and at different levels of activity.  The link I referred to included comments from experts who refer to our security and how of course we're better off if we cooperate and share information.

And please don't cite us being "led" anywhere by the US, Blair has been most explicit about what his intentions were, hence the dodgy dossier.

Nobody in the exit camp refers to the economic argument now - that argument is lost and they know it.  The fact you link to a two year old article about a comparatively small amount of money just emphasises how little you have to go on. 

We have a veto too, that's one of the things that pricks the balloon of so many of the points people have tried to make during the out campaign thus far.

The one thing they have left is immigration, the question is how much will they push it during the next month?

 

I accept 'led' may have been a poor choice of words but nonetheless our 'allies' have their own agenda's so I'm not sure why you would argue that their viewpoint is valid.

So what is this 'common' aim? Where is this prophecy you speak of?

Oh, and ask the Greeks if they feel part of this common aim as well.  

[Jamie D]

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

Ooh have they?

Haven't seen anything in the last week but they definitely had several pro-eu headlines just over a week ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3602673/Prices-soar-quit-EU-say-high-street-bosses-grim-warning-lost-jobs-plunging-pound-catastrophe-UK-votes-Out.html

[ourkid1984]

57 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Solely by the EU?

By that I don't mean that good cause's sole income. I mean is the chunk of money that's come via an EU funding initiative come solely from EU funds? (as opposed to really being something like "you can have this 20% if your own govt puts in the other 80%)

I'd be interested to know of some examples, if your answer to that is yes.

No I don't think solely from the EU. I worked on a project as part of the New Deal for Communities program which having been able to see funding documents I remember seeing that at least some of the money came from EU funding, especially the European Social Fund. I've just done numerous searches but couldn't find anything to do with the precise funding.