I was in the UK just a couple of months ago. I saw Tata trucks, McDonalds hamburgers, I brought Nutrogena hand cream, I saw Nissan car dealerships, Starbucks coffee shops, McCain oven chips (mind you use the right oven gloves), Ugg boots, Sony electronics and bananas. And yet I hear anti-EU folk talk about that organisation restricting the UK's right to trade with whoever they wish to around the world. I don't get it?
All of our trade agreements are negotiate by the EU. We have no free trade agreements that have been negotiated by us, for us.
Norway has free movement of labour (in both directions)
Indeed they do. They're not a member of the EU though and that was the premise of Prague's outburst about countries kicking anyone out that disgarees with the EU's utopian dream/disaster.
Oh dear. That of course is not what I wrote, but I suppose if your preferred footie forum is The Lion Rants, such blatant travesties are normal for you.
But if you want to have a sensible discussion ( I.e. one where it is not a given that everyone will agree with you) consider what Cameron is saying today about the future of the Calais camp if we leave. It's part of the same thing. The French are doing our dirty work there now, because we are part of the same club, and have a shared problem. But the Mayor of Calais is at her wits end about it, understandably. Now, as soon as we vote for Brexit, she will be the first to say, let anyone through who says they are going to the UK. Wouldn't you, in her shoes?
So it's not difficult to see that they will start to get difficult with Brits living there, to score political points. Actually like we are now doing today with Kiwis and Aussies, charging them to access the NHS when they are here, even though they don't charge us over there.
It could actually help you to remember your own favourite song when thinking about Europe. Not everyone likes us.
You talk about having a 'sensible' discussion yet label anyone who errs on the side of the no campaign as being akin to Le Pen. You then have the temerity to try and spin it to make it sound as though I'm the one that didn't like the taste of my dummy. You started mud slinging, and not for the first time.
You make some good points on many threads and I find your contributions interesting, as with most other posters, but you don't half have a tantrum when someone disagrees with you. Rein in the name calling and we're good to go.
Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un.
Spin? Give over. If I have a viewpoint, I give it, as clearly as I can manage, and I also have a rule that I only write what I would say to a person's face. So I'll summarise what I have actually been writing, in the last 24 hours here, as opposed to your version of it. People can make up their own minds whether it is spin, bluster or tantrum, and doubtless judge your reply on the same measure, should you choose to do so.
- UKIP and its supporters generally talk about all those coming from the EU to Britain as 'economic migrants'. Whereas, I never see Brits talking about themselves, colonising France, Spain and Tuscany, as economic migrants. Yet in Spain certainly many people moan about the Brits the way many Brits moan about Poles etc. So consequences for Brits abroad of Brexit, are real and potentially serious. Their conceit that they in, say, Spain, are different and better than a Romanian in Sidcup, stops them from getting to grips with this.
- I accept that UKIP is a properly constituted political party, and its one MP (whom I watched carefully on the Marr show yesterday), is an intelligent and coherent politician. I don't know why you should be so upset to be considered as a UKIP sympathiser. That is how you sound to me, if not, I'm interested to learn where you disagree with them.
- my only reference to le Pen was to point out that while she appears to have the same views on the EU as you do, she is not your friend (or rather Big Rob's, who lives there) because wherever her party has power the policies are and will be France for the French. They are especially strong in the North.
- Re the camps and the bluster from Dave, just brick up the Channel Tunnel. Job's a good un Funny enough I was going to suggest that this would probably be your solution but thought that would be going a bit far...
Many thanks for your well constructed response.
We may disagree wholeheartedly on many things but I respect your right to hold those views and enjoy reading debate from all sides, regardless of the angle we all take to make our point.
For the record, the Channel Tunnel quip was very much facetious. It'd be more of a spectacle if we blew it up
Well sure, I was 99% sure of that. Call the other 1% the Spanner factor :-)
Side issues are being used to deflect attention from the real issues.
What are the real issues for you?
If possible, can you give real-world examples (rather than intangibles like potential or sovereignty) since 2000.
1. Real issue - Who makes decisions on what is best for UK citizens, our elected government or the web of bureaucratic committees and officials appointed but not elected within the EU. 2. Real issue - We were not allowed to save jobs in the steel industry because we must adhere to the EU rule that nation states must not subsidise private business. Only the EU can decide where grants and subsidies can be awarded. 3.Real issue - Our contribution to the EU is redistributed as the EU decide. Should the UK be using taxpayers' money to invest in the NHS or the EU invest it in roadbuilding in Poland. 4. Real issue - I am restricted in fishing for bass at the moment. Who allowed bass to be overfished, me or the EU fisheries policy? Who allows a single Dutch trawler catch over 20% of all fish caught in UK waters and small in shore fishermen are allowed one crate worth £50 month?
They boil down to one real issue, that's democratic control versus begging for favours from European political leaders and unelected unaccountable officials in Brussels.
You can accept these negative impacts on the UK if you believe in creating and paying for a federal Europe by re-distribution of wealth. Otherwise why would you accept what are in effect compulsory foreign aid donations to slightly less wealthy Western democracies.
The illusion of an EU vision is the biggest "intangible" "potential" anyone could hang their EU support on. It does nothing a sovereign state couldn't do itself, and most do. Give me examples of what the EU has achieved in the UK that the UK parliament could not have achieved given the will of the people. Please don't quote working time directive or other stuff sensible people would have addressed entirely differently, a sovereign state can pass a working time directive as well as the EU, it would just be able to make it a bit more sensible.
If the EU vision is so profound and good for its citizens, how come no other group of countries have ever considered following in the EU's footsteps? It's been around for some time.
The illusion of an EU vision is the biggest "intangible" "potential" anyone could hang their EU support on. It does nothing a sovereign state couldn't do itself, and most do. Give me examples of what the EU has achieved in the UK that the UK parliament could not have achieved given the will of the people. Please don't quote working time directive or other stuff sensible people would have addressed entirely differently, a sovereign state can pass a working time directive as well as the EU, it would just be able to make it a bit more sensible.
If the EU vision is so profound and good for its citizens, how come no other group of countries have ever considered following in the EU's footsteps? It's been around for some time.
1. Action on multi-nationals who are taking the piss tax wise. Microsoft and Intel already dealt with, Google and Amazon in the firing line. Only a unit as big as the EU can do this, we cannot alone. (especially with our pathetic HMRC, tax havens, and huge City lobby)
2. Roaming charges (again, must be done Europe wide)
3. 2 year Europe wide guarantees on consumer products (even though many UK companies flout it)
4. The conditions whereby strategic UK companies such as M&S, Tesco and Next feel confident investing in the new EU countries such as this one.
5. The possibility for a private citizen to stop the UK government spunking millions on West Ham United!
The point about the working time directive is that the UK didn't do it, and a lot of UK workers think it is a good thing
As for other EU type formations:
- The United States of America. - the EEA; these member countries willingly adopt 70% or more of EU directives - then of course there is Putin's Eurasian Union. Which is nota great example, but then you are only left with LatAm and Asian countries who are not doing it because they don't much like each other, to put it mildly. (OK half tongue in cheek, but overall, where could you see it, given the geo -politics?)
I was in the UK just a couple of months ago. I saw Tata trucks, McDonalds hamburgers, I brought Nutrogena hand cream, I saw Nissan car dealerships, Starbucks coffee shops, McCain oven chips (mind you use the right oven gloves), Ugg boots, Sony electronics and bananas. And yet I hear anti-EU folk talk about that organisation restricting the UK's right to trade with whoever they wish to around the world. I don't get it?
All of our trade agreements are negotiate by the EU. We have no free trade agreements that have been negotiated by us, for us.
No idea what that means, it doesn't make me any the wiser, I still see hundreds of companies from outside the EU that the UK trades with. And what was all that about with Cameron and the Chinese steel?
1. Action on multi-nationals who are taking the piss tax wise. Microsoft and Intel already dealt with, Google and Amazon in the firing line. Only a unit as big as the EU can do this, we cannot alone. (especially with our pathetic HMRC, tax havens, and huge City lobby)
2. Roaming charges (again, must be done Europe wide)
3. 2 year Europe wide guarantees on consumer products (even though many UK companies flout it)
4. The conditions whereby strategic UK companies such as M&S, Tesco and Next feel confident investing in the new EU countries such as this one.
5. The possibility for a private citizen to stop the UK government spunking millions on West Ham United!
The point about the working time directive is that the UK didn't do it, and a lot of UK workers think it is a good thing
As for other EU type formations:
- The United States of America. - the EEA; these member countries willingly adopt 70% or more of EU directives - then of course there is Putin's Eurasian Union. Which is nota great example, but then you are only left with LatAm and Asian countries who are not doing it because they don't much like each other, to put it mildly. (OK half tongue in cheek, but overall, where could you see it, given the geo -politics?)
Thought this might flush you out.
1. So Ireland and Luxembourg, EU members are not contributing to the tax avoidance and have been for years. Solution needs individual countries to cooperate rather than trading blocks. 2. Give you that. 3. Hadn't even noticed, so hasn't changed my life or views on EU. 4 What do I gain if Tesco and M&S invest outside the UK? Answer - Same as we get for French energy companies investing in the UK - a bigger monopoly charging what they can get away with. 5 I'll come back on that one. Without the EU we could pass a law that banned female football directors.
USA you can vote for lawmakers and a manifesto and they have a common currency and central bank. Pre dated the EU, not a copy.
EEA compliance no different to compliance with any other country's import regulations that you have no involvement in setting.
Bloody Europe, interfering with inferior products... Shops should be able to sell safety products that dont work if they wish !
The point for a lot of people is that we already have our own legal system to deal with these issues, we don't need to give up our sovereignty to have the same protection.
The Work Time Directive is European law. Opt out of Europe and paid annual leave, rest breaks and other general time off work could be a thing of the past. Sod the fecking oven gloves!
The oven gloves thread was to highlight pettiness in a world where much more serious problems need addressing - was looking for a bit of light-hearted dialogue/banter.
It will fizzle out soon enough and no offence was intended.
Off the The Valley now, via daughter's at Forest Gate - been summoned to clean some windows, "Because you're good at it, Dad" - lol.
For the record, I support staying in Europe - my company trades with many EU countries and they have become business partners - just want to see us recover our own right to change laws on our own territory - do not want a Federal Europe, which is where we are heading.
Petty bureaucracy and political correctness have increased exponentially with our longevity of membership in the EU.
For those employed by the EU to drive these petty bureaucracies and make us even more anal - get a proper job like the rest of us.
L8rs.
Quite a lot of use of terms like "petty bureacracy", "jobsworths", "political correctness", "federal", "dictated", etc in your posts.
You are of course ignoring the fact that the UK plays a leading role in developing those "petty" rules rather than waiting around for some faceless Belgian sitting in Brussels to impose them on us against our will. I deal with the affects of EU wide directives every day of my working life and there is no doubt that the quality and effectiveness of Europe wide legislation is leap years ahead of the (far more proscriptive btw) national legislation that we had 25 years ago.
Who told you you had to replace your boiler out of interest?
Current legislation is leap years ahead of law that is 25 years old? Wow.
Well they are obviously not good enough
They are, those gloves could have been returned under uk law.
This is the second time you've mentioned this. Just to clarify, the Consumer Rights Act to which you are referring was the UK implementation of the EU Consumer Rights Directive i.e a fundamental review of two separate pieces of UK legislation around faulty goods and services (and plenty more also) that dated back to the late 1970's, early 80's.
I think all of us can agree that laws that predate the age of home computing, as one small example, might not be quite as fit for purpose as they could be.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that, as consumers, we are far better served by being in the EU.
Perhaps they would be up to date without the EU? Im not saying these laws and directives are a bad thing, I just dont think we should give away our sovereignty to have them.
There was nothing stopping the UK updating it's outdated laws around consumers rights for over 30 years. Yet successive governments chose not to in the face of all the evidence it was required. Introducing/updating laws is difficult and expensive and that's without factoring in the activities of lobbyists.
There's a big misconception around the UK given up "sovereignty". Firstly BIS, Defra, FSA, etc are NOT sitting around waiting to be told what to do. They are right at the forefront of designing EU wide directives. If anything many of the smaller, younger countries have far more of a "complaint" to make about prescriptive rules being imposed on THEM to bring their legislation in line with the UK's, Germany's, the Scandinavians, etc than we might the other way around.
I have a friend currently working with another European country's government, helping them allign their (currently wholly inadequate) system of consumer law, product safety, food regulations to the EU's. They are doing that because at some stage (they are ages away from it yet) they might want to apply but there's no doubt in the meantime their citizens will benefit from safer products, increased consumer rights, etc. His next contract will be in the Middle East doing the same. Not for the same reasons clearly but because that government has recognised that the European system is currently "the worlds best" (their words) and they want something similar for their citizens.
Jacking in the huge influence we currently have for the illusion of regaining some sovereignty, when our businesses are still going to have to comply with what comes out of the EU anyway, makes no sense to me.
Comments
1. Real issue - Who makes decisions on what is best for UK citizens, our elected government or the web of bureaucratic committees and officials appointed but not elected within the EU.
2. Real issue - We were not allowed to save jobs in the steel industry because we must adhere to the EU rule that nation states must not subsidise private business. Only the EU can decide where grants and subsidies can be awarded.
3.Real issue - Our contribution to the EU is redistributed as the EU decide. Should the UK be using taxpayers' money to invest in the NHS or the EU invest it in roadbuilding in Poland.
4. Real issue - I am restricted in fishing for bass at the moment. Who allowed bass to be overfished, me or the EU fisheries policy? Who allows a single Dutch trawler catch over 20% of all fish caught in UK waters and small in shore fishermen are allowed one crate worth £50 month?
They boil down to one real issue, that's democratic control versus begging for favours from European political leaders and unelected unaccountable officials in Brussels.
You can accept these negative impacts on the UK if you believe in creating and paying for a federal Europe by re-distribution of wealth. Otherwise why would you accept what are in effect compulsory foreign aid donations to slightly less wealthy Western democracies.
The illusion of an EU vision is the biggest "intangible" "potential" anyone could hang their EU support on. It does nothing a sovereign state couldn't do itself, and most do. Give me examples of what the EU has achieved in the UK that the UK parliament could not have achieved given the will of the people. Please don't quote working time directive or other stuff sensible people would have addressed entirely differently, a sovereign state can pass a working time directive as well as the EU, it would just be able to make it a bit more sensible.
If the EU vision is so profound and good for its citizens, how come no other group of countries have ever considered following in the EU's footsteps? It's been around for some time.
The illusion of an EU vision is the biggest "intangible" "potential" anyone could hang their EU support on. It does nothing a sovereign state couldn't do itself, and most do. Give me examples of what the EU has achieved in the UK that the UK parliament could not have achieved given the will of the people. Please don't quote working time directive or other stuff sensible people would have addressed entirely differently, a sovereign state can pass a working time directive as well as the EU, it would just be able to make it a bit more sensible.
If the EU vision is so profound and good for its citizens, how come no other group of countries have ever considered following in the EU's footsteps? It's been around for some time.
1. Action on multi-nationals who are taking the piss tax wise. Microsoft and Intel already dealt with, Google and Amazon in the firing line. Only a unit as big as the EU can do this, we cannot alone. (especially with our pathetic HMRC, tax havens, and huge City lobby)
2. Roaming charges (again, must be done Europe wide)
3. 2 year Europe wide guarantees on consumer products (even though many UK companies flout it)
4. The conditions whereby strategic UK companies such as M&S, Tesco and Next feel confident investing in the new EU countries such as this one.
5. The possibility for a private citizen to stop the UK government spunking millions on West Ham United!
The point about the working time directive is that the UK didn't do it, and a lot of UK workers think it is a good thing
As for other EU type formations:
- The United States of America.
- the EEA; these member countries willingly adopt 70% or more of EU directives
- then of course there is Putin's Eurasian Union. Which is nota great example, but then you are only left with LatAm and Asian countries who are not doing it because they don't much like each other, to put it mildly.
(OK half tongue in cheek, but overall, where could you see it, given the geo -politics?)
1. So Ireland and Luxembourg, EU members are not contributing to the tax avoidance and have been for years. Solution needs individual countries to cooperate rather than trading blocks.
2. Give you that.
3. Hadn't even noticed, so hasn't changed my life or views on EU.
4 What do I gain if Tesco and M&S invest outside the UK? Answer - Same as we get for French energy companies investing in the UK - a bigger monopoly charging what they can get away with.
5 I'll come back on that one. Without the EU we could pass a law that banned female football directors.
USA you can vote for lawmakers and a manifesto and they have a common currency and central bank. Pre dated the EU, not a copy.
EEA compliance no different to compliance with any other country's import regulations that you have no involvement in setting.
There was nothing stopping the UK updating it's outdated laws around consumers rights for over 30 years. Yet successive governments chose not to in the face of all the evidence it was required. Introducing/updating laws is difficult and expensive and that's without factoring in the activities of lobbyists.
There's a big misconception around the UK given up "sovereignty". Firstly BIS, Defra, FSA, etc are NOT sitting around waiting to be told what to do. They are right at the forefront of designing EU wide directives. If anything many of the smaller, younger countries have far more of a "complaint" to make about prescriptive rules being imposed on THEM to bring their legislation in line with the UK's, Germany's, the Scandinavians, etc than we might the other way around.
I have a friend currently working with another European country's government, helping them allign their (currently wholly inadequate) system of consumer law, product safety, food regulations to the EU's. They are doing that because at some stage (they are ages away from it yet) they might want to apply but there's no doubt in the meantime their citizens will benefit from safer products, increased consumer rights, etc. His next contract will be in the Middle East doing the same. Not for the same reasons clearly but because that government has recognised that the European system is currently "the worlds best" (their words) and they want something similar for their citizens.
Jacking in the huge influence we currently have for the illusion of regaining some sovereignty, when our businesses are still going to have to comply with what comes out of the EU anyway, makes no sense to me.