Even the Tories are not daft enough to endorse leaving the EU. No chance it will happen. Too risky and it will be the voice of business that puts it's weight behind staying in.
And you really think that will happen? I can tell you now what course the negotiations will take. Dave bangs the table, the EU say "Well feck off then" Dave comes back proclaiming that he has walked five hundred miles to get this "Great deal" for Britain. Big row, Britain votes to stay. Nige rants and raves, Dave loses a few by elections.
I wouldn't be so sure mate it all depends on whether EU migrants currently living here are given the vote, which in my opinion is a no brainer and shouldn't happen. There's been a lot of scaremongering about what would happen if we were to leave the EU most of it totally unfounded. When my parents voted to enter the common market that was exactly what is was set up to be, a COMMON MARKET and it was deemed the right thing for our nation. However, they did not vote for an EU super state which is what it HAS become with more and more of our powers to govern ourselves taken away from us by Brussels. Ironically it was the Labour party who campaigned at the time against any liason with the rest of Europe, well they've certainly changed their tune now. I honestly believe that Europe needs us and our £billions more than we need them. It really beggars belief how much we pay in to the EU and how little we get back, a vote to stay in Europe is like turkeys voting for Christmas Without extreme reform we should get out of Europe now http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...it-would-be-best-for-Britain-to-leave-EU.html
In truth nobody has any idea what the economic results of a "Brexit" would be. It would quite simply be a massive gamble. And that is the main reason why it won't happen. My own view is that the EU would put in place massive reprisals in terms of trade restrictions and that the threat of this combined with noises off by multinationals would in itself swing the vote against exit.
Leaving the EU would be an unmitigated disaster. In any event, it's structurally and legally, virtually impossible. I agree that nobody has any idea of what the long-term economic results of a "brexit" would be, but we know exactly what the short term results would be - our economy's success relies almost exclusively on risk. Short term it would be catastrophic. Work has already tailed off here in London and it's directly down to this uncertainty. Markets hate uncertainty. The idea that the existing EU would allow us decent terms is ludicrous. They wouldn't. The very best we could hope for is being in Norway's position (which seems to be what all the EU sceptics want), but they really have not thought that one through - Norway has to basically abide by EU rules and regulations, but has zero say in any of them! Fortunately, David Cameron quite clearly does not want to leave the EU. I think even without a renegotiation we would stay in - only 12% or so voted for UKIP and at their peak it's around 30% (i.e. the European elections), which you would expect nearly all of those who want to leave the EU doing so. That's serious ground to make up even now, as it stands. My view, though, is that Cameron will come back with a few sound-bites and half-concessions which will be enough to resoundingly crush any chances of referendum exit. The thing I don't get is that there was this chap called Aesop who was quite wise who once pointed out that "united we stand, divided we fall", and yet several millennia later people still haven't grasped this fact. It has stood the test of time. If we leave the EU we will crumble into an angry, isolated little island wistfully dreaming of the days of our shortlived Empire, while the giants of the world India, China, the US and the EU power away from us. Much better to be spearheading an EU with weight in the world.
That Aesop fella was a very wise man! However the Tory way of doing things is more in the style of 'divide and conquer' - the demonisation of people unfortunate enough to have been born into a life of poverty and a life on benefits for example, not to mention public sector workers (particularly by bringing the police into it), unions and by bigging up the threat of the SNP. "Masters of the dark arts" doesn't even begin to describe them!
Interesting piece on Radio 4 this morning regarding the trade levels of the EU - when we joined the EU Europe contributed 35% of the world economy currently it is in the mid 20's and by the end of the next decade it is projected to fall to 17%-18%. The argument made was that by staying in the EU we will be locking ourselves into the only trading block in the world which is diminishing in size and by staying in the EU we are prevented from entering free trade arrangements with the BRIC countries where there is longer term scope for growth. I don't like the idea of us leaving but I don't see it being as much of a disaster people suggest if we did as long as we used the freedom to make better trade deals with the emerging economies. I personally couldn't care less if people choose to come to the UK to better themselves and get a higher standard of living for their families. Kudos to them. I would much rather have a hard-working Pole or Portuguese working for me than some lazy indigenous who can't be bothered to put a decent shift in. I am a great believer that if you want to work there is work out there and if you apply yourself and work hard you can improve your situation. Most people have some sort of talent or ability which they can utilise if they can be bothered. There are too many people who won't take jobs that are "beneath them" then complain when the job is taken by an immigrant. I think that in Norfolk we have areas where generations of families don't work and the kids are brought up with appalling role models showing them how best to do bugger all and expect the state to bail them out. I agree that in the 5th richest country in the world we should not have huge gaps in life expectancy between the North and South but if people don't help themselves then the state should not have to drag the standard of living of the majority down to ensure that the poor (and let's not kid ourselves "poor" in the UK is a relative term, try being poor in India/Africa and then you will know what poverty is really about) have a more comfortable lifestyle. The housing crisis is a huge issue - a lot of it has arisen through the large numbers of people living alone as well as the overall increase in population. My personal thought is that money should be spent redeveloping old derelict buildings and brownfield sites putting up smaller properties for singletons if that is the way the demographics are going it is reflected in the housing stock. if you look around Norwich there are huge swathes of properties being built both in the city and along the A11 and A47 corridors as well as all of the development which will arise as a result of the Northern Distributor road. I genuinely don't know where all the people are coming from to fill these properties up but it is going to put a huge strain on our infrastructure. We are not a particularly populous county but we are in danger of losing a lot of the space and beauty that make Norfolk such a wonderful place to live.
Excellent post but if you ........... ....."think that in Norfolk we have areas where generations of families don't work and the kids are brought up with appalling role models showing them how best to do bugger all and expect the state to bail them out." you should visit some of the housing estates in Leeds, Bradford, Manchester etc..... or rather you shouldn't
What, regions in the north that saw their livelihoods and communites ripped to pieces by Maggie in the 80's? Surely not!!
There is a difference between the EU's economy diminishing in size, which means it is shrinking and the EU's economy diminishing in size relative to the rest of the world. The EU's economy bloated way beyond it's natural and human resource levels in the 18th-20th centuries. The current relative diminishiment is really just a righting of the economic centre back towards the populous and resource-rich Asian countries. That's normal. Diminishment in relative size is irrelevant to the question of being in or out of the EU. Being in or out of the EU is a question of where are we best-placed to maintain pace with the worldwide economy. Out of the EU, we will be a tiny island diminishing in influence far more quickly than inside it. But that's not really the point, the point is whether being in the EU is damaging to our long-term interests: This argument is fallacious, I'm afraid (I know you're just the messenger, I'm not shooting you). Staying in the "EU club" is not in any way "locking [us] into" anything. What it does, however, do is give us exceptional freedoms and access to, and support from, a population and level of consumption far greater than just the UK. There is nothing from the EU stopping us being free to make trade deals with other economies. Nothing significant, at any rate, and anything that there is can easily be overcome by virtue of us being one of the most important countries in the EU - that carries significant weight in being involved in multi-national trade deals; something we would lose if we went alone. Alone, people forget that the likes of Germany and others would be free to also negotiate international trade deals, almost certainly to our significant disadvantage. We can't have our cake and eat it. If we're out, we're not in... The biggest barrier by far to the UK's access to emerging (or indeed any other market other than the EU) is physical. These places are a long, long way away. That cannot be changed by being in or out of the EU.
Rob, I think it is the case that whilst in the EU we cannot make unilateral trade deals with external countries - we have a common trade policy. It has been one of the main planks in the argument of the "outers" that we have lost the links with our Commonwealth cousins as we cannot make specific arrangements with either the Commonwealth as a whole or individuals countries within it let alone nations like India/China/Brazil. The natural counter to this argument is that alone we have less clout to gain a better deal with external nations - just a question of opinion I suppose. Truth is nobody can be certain of the consequences of leaving the EU.
We can make unilateral trade deals (there are certain limits, yes, but all of them are reasonable in the view of a common trade policy - in exactly the same way Germany can make unilateral trade deals but the limits stop them seriously harming our interests). That's a very broad brush explanation, but I hope that makes sense. Lost links with the Commonwealth countries are much more to do with physical proximity, as I say, as well as cultural and independence movement ideologies. The EU is a minor player in that sort of thing. We have plenty of free rein to negotiate anything we like at the moment. I get that the fierce nationalists don't like any sort of restrictions, but given that the restrictions are not harmful and actually protect us in relation to other EU countries, their attitude is entirely self-defeating (as, frankly, is the case for most opposition to free trade). It's straight back to united we stand, divided we fall again. Which also links neatly, as you say, to the fact that alone we have less clout to negotiate. As for "nobody can be certain" - this is getting tedious (not you, I mean generally) hearing this. We can be certain. We can be absolutely certain that it will be incredibly risky and damaging in the short term. What we cannot be certain about is the long term.
Munky, the point here is there are many thousands who simply do not want to work and will do whatever they can to avoid doing so. Yes, there are also those that do have some self respect and want to work but as norfolkbuoy says, these days there is always work for those who really want it. God forbid that I should lose my job, but if I did I would rather push trolleys around Tesco's car park than sit on my arse expecting the state to bail me out, (no disrespect to those who do push those trolleys intended)
I don't disagree that the first thing to happen with a yes vote would be a serious run on the UK stock market and currency followed rapidly by a number of major plc's choosing to relocate causing numerous job losses. Personally I will be voting to stay in for that very reason - it is easy to criticise the bits of the EU we find unpalatable but the truth is that it has acted as a steadying influence in the region and provided all its members with the best opportunity to develop their economies and look after their people without the spectre of war hanging over them. I don't doubt for a minute that the UK would survive and possibly even thrive outside the EU but I also feel that we can do equally well within the EU. Better to be inside the ship as part of the crew than trying to swim alongside it. If we left the EU it would also cause a major problem in the UK as it would appear the Scots and Welsh are overwhelmingly in favour of staying in and I can really do without another constitutional crisis next year.
Me too. I'd hate every minute and be bored senseless I'm sure but better to do something productive and get some cash in than sit around getting bed sores on the sofa doing nothing day in and day out. And Munky, I know you hate Thatcher and her policies but I just don't see the relevance in 2015. Cities like Liverpool and Manchester and Leeds are pretty vibrant now and regardless of how badly you think it was handled in the 1980's (and don't get me wrong I am just about old enough to remember how much of a bloodbath it was for certain regions) the fact is that had Thatcher not existed we would still not have many coal mines operating today. They would have shut and had to be replaced by other industries as they have been. Lancashire used to be the textile capital of the world but the industry evolved and now there aren't textile mills there. We used to have a huge coal industry, now we don't and regardless of your political leanings this is not going to alter the facts. The North, Scotland and Wales have got and continue to get a disproportionate amount of development monies form Central Government relative to the "wealthier" areas of England and I think that the policy of focusing investment in areas where more economic development is required to bring the regions "up to speed" is the correct policy but I do find it wearing when people keep justifying the lack of progress in certain communities on government policies more than 30 years ago. Far easier to blame history than actually tell people to get up and do something positive.
Very nutritious. According to Mrs G, the tip should be furled and perky, rather than limp. This is also true of asparagus.
