Will we stay or will we go?

In or out?

  • Stay in

  • Leave

  • And the requisite opt out option : I don't care I'm off down the pub

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it true that European countries like Finland that are not in the EU still have to pay a levy to trade with Europe ?
I'm sure that I read that somewhere
 
Rapscallion said:
It is the per person net contribution that matters, not the total. As we are one of the largest and most wealthy nations in the EU, it stands to reason our total contribution will be amongst the largest.
Click to expand...
Is that like say Unite Union they take money of members then say give lots money for the Labour Party even supposing said members did not support Labour or the principle :(
 
Phil V said:
The EEC was more than just a free trade agreement, which is why the following government gave us a choice on it.

The Lisbon treaty was no more mission creep than the Maastricht treaty, for balance.

And both major parties promised a referendum following the last election... Again for balance.
Click to expand...
Are you sure Labour was offering a referendum on the EU last election could have sworn Mr Milliband was dead against the idea as was the Lib Dems though in balance if we would give more powers then the public may be consulted (Allegedly)

Strange started thinking I would vote stay moving more leave as thread continues
 
border_all said:
Is that like say Unite Union they take money of members then say give lots money for the Labour Party even supposing said members did not support Labour or the principle :(
Click to expand...

No. I was just pointing out that a large wealthy country will likely be a large net contributor.
 
dejongj said:
Oh and for anyone not realising, go will have severe consequences for my family, that will likely be a huge change, so this is despite being personally affected by it.
Click to expand...
If the UK pull out and if you've lived across a border long enough, you will be well looked after. So many, including myself, are in this position. I'm not worried about it at all.

There is so much shared research going on in the EU to the benefit of all the member states, it's just silly if each one tried to pay to duplicate the work of all its neighbours.
The EU is far from perfect and countries trying to share things with all their differences is still tricky, but for people in the UK fear that they will lose their standard of living somehow, as if it's worse in Germany for example, is needless.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
If the UK pull out and if you've lived across a border long enough, you will be well looked after. So many, including myself, are in this position. I'm not worried about it at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not worried as such, but the consequences are still there. I could naturalise today if I wanted to, but I don't want to. At best I would like dual citizenship, but I'll never give up my own citizenship. I have permanent leave to remain currently, that could change. Then there are the costs associated with it. Then my wife and children are British citizens. Then there is tax treaties. Impact on money abroad, pensions, trust funds all sorts of stuff....It will be fine, but not without consequences.
 
border_all said:
Are you sure Labour was offering a referendum on the EU last election ...
Click to expand...
Not 100% no.
Although the referendum was pencilled in well in advance, and I have a nagging suspicion it was signed up to by all 3 parties, Red Ed is no less a fan of the EU than 'call me Dave' is. But it's impossible to ignore such a large movement as the anti EU one has become (sadly)

Not sadly because I think we should stay in but sadly because UKIP and their ilk appeal to the lowest common denominator.
 
dejongj said:
I'm not worried as such, but the consequences are still there. I could naturalise today if I wanted to, but I don't want to
Click to expand...
Come the revolution, you are first out :p
 
Phil V said:
Not 100% no.
Although the referendum was pencilled in well in advance, and I have a nagging suspicion it was signed up to by all 3 parties, Red Ed is no less a fan of the EU than 'call me Dave' is. But it's impossible to ignore such a large movement as the anti EU one has become (sadly)

Not sadly because I think we should stay in but sadly because UKIP and their ilk appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

I don't think Miliband supported a referendum, but Harman did - link.
 
Phil V said:
We never voted to join - the Tories just signed us in without asking ;)
l.
Click to expand...

to be fair we voted for it when we ellected that govt knowing it was their policy - the country won't work if the electorate have to be consulted separately on every major issue, you can't rule by popularity - we get a chance once every 4-5 or so years to choose who represents us , between times we should leave them to get on with it (if they make a hash of it, don't vote them into govt next time)
 
arclight said:
Nor is it helped by the EU not having produced audited/certified accounts for 2 decades ...................
Click to expand...
They are audited and certified and have been for years.
 
Cobra said:
Come the revolution, you are first out :p
Click to expand...
Hey I live on top of a hill. Several off road vehicles, loads of guns, wild animals. You are welcome to come inside the compound :thumbs: I'm not going anywhere.
 
Llamaman said:
They are audited and certified and have been for years.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that. When did that happen and who did they have to pay off to make that happen?
 
dejongj said:
Hey I live on top of a hill. Several off road vehicles, loads of guns, wild animals. You are welcome to come inside the compound (y) I'm not going anywhere.
Click to expand...
I can add a few useful things to that list too, looks like you and me against the world :D
 
dejongj said:
£20Bn cost, and £8Bn of that coming back at us but without say as to where that is being spend on.
Click to expand...

£12bil better off...and with full say over what it's spent on. The free trade is good. Perhaps if it hadn't expanded east of Poland and South of France Schengen might have been good...but it's evolved into something really unwholesome
 
ST4 said:
£12bil better off...and with full say over what it's spent on. The free trade is good. Perhaps if it hadn't expanded east of Poland and South of France Schengen might have been good...but it's evolved into something really unwholesome
Click to expand...
I can't help but agree, it should never have been expanded to the former East Block, and then another huge mistake with the eurozone which just can't be separated from it any longer. It highlighted the huge cultural differences between northern and Southern Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
big soft moose said:
to be fair we voted for it when we ellected that govt knowing it was their policy - the country won't work if the electorate have to be consulted separately on every major issue, you can't rule by popularity - we get a chance once every 4-5 or so years to choose who represents us , between times we should leave them to get on with it (if they make a hash of it, don't vote them into govt next time)
Click to expand...
Mmm not sure I agree with that sentiment when they are elected to govern we never gave them the right for removing the democracy of the country. Why not just make us a state of the USA if they need people above them they should resign and let someone who can do the job be in charge
 
border_all said:
Mmm not sure I agree with that sentiment when they are elected to govern we never gave them the right for removing the democracy of the country. Why not just make us a state of the USA if they need people above them they should resign and let someone who can do the job be in charge
Click to expand...

how are they removing the democracy of the country so long as there's another election in about 2020 ? govts do stuff that some of their citizens disagree with all the time , but an unpopular govt doesnt get ellected to a second term
 
I'm quite sure the politicians won't allow a full political disengagement from the EU and a move back to just free trade.
 
julianhj said:
I'm quite sure the politicians won't allow a full political disengagement from the EU and a move back to just free trade.
Click to expand...

If the people vote for that then they have no choice.
Well... that's the theory anyway.
 
big soft moose said:
how are they removing the democracy of the country so long as there's another election in about 2020 ? govts do stuff that some of their citizens disagree with all the time , but an unpopular govt doesnt get ellected to a second term
Click to expand...
If during the time say prior 2020 then it's a done deal electing some other party does not reverse what's done. I am not suggesting that we should be consulted on all day to day running but national opinion should be taken into account an example might be the Iraq war a huge amount of people never wanted that war and we are still paying now a new government could not turn the clock back

Thinking national opinion look at how the SNP got traction because of Westminster and trident apart from pressuring parliament what can they do it was signed years ago
 
bindex said:
If the people vote for that then they have no choice.
Well... that's the theory anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, but before we get to the ballot boxes, we have a couple of years of propaganda, scaremongering, smear campaigns and general shenanigans designed to railroad the electorate it to voting to stick with the status quo.
 
julianhj said:
Yes, but before we get to the ballot boxes, we have a couple of years of propaganda, scaremongering, smear campaigns and general shenanigans designed to railroad the electorate it to voting to stick with the status quo.
Click to expand...

:agree: You're quite correct. I'd much prefer a balanced debate, factual and honest on both sides of the argument. I doubt very much that we'll see that though.
 
Last edited:
border_all said:
but national opinion should be taken into account an example might be the Iraq war
Click to expand...

How on earth can you hold a referendum on whether or not you go to war with another country? It takes a lot of time and effort to set one up, I would think that, by the time the results are in, the moment will have passed or the consequences of inaction could be disastrous!
 
fabs said:
How on earth can you hold a referendum on whether or not you go to war with another country? It takes a lot of time and effort to set one up, I would think that, by the time the results are in, the moment will have passed or the consequences of inaction could be disastrous!
Click to expand...

Plus we will never be privy to secret information that could have a massive bearing.
 
bindex said:
:agree: You're quite correct. I'd much prefer a balanced debate, factual and honest on both sides of the argument. I doubt very much that we'll see that though.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. A reasoned, balanced national debate would be fantastic - i.e. a complete fantasy!
 
fabs said:
How on earth can you hold a referendum on whether or not you go to war with another country? It takes a lot of time and effort to set one up, I would think that, by the time the results are in, the moment will have passed or the consequences of inaction could be disastrous!
Click to expand...
How about voting via computer that seems quick
 
border_all said:
How about voting via computer that seems quick
Click to expand...

It is quick.
The trouble is the lack of openness and transparency (sometimes justified) and the time taken to thoroughly weigh up the pro's and con's (even if you have the background knowledge) is not quick at all. I wouldn't like to see it applied to something as serious as going to war with another country.
 
border_all said:
How about voting via computer that seems quick
Click to expand...

bindex said:
It is quick.
The trouble is the lack of openness and transparency (sometimes justified) and the time taken to thoroughly weigh up the pro's and con's (even if you have the background knowledge) is not quick at all. I wouldn't like to see it applied to something as serious as going to war with another country.
Click to expand...

^^This^^

In any case, whether we go to war or not should be based on facts at hand (and, as has been said, many of which the general public won't/can't know) and not on how popular it is with the populace.
 
dejongj said:
So where is the confirmation of properly audited Accounts?
Click to expand...
The accounts, including the signed audit report, are linked from the EU's own website.

The nugget of truth in this story is that the EU's auditors have found that a small but 'material' amount of the budget cannot be reliably traced. This doesn't necessarily mean misappropriated - usually just poor record keeping. As a result, the accounts ARE signed but with a minor caveat (called a 'qualified opinion' in accounting speak).

The point at which the funds go 'missing' is at state level - i.e. The EU knows where the money is going and for what purpose, but individual members states fail to reconcile it exactly. This includes the UK.

And the big point, always overlooked by EU critics, is that the EU's auditors define materiality 4 times more strictly than the UK. Yup, those 'money wasters' in Brussels demand a higher level of fiscal accountability than our own beloved government. Go figure.

Conclusion:
If anyone ever tells you that the EU's accounts aren't audited, they're lying.
If they tell you the accounts aren't signed, they're lying.
And if they tell you the money would be better accounted for in the UK, they're lying.

And that's why that Torygraph article is a steaming pile of horses***, written by someone who either knows nothing about accountancy, or is deliberately lying to you.
 
cambsno said:
Plus we will never be privy to secret information that could have a massive bearing.
Click to expand...

If we had been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction then the population and politicians would probably have been against the war. By keeping this information secret/mystical/downright dishonest, Blair was able to swing the vote in favour of action. Politicians know that they can fling out scare stories and a certain section of the population will swallow it, with full backing of their media pals of course! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top