The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Chindie]

I think the only way you can make this a referendum matter is to reduce it to a principle question. The problem is that principle is loaded, for better or worse. Being practical, you can't just ignore the benefits and pitfalls of membership to make it a purely principle decision.

In principle, no, I'm against the EU in many respects, mostly the huge democratic deficit it has. We vote for an element of it, yes, but that element is actually rather weak, it has no legislative power and only signs off on budget and 'monitors' the organisation. The arm with any real power we nominate a representative to who then has to act on the basis they no longer, in essence, have a tie to the UK. Which is a ludicrous notion and not good democratically.

But. For all the crap associated, we benefit from it. For us these benefits are fairly intangible. We aren't Spain 15 years ago where every public project was paid for by the EU basically to try to stop Spain being the poor man of Europe, so we don't see the benefit directly, but we do gain from things like easier back and forth trade, easier movement (which possibly has a detrimental effect to the new entrants, as we can brain drain them) etc etc etc.

There are also principle arguments to stay in. The background of the EU, in it's very infancy, was to create an organisation that got Europe on it's feet and in each others pockets to stop the continent collapsing again and trying to exterminate each other again. To acknowledge a block of like minded countries to operate together in an increasingly globalised world. I quite like the idea of being both British and European.

So on principle alone I'd probably have voted no. But I can't remove that principle from the wider question of whether the EU is good for the UK, and because on the balance of things I think it is, it outweighs my principle objection. That's why you have to understand it on a more fundamental level. That's why this referendum is ludicrous. That's why the leaflets coming through my door are not showing to my principles, they're appealing to my practical side, and my wallet.

[snowychap]

55 minutes ago, Awol said:

If you want to remove that paragraph from the context it was set in (reinforcing a broader point) and then assert it no longer makes sense.. Sure, you win. 

I wasn't removing that sentence from its context, I was merely quoting the line to which I wished to refer so as not clog up the thread with an unnecessary quotation of your full post.

As we both accept that it is a sentence to be read in the context of the rest of your post (and wider argument), it would still appear to me to be little more than grandiose rhetoric.

Edited April 7, 2016 by snowychap

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

Not that it matters because my reasoning is as flawed as everyone elses (awful debate on the subject and exactly what the calculated Tories wanted), but I'm 90% sure I'm voting to leave.

The benefits to staying are numerous but the majority can be achieved with good British government, unfortunately we have back of a fag paper government so meh, probably not great. The local economy has suffered hugely since joining the EU in part because we're pathetically respective to legislation, unlike other nations. We need further control and I don't think that can be achieved by working in the EU.

We hide behind EU regulation when trying to protect our own British industry and I think that's so wrong it's verging on treason, ha. Local authorities are the absolute worst and perhaps if they had more influence they'd bother to do something about their awful 'hands tied' leadership.

There of course is a flip side, when I tried to save the Aston Arena I was very much aware that it was EU funded and it was our British decision makers (Labour, Tory and Lib Dem, all were in power) which were happy to squander that opportunity. Things on our own soil are not always much better but I believe if we had more control we could do a lot more.

It would take up to 5 years to leave, we'd still have an influence and certain benefits could exist as a mutual positive, such as roaming charges and single chargers for mobile phones. However we could actually introduce proper policy where it's needed and not ill thought out ideas such as energy efficiency in homes or fish discards. The EU has a lot to teach us but we don't care for a lesson, for that reason I don't see the major benefits remaining whereas I do see many ordinary people doing a lot better if we left.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, Awol said:

I'm pretty sure Michael Collins, Ghandi and George Washington weren't wringing their hands about the current account deficit and implications for trade block protectionism while asserting the sovereignty of their people. 

Agreed. There are two counters to this, however. The world has changed. We're all now more connected by travel, by internet by trade in just about everything - services and goods, finance and culture. As a consequence various rules and standards and bodies - from NATO to WTO have come into being and we and others have pooled soveriegnty into their rules and regs.

Secondly, Outers by and large are absolutely fine with Big Business effectively having or over-riding our sovereignty. TTIP whether in or out of the EU, is massively popular with all the tories, for example. They're OK with secret courts for Tobacco or Oil or Drugs companies, but not with the EU and Commission. It's messy and confusing (on both sides).

[tonyh29]

37 minutes ago, blandy said:

because he was a Lib Dem and they were given a kicking. He was superb, though. But democracy got rid of him

did you vote for him  ?

(I seem to recall Chris said similar about his MP , a Tory ... but didn't vote for him either) it's why I despair of people being allowed to vote sometimes  ... arguably it's only floating voters that ,on paper , are making an informed choice  rather than making decisions because of someone they disliked 35 years ago

 I'd vote for an MP in my area that did a damn good job regardless , I voted Lib Dem once as he was a good local candidate  (in fact I've voted Lib Dem as many times as I've voted Tory , mind you I've only voted twice  )

[tonyh29]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

Agreed. There are two counters to this, however. The world has changed. We're all now more connected by travel, by internet by trade in just about everything - services and goods, finance and culture. As a consequence various rules and standards and bodies - from NATO to WTO have come into being and we and others have pooled soveriegnty into their rules and regs.

Secondly, Outers by and large are absolutely fine with Big Business effectively having or over-riding our sovereignty. TTIP whether in or out of the EU, is massively popular with all the tories, for example. They're OK with secret courts for Tobacco or Oil or Drugs companies, but not with the EU and Commission. It's messy and confusing (on both sides).

weren't you in another thread blaming this govt for the balance of trade deficit the other day .. I don't recall these mitigating circumstances being aired then  ? sure it's a different argument you were putting forward , the demise of British industry etc  ..but these reasons you state ARE a part of that decline

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

did you vote for him  ?

(I seem to recall Chris said similar about his MP , a Tory ... but didn't vote for him either) it's why I despair of people being allowed to vote sometimes  ... arguably it's only floating voters that ,on paper , are making an informed choice  rather than making decisions because of someone they disliked 35 years ago

 I'd vote for an MP in my area that did a damn good job regardless , I voted Lib Dem once as he was a good local candidate  (in fact I've voted Lib Dem as many times as I've voted Tory , mind you I've only voted twice  )

Only reason I properly considered the Lib Dems was because of Jerry Evans who keeps trying and failing to be an MP for Hall Green. A truly brilliant and hard working Councillor who will never get the recognition he deserves.
I actually joined the Tories before meeting him and attended a meeting or two, it was a shambles. I looked up who else might be running and immediately realised how  devout Evans was to his ward and city.

It's very sad, everyone loves the guy but hates the Tories more. The one year he could've won 'Respect' stood and they got many many many postal votes, hmmmmm, enough to give Labours Roger Gobshi_e the victory. He's a dead cert and that's politics, as you've said those entrenched don't really move.

We need a better system of voting but after the AV nightmare I doubt it will happen, though at least 'first past the post' harms Labour, maybe they'll think about policy and not politics next time the opportunity comes around to influence voting change....though I'm not holding my breath, they really are the part of politics despite hiding behind policy conversation.

[chrisp65]

26 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

did you vote for him  ?

(I seem to recall Chris said similar about his MP , a Tory ... but didn't vote for him either) it's why I despair of people being allowed to vote sometimes  ... arguably it's only floating voters that ,on paper , are making an informed choice  rather than making decisions because of someone they disliked 35 years ago

 I'd vote for an MP in my area that did a damn good job regardless , I voted Lib Dem once as he was a good local candidate  (in fact I've voted Lib Dem as many times as I've voted Tory , mind you I've only voted twice  )

Awol, my local MP did a superb job of lobbying on our behalf and giving us the contacts to fight and win a court case against the FAW. It's not that we wouldn't have won the case without him, we wouldn't even have been able to get it to court, we wouldn't have known what to do. When he comes to the footy (which he still does, love him), I say hello.

On other non footballing matters, he has since gone on to criticise a local foodbank, stating free food makes people lazy. He has also taken a six figure salary plus six figure expenses and then voted to reduce disability benefits. Literally this week I have discovered that when he was a Welsh Assembly member, he received expenses to have a flat in Cardiff Bay as his commute between constituency and assembly was unduly arduous. Eleven Miles. Eleven. 

Now in parliament and now promoted to Wales Secretary, he does what he is told by the tory leader and tory whips. I didn't vote for him and looking at his voting record since, I was damn right not to. But that's the Westminster party system for you.

Edited April 7, 2016 by chrisp65

[blandy]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

did you vote for him  ?

Yes, I did. His name was (is) Chris Davies. I voted for him specifically because of what he did, rather than party alignment.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

weren't you in another thread blaming this govt for the balance of trade deficit the other day .. I don't recall these mitigating circumstances being aired then  ? sure it's a different argument you were putting forward , the demise of British industry etc  ..but these reasons you state ARE a part of that decline

We are agreed that technology has impacted on jobs. You had implied in the other thread, I felt, that 90,000 bank jobs were lost because they were responsible for the banking crisis. So in reply I pointed out that the banking jobs lost were firstly in retail banking not casino banking and they were innocent victims where their jobs went as a result of banks cost cutting due to the debt they'd piled up on the casino side of it. and secondly that many of the 90,000 went because of internets. again, unrelated to banking crimes.

So, no, you're wrong 

[tonyh29]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

We are agreed that technology has impacted on jobs. You had implied in the other thread, I felt, that 90,000 bank jobs were lost because they were responsible for the banking crisis. So in reply I pointed out that the banking jobs lost were firstly in retail banking not casino banking and they were innocent victims where their jobs went as a result of banks cost cutting due to the debt they'd piled up on the casino side of it. and secondly that many of the 90,000 went because of internets. again, unrelated to banking crimes.

So, no, you're wrong 

point taken  .... tbf I didn't see your reply in that thread , which is ironic reading it just now , seeing as you started it with "I think you have missed "   

[chrisp65]

5 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

did you vote for him  ?

(I seem to recall Chris said similar about his MP , a Tory ... but didn't vote for him either) it's why I despair of people being allowed to vote sometimes  ...

Off topic really for this thread, but by coincidence there's a letter in the local paper today (it wasn't me!) that lists his local campaigns and platitudes and compares them with how he votes in parliament.

He's a wrong 'un.

In the interest of balance, the labour guy was also a wrong 'un and a party puppet. But also a bit scruffy, a bit slow and quite sulky.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sam3773]

One desperate targeted ad right there.

[Wainy316]

Well we weren't allowed a work permit for a Croatian (who last I checked joined the EU in2012) so I doubt it makes much difference.

[Mantis]

Surely there's an argument to be made that if we left it would become a bit easier for clubs to sign non-EU players? Personally I think that's a good outcome if that were the case. Of course, leaving the EU would almost certainly hinder Championship clubs looking to buy from abroad although with our football board that probably won't affect us...

[blandy]

11 hours ago, Mantis said:

if we left it would become a bit easier for clubs to sign non-EU players?

Why? Reason I ask is one of the big arguments made by the Out campaign is "leaving will allow us to control immigration" - so I suspect that they will, if they win, come up with ever more stringent rules to keep out and turf out Johnny foreigner.

[Mantis]

28 minutes ago, blandy said:

Why? Reason I ask is one of the big arguments made by the Out campaign is "leaving will allow us to control immigration" - so I suspect that they will, if they win, come up with ever more stringent rules to keep out and turf out Johnny foreigner.

For many people who want to leave it's never been about keeping out "Johnny foreigner". Yes leaving would allow us to control immigration better but another argument is that it would allow us to have slightly laxer rules for people coming from outside the EU because that would be more than offset by the tighter restrictions for people coming from the EU.

I don't know if and how this would work with regards to football players and work permits though.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Mantis said:

For many people who want to leave it's never been about keeping out "Johnny foreigner". Yes leaving would allow us to control immigration better but another argument is that it would allow us to have slightly laxer rules for people coming from outside the EU because that would be more than offset by the tighter restrictions for people coming from the EU.

I accept that it's not the reason for many people. It is however the number one reason quoted by more "out supporting" people than any other. I feel that if out wins, the Gov't will be compelled to bring in harsh(er)  rules on immigration than currently exist. Already we are deporting people in work - teachers, nurses and so on, because they don't earn more than £35 grand a year. This is completely mad, of course, but it's being done because the tories promised (and completely failed) to get immigration to the "10's of thousands". Current immigration from outside the EU is something like 168,000 people per 12 months (figures from 'Nov 14). So even with desperate tories and non-EU stuff, they can't manage it. leaving the EU won't change that figure, though they ludicrously claim it will, but they will be bound to try ever madder rules and so on, IMO.

[chrisp65]

over 50% of all our current immigration is already non EU, so that's hardly a restriction at the moment. I think there are something like 1.2 million non EU immigrants in the UK? Yet we can't find a competent american goalkeeper.

But is the number of american goalkeepers we can have more of a UEFA thing than an EU thing? I don't know, not a clue. But would Russian and Swiss teams be restricted by the same foreigner rules as a footballing not EU regulation? 

Personally, I'd change the rules to a maximum of less than 1 american goalkeeper per team. I think that would help us.

 

 

 

 

[Mantis]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I accept that it's not the reason for many people. It is however the number one reason quoted by more "out supporting" people than any other. I feel that if out wins, the Gov't will be compelled to bring in harsh(er)  rules on immigration than currently exist. Already we are deporting people in work - teachers, nurses and so on, because they don't earn more than £35 grand a year. This is completely mad, of course, but it's being done because the tories promised (and completely failed) to get immigration to the "10's of thousands". Current immigration from outside the EU is something like 168,000 people per 12 months (figures from 'Nov 14). So even with desperate tories and non-EU stuff, they can't manage it. leaving the EU won't change that figure, though they ludicrously claim it will, but they will be bound to try ever madder rules and so on, IMO.

Never said it wasn't but immigration is a very broad issue and many of those who want to control it better don't want to restrict it to the level that say a lot of UKIP voters might want.

I don't expect restrictions for those outside the EU would become harsher because as I said it'll become much tougher for those insider the EU. At worst they'll probably stay the same.