Brexit

Our best bits.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
222
80%
Leave the European Union
57
20%
 
Total votes: 279
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Cal » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:46 pm

captain red dog wrote:The stay in campaign will use the full force of the media to frighten people to vote to stay. I'm utterly convinced of that. The leave campaign doesn't stand a chance as the media either ignore or are largely hostile to most of them.


I agree with you. It will be very interesting to see how the whole sorry business plays out across the BBC. Can't wait for Evan Davis to whip out his now famous 'Paddington' argument against Nigel Farage once again.



Professional journalism at its very best!

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Moggy » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:03 pm

Cal wrote:
354 Dan.s until Christmas! wrote:
Cal wrote:a gullible, uninformed public towards remaining within the EU.


Herein lies the arrogance of your argument; the assumption that those who disagree with you must be uninformed.


No, that's your interpretation, Dan, not what I actually said. I didn't suggest that anyone who disagrees with me is gullible; I suggested most people, regardless of their views, are gullible to the messaging of the media. Now, I'm prepared to accept I could be wrong about that - so let's stick with what I actually say, not what you choose to say I've said.


Dan didn't mention you calling people gullible, he said you are arrogant because you assume the people that disagree with you are uninformed.

User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Grumpy David » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:25 pm

Cal wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:Ministers 'free to campaign for both sides on EU vote'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35230959

David Cameron is to allow ministers to campaign for either side in the referendum once a deal is reached on the UK's relationship with the EU.


Right decision. Wouldn't have been made sense to do anything else.

The miserable little compromise of renegotiation will not be sufficient to persuade people to stay, let alone Tories who want out regardless of the outcome.


I wish I could be as confident about this as you. I fear all the stops will be pulled out by our (imo) hopelessly pro-EU mainstream media to sway a gullible, uninformed public towards remaining within the EU. I also don't have much faith in a bickering, partisan anti-EU side who can't even agree to talk to each other, let alone present a coherent argument to the public. I suspect (and I really hope I'm wrong) that the pro-EU factions will win this almost by default - they won't have to bother going through the arguments, explaining the facts. People are frightened of genuinely radical change - and it's very easy to frighten them back towards political inertia when they're poorly informed about the alternatives by people who have little political interest in educating them.

I hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm not.


I'm not confident on the Leave vote winning. I'm confident that the negotiation is a farce and won't affect how people would vote one way or another. The incredibly modest and vague goals are too minor (and not written in blood) as to influence people. I think most people recognise that.

Thankfully the EU is it's own worst enemy and pretty much everything they've done has been a catastrophe.

However I've read that the EU will not have a spending cap on their propaganda they can send out to the British electorate. Something to do with not being based in the UK so spending restrictions won't apply to them?

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by captain red dog » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:33 pm

Cal wrote:
captain red dog wrote:The stay in campaign will use the full force of the media to frighten people to vote to stay. I'm utterly convinced of that. The leave campaign doesn't stand a chance as the media either ignore or are largely hostile to most of them.


I agree with you. It will be very interesting to see how the whole sorry business plays out across the BBC. Can't wait for Evan Davis to whip out his now famous 'Paddington' argument against Nigel Farage once again.



Professional journalism at its very best!

Disgraceful skirting around the issue of multiculturalism within Paddington Bear there! :lol:

But of a weird filter on multi-culturalism there, bravo mods!

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Rocsteady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:43 pm

The mainstream media are pro-Europe? I must have imagined all those articles the Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun... Wrote expressing their disgust at virtually every aspect of the European project.

Image
User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Grumpy David » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:32 pm

Sometimes you have to wonder if the EU/member states actually want the UK to leave the EU.

Cameron faces refugee 'burden' battle as EU draws up new scheme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35360890


BBC wrote:The UK is battling EU plans to share the "burden" of refugees more evenly amongst member states.

The EU wants to scrap the rule that means refugees must claim asylum in the first country they arrive in, and introduce a new dispersal scheme.


European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker says he wants a deal on refugees around the same time as one on David Cameron's renegotiation demands.

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said he was "very concerned" by the idea.

Mr Juncker said he was "convinced the EU Council in February will reach a fair deal for Britain", which Mr Cameron has said will pave the way for an in/out referendum later this year.

But Mr Juncker added: "I am worried we won't have enough time to tackle there the refugee question in sufficient depth. I recommend to (European Council President) Donald Tusk that he holds a further summit.

"We can't have a success on the UK and not address the refugee quotas, that would be a mistake."

The European Commission wants to scrap what is known as the Dublin agreement, which dictates refugees must claim asylum in the "first country of entry".

Mr Juncker says he wants a "fairer" system that does not place the burden on "three or four countries" that "are dealing with the situation on their own," while "some countries aren't complying with their responsibilities".

"A very large number of refugees are targeting specific countries, refugees want to decide where they want to go, and that is simply unacceptable," he added.

Some EU states have brought in temporary border controls as migrants travelled north from Italy and Greece - and Brussels fears the passport-free Schengen area, which includes most EU nations but not Britain and Ireland, could collapse if a solution is not worked out soon.

The UK could opt out of any new EU scheme to deal with refugees. So why does this matter in Westminster?

First, because if the Dublin agreement is scrapped Britain may not be able to return refugees to other EU nations.

That could mean more people settling in this country, although the numbers may be modest compared to overall migration.

Second, because the timing could be very awkward.

Imagine this: February, and David Cameron seals an EU deal which he says resets Britain's relationship, tipping control away from Europe.

March: the European Commission unveils a new plan to disperse refugees across the continent and asks the UK to take part.

However much some campaigners might try to talk about other issues, that could rapidly centre the referendum fight on the fate of refugees and levels of immigration.


Britain has been under pressure to take in more people as Europe struggles to deal with a huge influx of refugees. It has opted out of an EU quota system but pledged to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.

The UK could opt out of any new migration quotas agreed by other EU nations - but potentially at the expense of losing the right to return refugees to other EU nations.

International Development Secretary Justine Greening said the UK would be "strongly against" any attempt to scrap the "first country of entry" rule and Britain would retain its opt-out on whatever was decided.

And Mr Hammond said the "noises" coming out of Brussels were worrying.

"We regard the Dublin Agreement as an important part of the architecture within the EU.

"And if it's going to be changed, it will need to be changed in a way that makes sense and that protects our interests."

Alanna Thomas, senior researcher at Migration Watch UK, said: "The Dublin regulation was undermined this summer when Angela Merkel committed to processing all asylum applications from Syrian nationals who entered Germany."

But the Refugee Council said the Dublin system "has never been fit for purpose and is inherently unfair on Europe's border nations".

Refugee Council policy manager Judith Dennis said: "At the moment, under the Dublin regulation, asylum seekers are shuttled around the continent like unwanted luggage, and at great expense, as states in northern Europe try to shirk their responsibility towards protecting refugees.

"It's absolutely clear that we need to see a more equitable system for sharing responsibility across Europe for protecting refugees and enabling them to reunite with their family members here.

"Protecting refugees isn't just a job for the Greeks and the Italians; they simply don't have the ability to deliver a continent's worth of compassion alone. It's vital that all countries across Europe, including Britain, step forward and offer to help the desperate refugees arriving in Europe find safety."



Merkel: I'veMadeAHugeMistake.Gif

Immigration in many recent polls is the biggest issue in UK politics at the moment and I reckon will be the dominant discussion point during the referendum.

User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by BID0 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:22 pm

Makes sense to disperse them evenly-ish across all countries. Greece and others are being overwhelmed.

User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Grumpy David » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:33 pm

Lucien wrote:The one million refugees that Germany accepted last year - if they become citizens presumably they can move freely around EU countries?


Yep, once they have citizenship, they're free to move where they want to inside the EU.

If they just have a residency permit they won't necessarily have the right to relocate within the EU.

However, if fast track citizenship is granted, it's hard to imagine many uneducated refugees choosing to stick to countries with languages they don't speak a single word of. Much more likely to come to the UK where they might have some basic grasp of the language.

User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Hime » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:58 am

It would be really nice if we could be presented with the facts showing the pro's and con's for both staying and leaving rather than the biased hyperbole we get from both sides at the moment.

My vote is based purely on the fact I like free movement between EU countries even if it's not something I currently use.

Image
User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by BID0 » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:45 am

I had a letter through the door from Revenue & Customs. I think that was to do with this vote.

I've never had one before but it detailed how much TAX/NI I had contributed this year along with a complete breakdown of where every £ contributed was spent. "UK contribution to the EU budget" was at the bottom of the list, I won't say how much I contributed because personal... but it came to 0.6011560693641618%

User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Lagamorph » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:46 am

Wouldn't something like that require changes to treaties? The thing that the EU have said could not and would not happen?

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
Jay Adama
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Edinburgh/Tokyo

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Jay Adama » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:48 am

BID0 wrote:I had a letter through the door from Revenue & Customs. I think that was to do with this vote.

I've never had one before but it detailed how much TAX/NI I had contributed this year along with a complete breakdown of where every £ contributed was spent. "UK contribution to the EU budget" was at the bottom of the list, I won't say how much I contributed because personal... but it came to 0.6011560693641618%

Don't sell yourself short, man. The EU budget last year was around £123 Billion so your 0.6% amounts to you personally contributing £738 Million which is frankly way more than what I contributed last year. You must have a pretty good job...

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Cal » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:14 am

BID0 wrote:Makes sense to disperse them evenly-ish across all countries. Greece and others are being overwhelmed.


It only makes sense if EU member countries have given their electorates a vote on the issue. If Britain really wants to throw open the doors to potentially unlimited immigration then presumably the majority will vote for that. I won't - but, so far, I haven't been given the opportunity to cast my vote on the issue. You might (I don't know) think 'it makes sense' for every EU country to take their fair share of migrants - but have you been asked if you would like your Government to make that official policy? Has anyone?

The cynic in me says that Cameron's now hoping to get the EU referendum out of the way ASAP - mainly because he knows that this year the projected/expected number of Mid-East/North African migrants making their way into Europe is expected to exceed the 1m - 1.5m we saw in 2015. You might not think this is anything to worry about - I can assure you plenty of people across Europe think otherwise. None of them have, so far, been given the opportunity to express their misgivings and (imo) genuine anxieties through the ballot box on this specific issue.

The EU referendum has now become an issue primarily dominated by the 'migrant crisis'. The longer he has to leave the vote, as spring gives way to summer once again, the worse the situation will become, thus polarising the views of a large proportion of an already worried electorate. And all that's without the continued threat of terrorist attacks across Europe between now and then.

User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by BID0 » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:19 am

Cal wrote:
BID0 wrote:Makes sense to disperse them evenly-ish across all countries. Greece and others are being overwhelmed.


It only makes sense if EU member countries have given their electorates a vote on the issue. If Britain really wants to throw open the doors to potentially unlimited immigration then presumably the majority will vote for that. I won't - but, so far, I haven't been given the opportunity to cast my vote on the issue. You might (I don't know) think 'it makes sense' for every EU country to take their fair share of migrants - but have you been asked if you would like your Government to make that official policy? Has anyone?

The cynic in me says that Cameron's now hoping to get the EU referendum out of the way ASAP - mainly because he knows that this year the projected/expected number of Mid-East/North African migrants making their way into Europe is expected to exceed the 1m - 1.5m we saw in 2015. You might not think this is anything to worry about - I can assure you plenty of people across Europe think otherwise. None of them have, so far, been given the opportunity to express their misgivings and (imo) genuine anxieties through the ballot box on this specific issue.

The EU referendum has now become an issue primarily dominated by the 'migrant crisis'. The longer he has to leave the vote, as spring gives way to summer once again, the worse the situation will become, thus polarising the views of a large proportion of an already worried electorate. And all that's without the continued threat of terrorist attacks across Europe between now and then.

So you'd vote to keep out people who are fleeing from war and in need of help?

What would you do if your neighbours house burnt down? You wouldn't shelter them? Watch them out of your window, huddled up in cold?

My nan came to England towards the end of the war, from a worn torn country called Italy. Thank strawberry float England made it possible for refugees to come to the country and help build a life for themselves and help the country as a whole.

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Cal » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:33 am

BID0 wrote:
Cal wrote:
BID0 wrote:Makes sense to disperse them evenly-ish across all countries. Greece and others are being overwhelmed.


It only makes sense if EU member countries have given their electorates a vote on the issue. If Britain really wants to throw open the doors to potentially unlimited immigration then presumably the majority will vote for that. I won't - but, so far, I haven't been given the opportunity to cast my vote on the issue. You might (I don't know) think 'it makes sense' for every EU country to take their fair share of migrants - but have you been asked if you would like your Government to make that official policy? Has anyone?

The cynic in me says that Cameron's now hoping to get the EU referendum out of the way ASAP - mainly because he knows that this year the projected/expected number of Mid-East/North African migrants making their way into Europe is expected to exceed the 1m - 1.5m we saw in 2015. You might not think this is anything to worry about - I can assure you plenty of people across Europe think otherwise. None of them have, so far, been given the opportunity to express their misgivings and (imo) genuine anxieties through the ballot box on this specific issue.

The EU referendum has now become an issue primarily dominated by the 'migrant crisis'. The longer he has to leave the vote, as spring gives way to summer once again, the worse the situation will become, thus polarising the views of a large proportion of an already worried electorate. And all that's without the continued threat of terrorist attacks across Europe between now and then.

So you'd vote to keep out people who are fleeing from war and in need of help?

What would you do if your neighbours house burnt down? You wouldn't shelter them? Watch them out of your window, huddled up in cold?


That's not the question. People living in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc are not 'my neighbour'. The question is 'do I want them all to be allowed to come here instead?' Personally, no, I don't. I would much rather we actually used NATO and the UN to create militarily protected safe zones for these displaced persons within their own countries. Economically and culturally I think this would make far more sense - for them and for us. Please do not reduce this down a virtue-signalling exercise. This is about entire populations and about the role of democracy and government in seeking permission from their electorate to import potentially unlimited numbers of peoples from completely foreign cultures into our own western democratic system. Perhaps you don't think that's a problem. I respectfully disagree.

User avatar
Remi Dong
Bizarre Title
Joined in 2008
Location: Bered Kai Nev

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Remi Dong » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:49 am

So you're pro-active UK military involvement in Syria?

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Cal » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:51 am

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:So you're pro-active UK military involvement in Syria?


Hold on, are you talking about the terrorist threat or the migrant issue?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Moggy » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:53 am

Cal wrote:
Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:So you're pro-active UK military involvement in Syria?


Hold on, are you talking about the terrorist threat or the migrant issue?


Are they not linked? People are fleeing Syria thanks to a combination of Assad and ISIS. Solve the problem of Assad murdering his own people and ISIS blowing people up and people will not be fleeing Syria in such numbers.

User avatar
Remi Dong
Bizarre Title
Joined in 2008
Location: Bered Kai Nev

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Remi Dong » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:54 am

Cal wrote:
Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:So you're pro-active UK military involvement in Syria?


Hold on, are you talking about the terrorist threat or the migrant issue?

I'm talking about
Cal wrote:I would much rather we actually used NATO and the UN to create militarily protected safe zones for these displaced persons within their own countries.


If you're not happy with the idea of us taking in refugees from these places, and would rather see direct involvement in improving living standards within the home nations of the displaced peoples, then that's absolutely fair enough and I'd agree with you.

But to do so we'd need boots on the ground. There's no escaping it.

Therefore, I'm asking you to confirm - your stance is therefore for direct UK military involvement in Syria (and other war-torn middle eastern countries). Yes?

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The EU Referendum
by Cal » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:56 am

Moggy wrote:
Cal wrote:
Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:So you're pro-active UK military involvement in Syria?


Hold on, are you talking about the terrorist threat or the migrant issue?


Are they not linked? People are fleeing Syria thanks to a combination of Assad and ISIS. Solve the problem of Assad murdering his own people and ISIS blowing people up and people will not be fleeing Syria in such numbers.


I approve of UK military involvement in taking on the threat of Islamic State. I would approve - if it were even a option - the use of the military (NATO forces and multinational UN peacekeepers) to establish heavily policed and protected safe zones for internally displaced populations within Syria.


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests