Well with a massive vote coming up next year, now seems as good a time as any to kick off the subject in some depth. Not that I know all that much, but you lot certainly do. You have to live it. The Scottish vote was a serious episode in the modern history of the UK, but it will be a pale old affair when compared with what lies before the people when the vote rolls around in 2017. Is an exit the best option? In the short term, it's hard to see that it is. It must have an unsettling effect upon everyone. Do the Germans really want to be left alone with France? If Britain opts out, will Germany say. "Good on ya', we wish you all the very best of good luck?" Or will they wield the big stick as they've so often done in the past when anyone steps out of line? Personally, I think they'll be livid. Germany will be making all kind of angry noises in the lead up. The political parties will be in the UK will be ****ting themselves. The shift to the right in global politics has already made it's mark in the UK, with the rise in popularity of UKIP. This vote will probably see this party further consolidate itself. Labour and the Tories are not going to be happy. What will further elections in the UK mean if there is a change of government? And there is every chance that the tax system will have to be readjusted. And how will the financial houses deal with the new set alignments? Will they up stakes and bugger off? Probably not, no government worth it's salt is going to kill off the cash cow. Will all the head spinning fear surrounding the lead up to the big day, end up forcing a No Exit vote?
I don't believe the full implications are known to anyone who will be voting. I would like to see all the pros and cons submitted in a document, agreed/accepted by all political parties and for everyone voting to vote with their eyes wide open. If they exit, once it's done - it's done. If people vote out and regret it later, tough ****. I suppose, if they vote in, the subject can always be re-visited. We'll see how much Europe needs us when Cameron submits his conditions for remaining in.
Scary stuff, democracy. Letting the people decide is a noble concept; but my experience of the political views of "the people" doesn't fill me with confidence. Anyway, the future of Britain, and to some extent the whole of Europe, rezts with the man in the street. And we all know what Sid Vicious thought about the man in the street.
Yep. Who needs a Parliament when major decisions are made by the uninitiated man in the street? Frightening. I never understood why there needs to be so many people in Parliament
It is huge as it really will not be just about us but about Europe. How France and Germany will feel about absorbing the likes Turkey and Ukraine without one of the big three European countries is anyone's guess. I feel many normal citizens in Europe will also be hoping we exit as they will hope it will lead the way to their own exit as Europe is not all popular but many fear as we do going alone, and I feel would like a falling apart or huge restructuring. If I were Merkal I would welcome Britain's requests for change as she has the chance to put through changes which would suit her as well but in our name. My view is essentially that for Europe to work for the wealthy nations it does not work for the less well off and if it works for the less well off it will not work for the wealthier. An essential is that free movement can only be allowed through employment and not benefits which means the benefits are always paid in keeping from the home country and at the rate applicable there, this ensures movement of labour will only be through employment and not benefits as home benefits would never be enough to survive in wealthier countries. With regard crime I would suggest any crime punishable with a custodial sentence allows the nation to deport back to the home nation and to refuse re-entry. These two things would make a difference because it would stop people coming without independent ability to support themselves. I hope we remain in at this moment but I feel much water will flow under the bridge before an actual vote and I could change that view.
In answer to the question Cyc, I would say that it is vital that Britain is in full control of its borders and to whom it pays benefits. That must be the view of all the main members, mustn't it? If Cameron can get the Rules changed then the vote becomes a non event. If he can't I think there will be a major shift to exit, rightly or wrongly.
No actual date has been given for when the EU Referendum will take place, although it should theoretically happen before the end of 2017. Speculation has it that a date in the autumn of 2016 is most likely as there are local elections in the spring and they do not want a clash. When the Scottish Referendum took place, the “Exit” campaign was almost exclusively the domain of the Scottish National Party, whereas the EU Referendum does not appear to have any obvious single advocate on either side of the argument. All of the main political parties include factions vehemently pro and con Europe. Only UKIP is totally in the Brexit camp but Nigel Farage is considered a sufficiently divisive character that the Brexit campaign do not want him as their official spokesperson. The Electoral Commission has the unenviable task of deciding which organisations will officially represent both sides. If the result is a Brexit, Germany will have to deal with an Independent Britain just as many other EU states will because they export more to us than we do to them. The European project may be fatally damaged by a Brexit as others may realise that they do not want a political union, just a Common Market. Was that not where we started in 1973? Ultimately the Stay in Europe campaign will resort to the fear factor that proved so effective for the Union side in the Scottish Referendum. The argument will be almost exclusively founded on economics, with scare stories about millions of jobs being lost and the loss of inward foreign investment. They will stay away from subjects such as free movement of people, human rights legislation and expensive bureaucratic excesses in Brussels and Strasbourg, which are the actual issues.
In essence, the richer EU countries – predominately the UK and Germany at the moment – subsidise the poor (mostly former soviet bloc) countries, so what we have is the E.S.S.R. being run from Brussels. There is absolutely no chance of changing the free movement rules as that would be a Treaty change that would require all member states to agree. Neither Merkel nor Hollande would support this as they are both up for re-election in 2017; and the Eastern Europeans certainly do not want change as it is why they joined. Europe’s poor want to come to Britain because our benefits system pays more than many of our European neighbours. There was an item on Channel 4 News the other night about how Romanian employment agencies charge Romanians to come and pick crops in Britain, pay them less than minimum wage and force them to live in squalid conditions. The Romanians will do it because the benefits they claim in this country are sent back to Romania, where they have virtually no welfare system, to support their families. This is effectively voluntary slavery – welcome to the 21st Century European project.
This whole EU thing is a mess to me, the more I look at it, the less I know. I go around in circles. I don't know how true it is, but I read recently that if the EU collapsed, it would slash 10% from Germany's GDP. If that's true, it's an horrific outcome. The French economist Emmanuel Macron has today come out in support of the Treaty changes being called for by the British government. It would seem from what he said, that the UK has not made it known exactly want it wants, but he supports a more balanced approach to the poorer countries. He stated that the inner core of the EU is presently sucking the life blood out of the rest of the currency zone. He's called for a strengthening of the EMU, giving it powers to raise taxes by maybe a VAT, in the hope of being better able to deal with future troubled countries. He's also called for an insurance scheme to fund unemployment problems. Germany has countered with the scary claim that propping up half of Europe in this way would be greater than the reparation deal forced upon them by the Versailles Treaty in 1919. Otmar Issing said it would be dangerous to transfer tax control to the EU. He stated any move toward an EMU treasury and budget would need an amendment to the German constitution, to be supported by two thirds of both houses of parliament. He gave it next to hope. But whether they like it or not, if Britain presses ahead with it's demands, and is supported to some degree by France, Germany will be left with little option but to cede some ground. Fascinating times ahead.
No they won't. But will the Jerries offer some last minute concessions to the Brits in the same way David Cameron made some late promises to Scotland in a bid to preserve the union?
Something is going to have to give Arch, Cameron has to get out this with some cred or he'll be eaten alive by the media and the Eurosceptics. Germany in the end, didn't want Greece out, so it's hard to imagine that they'll want Britain to cut their ties. You'd think this Cameron move probably has to be a bit of brinkmanship, and the EU must know this. The 20th Confederation of British Industry believe staying is a bonus. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has stated that Britain had been the leading beneficiary when it came to the movement of goods, services, capital and people. There must be stats to support these claims. I did notice that the UKIP reckoned that Britain was worse off being a member. But are their numbers all that trustworthy?
President of the European Union, Jean Claude Juncker (former PM of Luxembourg) is really doing a sterling job for the Brexit campaign. He made an address in Madrid on 22nd October with the following snippets of wisdom: “Economically, we see the end of Europe’s glorious years compared with what others are doing” “The dream of a unified continent is at risk from fissures and fractures of national divisions and separatist movements” “The European Union is not going very well and so we must ensure that we keep alive the ambitions, hopes and dreams of Europe.” Soon the EU will represent just 15 per cent of the world’s GDP and 80 per cent of the world’s growth is in countries outside the EU. Just seven per cent of the world population lives in the EU and this could fall to four per cent by the end of the century. “We are demographically weakened, and will remain so” “We can’t lose the people who always believed in us, the simple people who work, who aren’t any less intelligent than the elites. They’ve always supported Europe and it is about reconquering their heart.”
The thoughts of famed scholar Nassim Taleb on Centralisation, cast an insight into whether Brittian is better off remaining part of Europe. Being one of the power countries, you might have protection, through trade etc, but the smaller countries can't be all that happy existing on handouts while slowly withering on the vine. "Centralisation concentrates decision-making. Centralisation acts as a transmission mechanism to transmit and amplify the effects of centralised decisions throughout a system. This means that when bad decisions are made — as inevitably happens in human behaviour — the entire system will be damaged. Under a decentralised system, there is no such problem. Under a decentralised heterogeneous system, mistakes are not so easily transmitted or amplified. Centralisation is fragile." Nassim NicholasTaleb.
There are many situations where centralisation is the only sensible and economic approach (ie where all parts have the same overall goal) and decentralisation will result in chaos (eg IT strategy development within a company). Centralisation in horse racing has proved to be the more economical approach. However, unless we see ourselves as a part of Europe and prepared to be controlled, centralisation of political control in Europe is an example of potential disaster. Decentralisation allows parties to pull in different directions as they all have their own "selfish" goals, rather than for the good of the whole. There is no way all countries in Europe can share the same goal, and achieve it, without all signing up to and accepting central control. It's bad enough having different parties bickering about how one country should be run. All of them? Nightmare. Effectively rolling all of Europe into one country with one ruler setting the rules. Isn't that what Germany tried to achieve (twice) by force? Let's go the whole hog and have one party ruling the planet. Actually that might be needed if there was threat of an alien attack.
Well, Ron, the Yanks have been ready for such a thing for many years. The immigration sign at their airport 'arrivals' says "Aliens". I know, 'cos I'm from Neptune.
