I'll be amazed and very disappointed if there isn't a high turn out.What will the turnout be? Doubt it'll be above 60%. Maybe below half if the weather is ****.
I'll be amazed and very disappointed if there isn't a high turn out.What will the turnout be? Doubt it'll be above 60%. Maybe below half if the weather is ****.
I'll be amazed and very disappointed if there isn't a high turn out.
None of the below challenges your basic position which is clear. But a mixture of facts and my perspective:
I'm afraid the books thing is a myth (or more accurately a lie) repeated regularly by the Mail and the Telegraph. The Court of Auditors in Luxembourg has consistently signed them off with a 4% error margin, 0.2% of which is attributed to fraud. No worse than benefit fraud in the UK. The total EU budget is about €150bn, less than 1.5 times that of the NHS.
The migrants crisis is unprecedented, and probably could have been handled better. Germany's decision to accept large numbers of them (none of whom I saw over the last 3 days in Germany. About the only non Germans I saw were Turkish taxi drivers and tourists. It was quite odd), is just that, a German not an EU decision. Many other countries, like Hungary and the UK have taken virtually no migrants, and they can't be forced to (actually I agree with Cameron's policy of taking refugees directly from camps). I suspect that the whole thing would have been even worse without the EU, a million refugees stuck in Greece would surely have led to massive unrest, likewise in Serbia etc.
The Euro has undoubtedly been implemented stunningly poorly, and I think monetary union makes no sense without a unified fiscal policy as well, which does require genuine sacrifice of sovereignty by participants. Yet it's a stable currency, strengthening against the £.
The unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission are led by people ( the Commissioners) nominated by the member states' governments. They operate in exactly the same way as any executive arm of government, proposing laws and policies, which have to get through the democratically elected European Parliament and the European Council of Ministers - the elected leaders of the member states. For some things the individual states have veto rights. It's complicated but it is democratic and the yes/no decisions are always taken by people that you have had a chance to vote for. Of course you are right in that those decisions are not taken in Westminster, and a sacrifice of sovereignty is involved in that. That's the price of being in the club.
Quite a good programme on BBC 1 now with both sides being represented properly without shouting for a change.
my take, us old 'uns are out, the youngsters are in
what do they actually do with that 150 billion euros sbNone of the below challenges your basic position which is clear. But a mixture of facts and my perspective:
I'm afraid the books thing is a myth (or more accurately a lie) repeated regularly by the Mail and the Telegraph. The Court of Auditors in Luxembourg has consistently signed them off with a 4% error margin, 0.2% of which is attributed to fraud. No worse than benefit fraud in the UK. The total EU budget is about €150bn, less than 1.5 times that of the NHS.
The migrants crisis is unprecedented, and probably could have been handled better. Germany's decision to accept large numbers of them (none of whom I saw over the last 3 days in Germany. About the only non Germans I saw were Turkish taxi drivers and tourists. It was quite odd), is just that, a German not an EU decision. Many other countries, like Hungary and the UK have taken virtually no migrants, and they can't be forced to (actually I agree with Cameron's policy of taking refugees directly from camps). I suspect that the whole thing would have been even worse without the EU, a million refugees stuck in Greece would surely have led to massive unrest, likewise in Serbia etc.
The Euro has undoubtedly been implemented stunningly poorly, and I think monetary union makes no sense without a unified fiscal policy as well, which does require genuine sacrifice of sovereignty by participants. Yet it's a stable currency, strengthening against the £.
The unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission are led by people ( the Commissioners) nominated by the member states' governments. They operate in exactly the same way as any executive arm of government, proposing laws and policies, which have to get through the democratically elected European Parliament and the European Council of Ministers - the elected leaders of the member states. For some things the individual states have veto rights. It's complicated but it is democratic and the yes/no decisions are always taken by people that you have had a chance to vote for. Of course you are right in that those decisions are not taken in Westminster, and a sacrifice of sovereignty is involved in that. That's the price of being in the club.
Quite a good programme on BBC 1 now with both sides being represented properly without shouting for a change.
If they have the nerve is a perfectly fair statement.
People will need to take a leap in the dark to a certain extent and they may prefer the status quo.
Digby Jones, Former Director of the CBI and Trade Minister under Gordon Brown expressing his concerns about the EU on Radio 5 Business News today:
1. The current 200 companies writing in support of staying IN, will have little support from the myriad of small businesses around the country who will say, it's ok for big business with its huge resources of researchers and lobbyists to mould the EU into what they want it to be, but for small firms all they get from the undemocratic, unconnected group of individuals in Brussels who have never done a day's business work in their entire lives, is red tape that makes daily life difficult, cuts profits and stifles ability to grow in the face of big competition from India, Far East etc
2. Re Trade War if we come out - Germany sells 1 million cars to the UK in addition to all the white goods, Bosch, Miele etc, 90% of our trains are made in Dusseldorf, and we drink more champagne than the French do. Inconceivable that we won't get a Free Trade Agreement if we come out of the EU.
3. One of the key reasons Europe want us IN, is that we are an outward-looking country, with an amazing ability to engage with the rest of the world. We are the most open market in Europe, with the practice of free trade at our core - compare that with the protectionist French
4. All concessions that Cameron says he has achieved from the EU are subject to a vote of the European Parliament after the referendum - thus the EU has a veto.
5. No one has provided a picture of what the EU will look like if we stay in. At present, it is marching valiantly toward the 1970's, refusing to engage with the world, sclerotic at to how it creates wealth. Instead of giving a Greek lad the skills to be employable anywhere, it would rather subsidise his olive growing so he can buy a BMW, even though this will lead eventually to his bankruptcy. Camerons is saying we must stay in a "reformed" EU but there is absolutely no evidence that the EU will, or even wants to, reform.
6.Digby Jones sat in Brussels both as a Trade Minister, and as CBI leader, and says it's a myth that the UK have influence there - always apparent that it's an organisation created by the French and funded by the Germans
7. The referendum result will come down to 1. immigration and 2. gut instinct. If we stay in, the blinding question is - will the EU become globally competitive over the next generation. At the moment, there is every sign it will not
I always thought he was smart. I'm not so sure reading that:
No empirical data to back this up, so at best it's a guess, at worst he's projecting his own view on the situation, taking that as fact, and trying to make people fear for the many small business and their poor owners.
These matters only come into play if we have an alternate source of these goods without importing them. We don't. So the demand for luxury cars, white goods, and fizzy wine will mean this is irrelevant.
That will have no bearing on the vote. If we are so outward looking, what does it matter whether we are in or out? The EU will want to trade with is wherever we sit. So backs up point two, but otherwise it's another irrelevant point.
He's assuming that the negotiations over the past year won't result in change, but he's also saying in point 5 that it'll change for the worse. He really needs to make his mind up here. Either the EU are open for change or they are not. If they are open to change, then that change can go in either direction. He's also assuming that none of the other countries want to change. Sure France possibly, and maybe Germany, but that's two nations only. The others clearly want a good deal from the EU, and by having a precedent set that France and Germany don't always get their own way, there's far more chance of that happening.
If we stay in, the EU looks like it does today. More scaremongering, trying to paint the EU as Frankenstein's Monster.
Personal opinion does not equal facts. Again, empirical data would have helped his cause. I'm guessing he has none.
Nobody knows what will happen in the global market in ten years time. If Digby Jones did, he's win the lottery every week. And bringing immigration back as the 'key' policy is scaremongering yet again, playing to the basest fears of the least intelligent amongst the voters. He should be ashamed of using his privileged position to stir up such matters.
The truth is that we will pay slightly more for a new BMW than we do at the moment in the event of an Out vote. Which will be true, however people will still buy BMWs because they want to, and there's no comparable British alternative. Same with champagne. The simple fact is that Germany is a far more productive market than the UK for these kind of goods, and so will remain strong irrespective of the vote. It's utterly irrelevant to whether or not we should stay in or leave, and I suspect that he knows this. It's a nice thing to claim on his side of the debate, however it's equally good for the Pro-EU side when you start bringing reality into the equation.The point he is making about goods is that if there is a trade war, import taxes will hit German and French industries harder than it will hit the UK
Of course, there is much opinion here. But educated opinion.
The truth is that we will pay slightly more for a new BMW than we do at the moment in the event of an Out vote. Which will be true, however people will still buy BMWs because they want to, and there's no comparable British alternative. Same with champagne. The simple fact is that Germany is a far more productive market than the UK for these kind of goods, and so will remain strong irrespective of the vote. It's utterly irrelevant to whether or not we should stay in or leave, and I suspect that he knows this. It's a nice thing to claim on his side of the debate, however it's equally good for the Pro-EU side when you start bringing reality into the equation.
As for opinion? That's perfectly fine. But he should couch it in less fearful language, because he does his position no good playing to the alleged fears of the masses without evidence to back it up.
The truth is that we will pay slightly more for a new BMW than we do at the moment in the event of an Out vote. Which will be true, however people will still buy BMWs because they want to, and there's no comparable British alternative. Same with champagne. The simple fact is that Germany is a far more productive market than the UK for these kind of goods, and so will remain strong irrespective of the vote. It's utterly irrelevant to whether or not we should stay in or leave, and I suspect that he knows this. It's a nice thing to claim on his side of the debate, however it's equally good for the Pro-EU side when you start bringing reality into the equation.
As for opinion? That's perfectly fine. But he should couch it in less fearful language, because he does his position no good playing to the alleged fears of the masses without evidence to back it up.
The only source of cars that will compete with BMW/Mercedes are Audi (German) VW (German) Alfa Romeo (Italian) or Japanese models like Lexus or the top-end Mazda and Toyota marques. All this does is level the field, so that the import taxes for a BMW matches that we already happily pay for a Lexus. And the only realistic alternative to champagne is Prosecco, which is Italian and therefore will be hit as much.There most definitely are alternatives to German cars, British built and outside EU, and import taxes will make BMW's, VW's etc less competitive. Coming on the back of the recent VW scandal, it is just what the German automotive industry won't want.
There are also most definitely British, and other, alternatives to champagne if prices go up on French wines through a trade war
As for evidence supporting Digby Jones's views, there are no grounds for saying it doesn't exist - he does not have a reputation for making wild and unsubstantiated allegations. But this morning, he wasn't putting in a legal submission. As I said, I have merely paraphrased his radio interview that lasted 4 or 5 minutes.
The only source of cars that will compete with BMW/Mercedes are Audi (German) VW (German) Alfa Romeo (Italian) or Japanese models like Lexus or the top-end Mazda and Toyota marques. All this does is level the field, so that the import taxes for a BMW matches that we already happily pay for a Lexus. And the only realistic alternative to champagne is Prosecco, which is Italian and therefore will be hit as much.
Interesting that you admit to paraphrasing Digby Jones. How much of your own stance has impacted the words you used in paraphrasing what he said? Is there a chance you can post his words, so we can see?
This will be about closed stupid people who haven't even been abroad I bet and haven't seen the world