Leaving the EU

[morphix]

This is a good move by the UK government, for once. There are people in the UK who are incapable of using a toilet properly. If you allow these people to administer a bank account, they will abuse it, commit fraud, and run up debt. The fruits of their activities will then fall on the shoulders of the responsible account holders. This is partly the reason why I've had to move money from banking into property.

A good move by the UK I say. If we get out of the EU we will be free to extend this practice into other areas.

The UK's present banking system works fine and is hardly unfair. At present, although having a bank account is not a guaranteed right (in law) it's fairly easy for anyone with an address in the UK and proof of identity to get a bank account. Even for someone with an absolutely terrible credit rating, CCJ's or who has even been declared bankrupt.

It's called a cash-card current account.

Most high-street banks offer it on request. Although it's not usually advertised. Building societies and mutuals are also far more likely to accept people banks may decline (if you need a debit card).

The cash-card current account is basically an account that offers nothing more than a current account and a cash-point card (no debit card, no cheque book and absolutely no credit), and it gives people with a bad credit history access to banking services, and the opportunity to demonstrate they're credit and trustworthy.

 

[morphix]

I agree with much of this, but the best way to oppose it is with strict truth, not using the same methods.

The London mayoral election has surely demonstrated this now. The disgusting attempt to wrongly discredit Sadiq Khan resulted in the largest ever turnout for Labour and what is now said to be the largest personal vote for an individual in our political history.

The Conservatives have belatedly realised their mistake and have backtracked on their comments and say they now wish to work with Sadiq. Little wonder, they'd love to be as immensely popular.

What I'd welcome now is an honest debate on the EU membership issue with no attacks on the other side, concentrating only on the actual issues.

To start that, may I politely point out that your last paragraph lacks logic? The government as a supporter of staying in has no duty whatsoever to remark on any of the benefits of leaving. They've put their position fairly and now it's for the leave campaign to do the same. Likewise the leave campaign have no duty to observe the advantages of staying in.

After all, would you expect a political party to highlight the advantages of their opponent's manifesto?
.

I agree flecc, but you cannot have a debate solely on remaining in the EU.That's not a balanced debate, that's a form of persuasion to maintain the status quo, which many are simply not happy with.

Many people, (the vast majority some might argue), do not want to remain a member of the EU under the present unreformed EU model, and in the direction its heading. Neither have we ever been asked as an electorate, whether we want to be even join the EU in the first place!

Yes we had a referendum on Britain's entry to the Common Market but that was decades ago, and the EU is something entirely different. Really this referendum is long overdue. It should have taken place prior to the signing of the Maastricht Treaty which signed over considerable government and legal powers to a foreign government (illegally many argue).

So we simply have to include in the debate, both sides, the pros and cons of leaving, in equal measure, backed by hard facts we can discuss and measure.

This is after all, a major major issue..the biggest the UK has faced in centuries...and will affect generations to come..and maybe the future of the UK as we know it.

This maybe our one and only chance to get this right. Rush in and vote to remain on some scare-mongering and it could be the biggest mistake this country has ever made, and we'll have a long time to regret it.

David Cameron's tactics are appalling. He won a General Election with an EU Referendum Mandate and hard-line approach to EU, (something Labour voted against, and now, in their typical style, have done a 180 degrees u-turn and taken the EU membership scepticism platform, sensing popular resentment on Cameron's failed "EU deal").

He's timed the referendum so tight (after stalling on it for 2 years), there's hardly any room for a sensible debate on something as big as this, and he's relying on scare-mongering and hoping people won't have enough time to consider the facts fully.

 

[Croxden]

These last posts are turning me to the thought of remaining in.

The more you rant the more I wonder what's in it for you.

 

[flecc]

I agree flecc, but you cannot have a debate solely on remaining in the EU.

Many people, a vast majority some might argue, do not want to remain a member of the EU under the present unreformed EU model, and in the direction its heading.

So we simply have to include in the debate, both sides, the pros and cons of leaving in equal measure, backed by hard facts.

This is after all, a major major issue..the biggest the UK has faced in centuries...and will affect generations to come..and maybe the future of the UK as we know it.

This maybe our one and only chance to get this right. Rush in and vote to remain on some scare-mongering and it could be the biggest mistake this country has ever made, and we'll have a long time to regret it.

You are simply and very obviously wrong, it's a contest. The debate has two parts, one is to stay, one is to remain, and they are separate.

Take your last paragraph:

Rush in and vote to remain on some scare-mongering and it could be the biggest mistake this country has ever made, and we'll have a long time to regret it.

It can equally have one word changed:

Rush in and vote to leave on some scare-mongering and it could be the biggest mistake this country has ever made, and we'll have a long time to regret it.

The mistake in both is obvious, using an emotive and unbased accusation of scare-mongering.

That is not sensible debate. Sensible political debate concentrates on one's own issues and intentions and their advantages, each side presenting their own case for the judgement of voters.

The side which refuses to mud sling will win, as it did in London.
.

 

[morphix]

To start that, may I politely point out that your last paragraph lacks logic? The government as a supporter of staying in has no duty whatsoever to remark on any of the benefits of leaving. They've put their position fairly and now it's for the leave campaign to do the same. Likewise the leave campaign have no duty to observe the advantages of staying in.

After all, would you expect a political party to highlight the advantages of their opponent's manifesto?
.

Flecc, with respect, it's your statement which lacks logic.

The government's responsibility is to represent the interests of the people whom elected it to govern, and the interests of the country, yes? Not its own self-interests and not to u-turn whilst in government on a major part of the governments own mandate for governance.

The government stood for an election (and won) on a completely different mandate than the one its now for some reason, adopted. This is no longer a government which is true to its original mandate, and rather some may argue, no longer fit to govern.

This is a referendum on a very big issue which affects everyone, and especially businesses. Everyone needs to have a say and consider all the facts, and the government has a moral and ethical responsibility to provide those facts, and allow a sensible unbiased debate to take place.

There are divisions within the government itself. So the government itself is not even united on the EU referendum. Senior ministers have resigned over it. So how can you possibly say, the government is a supporter. It's not that simple.

Some of the government has taken that position and rallied around Cameron, some have spoken against him and have not. This issue is too large for the government alone to decide. Even the opposition government no longer supports the governments position on the EU, which should tell you something.

The government has yet to make a compelling case to support its argument or present any clear evidence that:

1) Leaving the EU will dramatically damage our country and our economy, both in the short-term and fundamentally long-term.

2) That there are no clear benefits to leaving, only significant measurable downsides.

3) That Cameron's "deal" meets the criteria he promised to deliver. Whilst it clearly does not, it does not even provide assurances to the electorate that the UK will not be forced into further political, economic or legal union with the EU without a further referendum.

 

[morphix]

These last posts are turning me to the thought of remaining in.

The more you rant the more I wonder what's in it for you.

You're in a minority.

 

[morphix]

If this country by some miracle remains in the EU, I will be one of the first to leave the EU and never come back. And I expect the trickle that's leaving already will turn into a flood as, many many others will follow suit, especially a major portion of the 5 million small businesses in the UK.

 

[Croxden]

You're in a minority.

Maybe, I don't read the Daily Mail.

 

[morphix]

Maybe, I don't read the Daily Mail.

You clearly don't run a business that's for sure.

 

[morphix]

Flecc, with respect, it's your statement which lacks logic.

The government's responsibility is to represent the interests of the people whom elected it to govern, and the interests of the country, yes? Not its own self-interests and not to u-turn whilst in government on a major part of the governments own mandate for governance.

The government stood for an election (and won) on a completely different mandate than the one its now for some reason, adopted. This is no longer a government which is true to its original mandate, and rather some may argue, no longer fit to govern.

This is a referendum on a very big issue which affects everyone, and especially businesses. Everyone needs to have a say and consider all the facts, and the government has a moral and ethical responsibility to provide those facts, and allow a sensible unbiased debate to take place.

There are divisions within the government itself. So the government itself is not even united on the EU referendum. Senior ministers have resigned over it. So how can you possibly say, the government is a supporter. It's not that simple.

Some of the government has taken that position and rallied around Cameron, some have spoken against him and have not. This issue is too large for the government alone to decide. Even the opposition government no longer supports the governments position on the EU, which should tell you something.

The government has yet to make a compelling case to support its argument or present any clear evidence that:

1) Leaving the EU will dramatically damage our country and our economy, both in the short-term and fundamentally long-term.

2) That there are no clear benefits to leaving, only significant measurable downsides.

3) That Cameron's "deal" meets the criteria he promised to deliver. Whilst it clearly does not, it does not even provide assurances to the electorate that the UK will not be forced into further political, economic or legal union with the EU without a further referendum.

To clarify on this post...

I'm not saying the government cannot or shouldn't, change it's position or take a position on EU, then recommend that position if its firmly believed to be in the national interest (although you have to admit, it is rather odd considering it's a 180 degrees flip on their original election mandate, and Cameron failed to get anything close to his "wholesale reforms" so really he should be in favour of leaving).

But, recommending a position whilst saying "or we can do this, and this will be the likely outcome" is entirely different to what we have at present, which is the government TELLING us how to vote in a referendum and not presenting a balanced reasoned argument with all the facts, so people can vote in an informed manner.

If we cannot rely on the government and all its agencies and resources to present the facts, then who? Do we have to get them ourselves and thrash this out in the media?

 

[morphix]

The way I see the EU referendum is to break it down to the core essence of what the EU is. Put everything else aside. Forget trade, forget jobs, forget everything. Focus on what the EU is, where it's heading, and whether that is what British people support and want.

So, what is the EU? It's an attempt at creating a unified European Federal Super-State with a single economy, a single currency, a single legal system, a single military, a single everything eventually. It's intending to replace, or significant reduce, the role of Nation States, in much the same way the United States Federal Government has and does.

That would almost certainly lead to an end to British sovereignty at some point down the line. An end to the right of self-determination for Britain. It would also very likely result in even less political representation than we have at present. The loss of the pound with full economic and monetary union is very likely eventually and the EU will eventually push the UK into this as we get further integrated. That would inevitably mean a very high debt burden for the UK economy as larger, wealthier and positive growth economies like ours, will have to carry debt laden negative or slow growth EU economies. Adopting the Euro and economic unification would almost certainly dramatically damage our financial services sector and put at risk our unique position as the financial capital of the world (which is crucial to our economy, accounting for over 70% of GDP) since we'd be no different to any other EU country and there's far cheaper/nicer countries than UK to do business in. It mean being tied to a high-tax business marketplace for the foreseeable future, leading to a continued lack of competitiveness in the global economy. That would inevitably lead to the slow and steady exodus of small businesses and medium-sized enterprise from the UK to lower-tax countries, with all the talents and skills going with them. It will of course also mean, open borders, and waves of migrants coming into the UK without any quota or points system (i.e no quality-control, anyone is allowed, job or not job, and after 2 years can claim housing, welfare etc). In a country which is already overcrowded and who's infrastructure is already strained to the limits. We would find it very difficult cope with another large influx of migrants on the scale of Poland. However Turkey looms on the horizon and will be the next big wave of migrants heading for the UK, after the 100,000's of refugees first.

Is that really, what British people want for their country? I don't think so. Not people I speak to anyway.

Just to offer a balanced argument, let's ignore all the major downsides of remaining in the EU and let's look at the benefits...

- We get easier access to overseas trade via the EU (although on the EU's terms, and under a high taxation system for imports, than it would be if we did this bi-laterally).

- We get easier access to the Common Market with common standards in industry and laws adopted making trade, the free movement of businesses, companies and peoples easier (The United States, China, and even tiny European countries such as Norway and Sweden seem to manage to do that, without the high cost of membership?)

- We have a louder voice on the international stage on global issues, as a union of many countries and a unified trade bloc (we can support or not support EU on international policy without being a member of it. We also have a closer and unique relationship with the United States than any country in Europe, and we also are head of a Commonwealth of 53 Nations that spans a quarter of the globe, over 2 billion people and is 4 times the size of the EU, if we wanted to flex our muscles internationally).

- We get a single currency with a unified economic policy, monetary system and banking system, hopefully offering economic stability (although past evidence would seem to suggest this benefit is questionable).

Did I miss anything out?

 

[flecc]

The government's responsibility is to represent the interests of the people whom elected it to govern, and the interests of the country, yes? Not its own self-interests and not to u-turn whilst in government on a major part of the governments own mandate for governance.

This is a blatant lie. The government's mandate included a promise of an EU referendum, and they also made clear then that they wished to remain. That some in their party disagree with their stand isn't relevant, any government has an official position. Meanwhile they continue to govern in accordance with their belief, mistaken or otherwise, that they are doing the best for the country.

The government has a right to argue it's official position in any political contest, be it a general election, a Scottish referendum or a decision on EU membership. They have no duty to argue against their official position.

To maintain otherwise as you are doing is illogical and irrational.
.

 

[flecc]

Focus on what the EU is, where it's heading, and whether that is what British people support and want.

So, what is the EU? It's an attempt at creating a unified European Federal Super-State with a single economy, a single currency, a single legal system, a single military, a single everything eventually. It's intending to replace, or significant reduce, the role of Nation States, in much the same way the United States Federal Government has and does.

That would almost certainly lead to an end to British sovereignty at some point down the line. An end to the right of self-determination for our countries future. It would also very likely result in even less political representation than we have at present, the loss of the pound and fully economic and monetary union eventually, and a very high debt burden for the UK economy as growth economies will have to carry debt laden negative or slow growth EU economies, and damage to our financial services sector (which is crucial to our economy, accounting for over 70% of GDP). It mean being tied to a high-tax business marketplace for the foreseeable future, and a lack of competitiveness in the global economy, the slow and steady exodus of businesses and enterprise from the UK to lower-tax countries, with all the talents and skills going with them. It will of course also mean, open borders, and waves of migrants coming into the UK without any quotas of points system. Into a country which is already overcrowded and who's infrastructure is straining and cannot cope with another large influx of migrants. Turkey will be the next big wave of migrants heading for the UK, after the 100,000's of refugees.

You are wasting your time arguing this with me, since I want to achieve a European union of one country with one currency and even one language eventually.

Therefore I wholeheartedly support what you hate about this issue.

Everything worthwhile has a cost.
.

 

[morphix]

Here's the EU-in proposition in a nut-shell for the layman:

"Join this fantastic housing scheme! It's having a few problems now, but we'll iron those out in a few years, we don't have a clear plan for that but we're working on that. We can't guarantee you'll keep your house in 10 years from now or the mortgage will stay the same, in fact you'll probably be paying a lot more than you are now. Yes some have already nearly lost their houses as they couldn't afford our mortgage, but we think in the long-term you'll be ok and better-off joining our scheme for all the possible benefits, rather than opting to stay outside the scheme and keep your house."

 

[morphix]

This is a blatant lie. The government's mandate included a promise of an EU referendum, and they also made clear then that they wished to remain. That some in their party disagree with their stand isn't relevant, any government has an official position. Meanwhile they continue to govern in accordance with their belief, mistaken or otherwise, that they are doing the best for the country.

The government has a right to argue it's official position in any political contest, be it a general election, a Scottish referendum or a decision on EU membership. They have no duty to argue against their official position.

To maintain otherwise as you are doing is illogical and irrational.
.

This is a blatant lie. The government's mandate included a promise of an EU referendum, and they also made clear then that they wished to remain.

Lie? FACT. Check back. You conveniently missed out the "fundamental and wholesale reforms" part. Remain a member UNDER REFORM. How can you sit there and say Cameron was pro-EU in the last General Election defies belief. He took a hard-line and defiant approach. Now he's bending over to stay in.


He also promised the UK would "not pay another penny into the EU" until we got the reforms...

Now he's saying let's stay signed up, and yes that WILL mean paying more pennies!! The EU is not flexible or negotiable as Cameron found out. It's all or nothing.

He has FAILED to deliver _ANY_ reforms.

If he was a man of his word. If he had a pair. He'd immediately stop paying the £50 million pounds a day membership fee. And start playing hard-ball with the EU and negotiating properly. We KNOW the EU needs us more than we need them. So let's stop pissing about, and set down the boundaries, they accept, or we leave. Simple.

They have already told us they don't care if we leave or stay and it may be better if we leave, so why even bother trying to negotiate with them? Let them feel the pain and fall-out of the UK's departure and it WILL be painful for the EU and shake confidence massively. Then let them see if they still feel the same and aren't willing to come back to the negotiation table on OUR TERMS.

 

[flecc]

Now that's a BLATANT LIE. Check back. You missed out the "fundamental and wholesale reforms" part. Remain a member UNDER REFORM.

He also promised the UK would "not pay another penny into the EU" until we got the reforms...

Now he's saying let's stay signed up, and yes that WILL mean paying more pennies!! The EU is not flexible or negotiable as Cameron found out. It's all or nothing.

He has FAILED to deliver _ANY_ reforms.

No it isn't. He has delivered some changes. You and I might well agree they are rubbish, but he's fulfilled his pledge according to his standards, poor though they might be.
.

 

[morphix]

You are wasting your time arguing this with me, since I want to achieve a European union of one country with one currency and even one language eventually.

Therefore I wholeheartedly support what you hate about this issue.

Everything worthwhile has a cost.
.

That will never happen flecc. The EU is an EPIC failure and its going DOWN.

The currency is weakening every year and the debt is growing. It's a sinking ship.

The project was doomed from the start. It looks great on paper, but as we now see, does not work in practice. Socialism seldom does.

 

[morphix]

No it isn't. He has delivered some changes. You and I might well agree they are rubbish, but he's fulfilled his pledge according to his standards, poor though they might be.
.

Name the changes. And let's determine if they're match his pre-election "wholesale reform" and "no further integration" pledges.

 

[robdon]

Like your cheap batteries that never materialised, a lot of bull****

 

[morphix]

You are simply and very obviously wrong, it's a contest. The debate has two parts, one is to stay, one is to remain, and they are separate.

Not logical.

Are we are, or are we not, voting to LEAVE the EU on June 23rd??

This is not a referendum to STAY IN with two options on some policy, it's a STAY or EXIT referendum.

You cannot logically therefore, have a serious intellectual debate on continued EU membership or our exit (remember there's TWO opposite options to vote for, and a sizable chunk - if not a majority in the EXIT camp) WITHOUT discussing the implications of BOTH!!!