Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

Its not about tuning back the clock, its about getting a fair deal for this country, its about the insane demands and bullshit regulations we have to adhere to. We are one of the biggest contributors to the eu budget but get very little in return, the eu has destroyed our fishing industry, it subsidises inefficient french farmers so our own farmers can't compete, eu red tape is killing our small businesses and 75% of our new laws are made in the eu. All the major eurozone economies including germany are suffering from low or zero growth, we are the only country with anything like a growing economy and yet we have virtually no say in a club that has almost destroyed its members economies. How do think the people Greece, Spain and Ireland feel about their membership of the so-called eu utopia?

In or out it will be the moneymen who will win. As for Cameron, i wouldnt trust anything he, or Osborne say. Lets face it, Cameron and the torys dont give a fuck about the british public, that's been proved often. As long as we are ruled by an old german wifey, and her obnoxious brood, serviced by their herd of brown nosers nothing will change. Which football club is Cameron supporting now? Never seen such a pathetic attempt to make out he has his finger on the pulse. Wish i had my fingers on his pulse.

(04-02-2016 09:20 )terence Wrote:  

(04-02-2016 08:06 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  Half the voters will go into the booth still not knowing which way to vote. But, in the end, will decide "fuck it, better the devil you know" and vote to stay in.

so same as the scottish Independence vote.

So if that's the case and if it's looking like a 'no' vote or closely run will our Euro partners agree to more of Camerons feeble terms to keep Britain in.

u mean yes thought question is should uk remain part if eu

I think you're both wrong. The last I heard the question was going to be "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

To which you can't answer yes or no.

(04-02-2016 13:49 )HannahsPet Wrote:  Do you remember the time when UK wasnt in Europe in the 70's Oil Crisis, Power cuts, 3 day weeks, Rising inflation, a interest rate that reached 15%, Devaluation of the pound and an IMF bailout of $3.9 Billion in 1976 the good old days

UK joined the commen market in 1973; after years of post war austerity.

What has the oil crisis to do with it? Power cuts 3 day weeks were more union problems as i remember. Lets face it 3.9 billion is nothing compaired to what Britian lost and donates.

(04-02-2016 14:27 )Doddle Wrote:  The point is that we are IN there NOW. You can't pretend that UK 2017 after a Brexit would equate to a mythical halcyon era of the past, because there never was any such time. People who want to turn the clock back are fanatics, and thus doomed to fail, as I seem to think I've read somewhere

Yes I know we are, but your're missing the point; deliberately so I'd imagine.

You have no evidance whatsoever that it would be the end of the UK as we know it, you just have speculation based of propaganda. History, however, shows the UK can indeed exist quite well without rules and regulations forced on her through Brussels. Her finantial institutions are a product of centuries.

Has a matter of interest doesn't anybody have the numbers?

How much does the UK contribute to the EU vs the economical advanges of being a member? What is Europe worth to the UK?

UK being out of Europe would make it more objective if anything and could go wither it wilt.

(04-02-2016 18:58 )wackawoo Wrote:  Yes I know we are, but your're missing the point; deliberately so I'd imagine.

How dare you?!

Quote:You have no evidance whatsoever that it would be the end of the UK as we know it, you just have speculation based of propaganda. History, however, shows the UK can indeed exist quite well without rules and regulations forced on her through Brussels. Her finantial institutions are a product of centuries.

Yes, history tells us about how well we got on in the past (when we had an Empire, for example). But we don't live in the past now

Your argument seems to me like an alcoholic with a knackered liver going "if I now stop drinking, I'll be as fit as I was before I ever had a drink" - which is impossible, the damage has been done.

(04-02-2016 18:50 )wackawoo Wrote:  UK joined the commen market in 1973; after years of post war austerity.

The 1950s and early 1960s in UK were years of relatively full employment, consumer booms and relatively large public investment in motorways, housing, new universities and etc. A general consensus between both Left & Right wing politicians about the merits of having a relatively large public sector, and an avoidance of confrontation with trade unions in the interest of keeping the industrial peace, plus a "captive" market for UK export goods in the Commonwealth appeared to most UK residents to be supporting a generally upward standard of living; albeit it's also argued that this masked (for a while) the UK's relative decline in productivity in comparison with more modernising countries like Germany and Japan, who, forced to completely rebuild their industries, had invested in new technology and methods (OK with American investment initially, but UK and many other countries also received aid under the Marshall Plan in the late 40s), and ultimately overtook UK in key manufacturing industries.

Put simply - it got to the point when "even" the Commonwealth didn't want to buy British goods like cars etc - because they were poorer in design, quality and reliability and becoming more expensive in comparison to others.

The resulting imbalance of UK imports/exports (new consumers buying cars, white goods etc all imported), combined with union-driven wage inflation and craft-based, demarcation-bound "closed shops" and other restrictive practices; not to mention outdated management methods and lack of investment from the business owner side ; led to an increasingly enervating "stop-go" cycle where the Govt kept alternating between expansionist policies to keep employment up and consumer booms going; and then having to put the brakes on to stop inflation running away ; instead of concentrating on the real problems of inadequate industrial investment, poor competitiveness and productivity; and a fiscal policy bent on "keeping up" the value of Sterling for prestige reasons - (which also included spending money on nuclear defence, and generally trying to maintain an "Empire" that the country couldn't really afford to service anymore).

Oh - and there was just as much of an outcry in those days about immigration : from former "colonies" in India, West Indies and the like.

And a lot of this was all BEFORE the UK decided it needed to go into the EU.

UK industries were in trouble in the mid-late 60s due to Sterling over-valuation (and then botched devaluation), high public spending at times of trade deficit, and a continuing decline in competitiveness, with increasing frequency of industrial strikes.
The Arab/Israeli war and the turning off the oil taps in the early 70s just exacerbated all that.
Economists were bamboozled by "Stagflation" - stagnant economy, high unemployment and high inflation all at the same time, which Keynesian economic policies didn't seem to have anyway of dealing with.

The monetarist policies of the early 80s basically just withdrew the life support machine for ailing industries in one brutal go : thereby causing mass unemployment, which killed trade union wage inflation; combined with deregulation, privatisation and technological innovation in the financial services industries and particularly City of London, this created a "service economy boom" but arguably at the cost of social inequality and a spiralling welfare budget which became needed to support a huge increase in long term unskilled and semi-skilled unemployed.
Some cynical people argue this was deliberate social engineering, others that it was a harsh but "necessary evil" to try to rebalance the economy. Whatever the truth, its arguable that many areas of the UK have never really recovered from this. "Globalisation" just continues to put the tin lid on it, it appears.

Consider the outcry from the rest of the world if the UK withdrew from EU, put up import tariffs to protect its indigenous industries, imposed controls on its Stock Exchange and manipulated its currency, and decided to have a massive investment in its own industries, undercutting other countries by having really low wages and unregulated poor workplace conditions (with workers more or less forced to put up with it - probably with the threat of having all your tax credits and benefits withdrawn for non-compliance). Imagine what type of rabid loony left socialist dictatorship that would be.

Oh - we don't have to imagine - that's pretty much what China does isn't it?
And nobody in the Western world seems bothered as long as their I-phones, shoes and trainers are cheap.
Oh there's a bit of outrage amongst the twitterati when some dissident artist gets slung into prison every once in a while; but you know, once Parliament gets the Internet under control, that can all be swept under the carpet can't it ?

(04-02-2016 20:14 )Doddle Wrote:  Yes, history tells us about how well we got on in the past (when we had an Empire, for example). But we don't live in the past now

Your argument seems to me like an alcoholic with a knackered liver going "if I now stop drinking, I'll be as fit as I was before I ever had a drink" - which is impossible, the damage has been done.

Have never heard of learning from history?

There's nothing in that responce that counters my point.

This is interesting though:

Quote:"if I now stop drinking, I'll be as fit as I was before I ever had a drink" - which is impossible, the damage has been done.

Are you saying here that the damage is already done, that is, UK is already in the EU might as well stop there.

That being the case then we agree Europe in one way or another has, and is, damaging to the UK.