Leaving the EU

[morphix]

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

No need to get personal. It shows you're a little man. At least flecc and I can debate with extreme opposing views without getting into silly personal slanging matches.

And FYI people have bought cheap batteries from me and continue to do so.

*another for my ignore list*

 

[flecc]

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

We'll see. It's a very difficult journey and was always bound to be.

It may eventually fail or succeed, I just hope the latter, since succeeding automatically solves the major internal difficulties that exist meanwhile.

Failing leaves Europe in the same miserable centuries old state indefinitely.
.

 

[morphix]

[QUOTE flecc]

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.

[/QUOTE]

Yes but you're taking my comment out of context flecc.

The point I was making is that the government has taken a "it's vital we remain in" stand-point, and now is the BBC and every other propaganda at their disposal to try and steer Eurosceptical voters towards a remain-in vote, by playing on peoples fears of uncertainty and risks which are not quantified, verified or even measurable. It's all very vague.

There's no real debate going on from the government's side and they have not provided anything approaching a convincing and compelling evidence-backed argument to support us remaining a member *without* the reforms Cameron promised.

This is why I made the comment I did. It would be foolish to rush in and vote to remain, without considering the implications of that fully. And also the BENEFITS of leaving fully (and the risks and challenges of course, if there are significant risks.)

At the moment people are basically being told how to vote. And to put that faith in the government. I'm sorry that's not good enough. Most people don't have any faith in a government that doesn't keep to its word, and doesn't deliver on its pledges.

Why should we think the governments position on continued membership is substantiated when they fail to show any evidence or studies? They haven't done anything, except produced a glossy flyer with some facts and figures on EU and UK trade, and a few if's and maybe's.

 

[morphix]

We'll see. It's a very difficult journey and was always bound to be.

It may eventually fail or succeed, I just hope the latter, since succeeding automatically solves the major internal difficulties that exist meanwhile.

Failing leaves Europe in the same miserable centuries old state indefinitely.
.

Flecc how many more countries have to become bankrupt before you and the others realise this isn't going to work??

Greece is bankrupt, Iceland is bankrupt, Ireland is bankrupt, Italy is basically bankrupt, Spain is tinkering.. and probably others I haven't looked recently at debt-to-GDP ratios.

Even our OWN country since joining the EU is worse off with debt-to-GDP running dangerously high at around 70% and higher. We had to bail out Ireland to protect our own economy!

There simply is not enough money in the EU to pay that debt! Everyone I know is shorting the Euro and has been for some time, it's lost a lot of value.

It's bankrupt.

Countries that were economically fine before joining the Euro are now bankrupt. Economies are ruined and EU countries cannot borrow money on the international market. How can you say this is working?!

Speak to businesses in the EU as I do, (and people who use the Euro) and they will tell you themselves how bad it is. They preferred their old currencies. The Euro and being tied to a single monetary policy has not been good for those countries, and well the evidence is there to see..rioting on the streets of Greece and elsewhere.

 

[flecc]

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!!!

You are changing the debate. This is about whether someone on one side has a duty to discuss the advantages of the other position. Whether government with an official position or an individual, they do not.

The serious discussion logically consists of each side putting their own advantages and the other's disadvantages.

You were arguing that the government should present a balanced view of both sides. Like asking a boxer to punch himself.
.

 

[flecc]

The point I was making is that the government has taken a "it's vital we remain in" stand-point, and now is the BBC and every other propaganda at their disposal to try and steer Eurosceptical voters towards a remain-in vote, by playing on peoples fears of uncertainty and risks which are not quantified, verified or even measurable. It's all very vague..

They are entitled to do that, they don't have to follow a formula from you or anyone else.

As you feel they are failing to make their case, celebrate! Don't try to encourage them to oppose you effectively!

And I've never said they are succeeding to date.
.

 

[flecc]

Flecc how many more countries have to become bankrupt before you and the others realise this isn't going to work??

Greece is bankrupt, Iceland is bankrupt, Ireland is bankrupt, Italy is basically bankrupt, Spain is tinkering.. and probably others I haven't looked recently at debt-to-GDP ratios.

Even our OWN country since joining the EU is worse off with debt-to-GDP running dangerously high at around 70% and higher. We had to bail out Ireland to protect our own economy!

There simply is not enough money in the EU to pay that debt! Everyone I know is shorting the Euro and has been for some time, it's lost a lot of value.

It's bankrupt.

Countries that were economically fine before joining the Euro are now bankrupt. Economies are ruined and EU countries cannot borrow money on the international market. How can you say this is working?!

Speak to businesses in the EU as I do, (and people who use the Euro) and they will tell you themselves how bad it is. They preferred their old currencies. The Euro and being tied to a single monetary policy has not been good for those countries, and well the evidence is there to see..rioting on the streets of Greece and elsewhere.

As I posted, there is a cost to anything worthwhile. The greater the potential gain, the greater the cost.
.

 

[morphix]

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.
.

There is nothing "unbased" about the accusation of scare-mongering. Open the government's glossy leaflet "trade at risk" "jobs at risk" "a very uncertain future"

Nothing positive, all doom and gloom.

And the constant drip drip drip from the BBC every day on TV and radio, every interview is negative and focusing on the risks...no debate hardly on the benefits of what an exit vote could mean... anything DOES sound positive, BBC changes subject.

They ARE scare-mongering people into voting for an in vote. It's damn well obvious. If they weren't, they would have a balanced and reasoned debate, and their every-household leaflet, would link to a website showing studies, facts and evidence. There's not a shred of evidence to support any of their vague implications that leaving would be terrible for the UK and our economy.

Obama's speech was PURE scare-mongering, suggesting that leaving the EU would weaken the UK's border security. It's just absurd and illogical. It would do the exact opposite. But of course, coming from the President's mouth, people are likely to believe it and take notice.

 

[flecc]

There is nothing "unbased" about the accusation of scare-mongering. Open the government's glossy leaflet "trade at risk" "jobs at risk" "a very uncertain future"

Nothing positive, all doom and gloom.

And the constant drip drip drip from the BBC every day on TV and radio, every interview is negative and focusing on the risks...no debate hardly on the benefits of what an exit vote could mean... anything DOES sound positive, BBC changes subject.

They ARE scare-mongering people into voting for an in vote. It's damn well obvious. If they weren't, they would have a balanced and reasoned debate, and their every-household leaflet, would link to a website showing studies, facts and evidence. There's not a shred of evidence to support any of their vague implications that leaving would be terrible for the UK and our economy.

Obama's speech was PURE scare-mongering, suggesting that leaving the EU would weaken the UK's border security. It's just absurd and illogical. It would do the exact opposite. But of course, coming from the President's mouth, people are likely to believe it and take notice.

But that's all your opinion, others may differ, something which I know you find difficult to accept.
.

 

[morphix]

As I posted, there is a cost to anything worthwhile. The greater the potential gain, the greater the cost.
.

I agree flecc, but the cost of the EU is too high mate. Just too high. It's gone way too far and strayed from its original purpose, that's the problem.

As a string of countries will be lining up to tell you. Look at the mess they face and years if not decades of hardship, and now firmly beholden to the EU.

I wouldn't want to be in their position.

Do we REALLY want to gamble with the future of our country?? I'd sooner take my chances outside the EU, based on its past and present day performance.

If the EU *could* be reformed, I'd be fully in favour of remaining a member, as the principle is sound and good. But it has to be sustainable, workable and make economic sense. At present it does none of that.

 

[morphix]

But that's all your opinion, others may differ, something which I know you find difficult to accept.
.

Oh I have no difficulty in people having an opposing view, that's why I'm still debating with you. And I'm not trying change your view to mine, attack you, ridicule you or personally insult you for it. I respect you have your view, I have mine. We're just having a debate to see who's view holds water and who's doesn't.

I love nothing more than a good intense reasoned debate with a highly intelligent person, such as yourself. It's part of academic life and a skill you learn, as I'm sure you know.

We will never agree on this, that's obvious as you support the Federal State model and I'm fundamentally opposed to that, as are many other people in the UK who wish to retain British sovereignty.

So on that issue, we cannot debate. On the realities and facts of whether the EU is a success or failure, and its future, that's definitely open for debate.

 

[morphix]

But that's all your opinion, others may differ, something which I know you find difficult to accept.
.

See you say I'm expressing an opinion. It's an opinion based on the available facts, so it's an informed opinion which can be validated.

On the weight of the evidence, the government has embarked on what many would consider, an exercise in scare-mongering, casting doubts over leaving or making it look like a very bad choice..call it whatever you like.

They have said nothing positive about leaving, neither have they offered any evidence to support their position. It's all vague and implied. That suggests to me manipulation of the electorate, rather than a reasoned case for staying in, by a government which has done its homework and come back with a ton of evidence to show leaving the EU would badly damage our economy and leave us in a very bad financial situation. If they *had* done that, I wouldn't be arguing the opposite view with you now would I?

So we have to ask, why hasn't the government provided any evidence to support their risk implications of leaving? Perhaps because there isn't any?

Or perhaps proper commissioned academic studies even might reveal the OPPOSITE findings?

 

[morphix]

Ok how about this flecc for a positive, what's your opinion on this..

If like many, you've had to have any major surgery on the NHS and wait months, or have a busy GP surgery and had to weeks just to see your GP or months for a referral appointment with a specialist or consultant, you could say the NHS has some problems..either understaffed, lack of resources, or too much demand on it.. whatever the cause, it's not running anywhere near as efficiently as it could be. And worse still, many towns such as my own, face losing their hospitals COMPLETELY and the absurdity of having to be flown by helicopter to neighbouring next towns hospitals. This is in a town over 110,000 people and growing!

If we left the EU June 23'rd, we'd immediately be saving £50 million a day. That's enough money to build a new NHS hospital EVERY TWO DAYS.

Just think what that money could do in very practical ways to transform the immediate main problems the UK faces:

1) The NHS burden strain, months waiting for ops, people dying.
2) Housing shortage, we have couples with children in flats.
3) Overcrowded schools and slipping education stands, UK is falling behind many countries on even basic education.

Our country is in a serious mess. And this shouldn't be happening in a first-world country with the 5th largest economy on earth. Even Cuba has a better public health-care system than the UK.

So, right away there's an immediate positive benefit. We stop paying the EU membership fee, and we start investing the money into re-building our own infrastructure to improve the lives and living-standards of our own people.

Then there's all the indirect cost savings. That could potentially run into billions of pounds a year, which instead of being wasted on re-doing EU-related things, goes directly into our economy.

 

[morphix]

OK shall we leave it there flecc? I've enjoyed debating with you anyway, tremendously! And although tempers got a little heated, I thank you for not resulting to personal insults and below the belt stuff.. I know you're above that tho anyway ;-) Thanks for a good debate and have a good evening...let the voters decide eh!

 

[morphix]

We'll see. It's a very difficult journey and was always bound to be.

It may eventually fail or succeed, I just hope the latter, since succeeding automatically solves the major internal difficulties that exist meanwhile.

Failing leaves Europe in the same miserable centuries old state indefinitely.
.

Before I go...

Maybe, just maybe I'm entirely wrong and the EU will struggle along and things will work out. It's possible. The EU is a sizable economic area. However the debt burden is now so large, that only Germany has enough trade surplus to really support this level of debt, and that's even with all the other member States (including UK) contributing a fair bit more than they do now by linking membership free to economic growth (and so far Cameron has refused outright).

Many Germans, from what I've been reading and watching, are actively opposing any moves by the German government to saddle them with the lions share of the EU debt. So Merkel and any future German leader and government are going to face a real battle on that one.

Now the ECB (European Central Bank) claims it has 600 billion Euros in reserve, which is enough to pay off the deficit, but it would it leave the coffers completely empty. The ECB has been playing a game instead of Euro value currency manipulation for years now. Many (big) currency speculators seriously doubt the ECB even has 600 billion euros on deposit. If the currency market does call their bluff, and some are indicating they may well do (George Soros and co) then Euro may well be crashed, like the pound was, when it was forced to devalue after heavy shorting.

Another problem for the EU is accessing cash on the international markets. Many countries (and large investment funds) are now very nervous of buying EU Member State government bonds and wanting very high rates of interest for the risk. Italy and Spain for example have been issuing 10% rate bonds which is just unsustainable and really compounding the EU's debt problem.

The problem with the EU is complex as you can see. It's part of a global economy and open to international monetary and financial markets. It seems unable to manage or cope with the scale of financial crisis which is unraveling. If the UK does exit, I think it will unravel even faster TBH and other countries may well leave soon after.

 

[flecc]

If the EU *could* be reformed, I'd be fully in favour of remaining a member, as the principle is sound and good. But it has to be sustainable, workable and make economic sense. At present it does none of that.

We are dangerously close to agreement here, since I agree that we are a long way from the EU being an unqualified success. It's patently far from that at present.

I just want to stay the course for the possibility of success, the potential gain of full unity being so immense.

Full success though can only be achieved after union, since it's only full union which can answer the most intractable problems.
.

 

[trex]

the EU evolves constantly but not in the direction that ukippers would like to see. Morphix and Tillson are both of course right when they said the EU has failed, for them but not for the majority millions who live in the new member countries and the rest of the EU.
whichever block we want to be with, paying into the community budget and freedom of movement for their citizens are a given. Times and times again, the arguments of the leavers sound more like wanting to preserve the old bloodline than to look for better economic prosperity.
the debate should be about which vision you like best, becoming the newest state of the USA or the second most important state in the EU, both have 300 M+ citizens, or being left out in the sticks like Turkey.
The EU is already big enough to survive and prosper economically without Britain.

 

[tillson]

the EU evolves constantly but not in the direction that ukippers would like to see. Morphix and Tillson are both of course right when they said the EU has failed, for them but not for the majority millions who live in the new member countries and the rest of the EU.
whichever block we want to be with, paying into the community budget and freedom of movement for their citizens are a given. Times and times again, the arguments of the leavers sound more like wanting to preserve the old bloodline than to look for better economic prosperity.
the debate should be about which vision you like best, becoming the newest state of the USA or the second most important state in the EU, both have 300 M+ citizens, or being left out in the sticks like Turkey.
The EU is already big enough to survive and prosper economically without Britain.

I read today that 25000 children arrive here each year as a result of EU free movement rules. I don't know what percentage are English speaking. When I think of the school that I went to which had 1000 children and the staff, upkeep of the building and other resources, it's staggering to think that we need 25 such schools each year, if standards are not to be diluted with larger class sizes, just to keep up with migration. That is just the children's schooling.

For me, it's not so much about preserving some nostalgic ideal of a bygone time, it is more about the future. I've just touched on schools, but future immigration has implications across all aspects of services and resources and we are experiencing the decline in standards right now.

I know that we will never agree because our views are poles apart. I genuinely struggle to understand where the pro EU people are coming from and I do try. I am not the sort of person who is fixed in their ways and I think I do have an ability to look at arguments from an alternative view point, not being to proud to alter my opinion. I think this is what frustrates me about Pro EU, I can't get past the negatives, they seem to dwarf the positives.

At least we have a vote next month.

 

[derf]

I read today that 25000 children arrive here each year as a result of EU free movement rules. I don't know what percentage are English speaking. When I think of the school that I went to which had 1000 children and the staff, upkeep of the building and other resources, it's staggering to think that we need 25 such schools each year, if standards are not to be diluted with larger class sizes, just to keep up with migration. That is just the children's schooling.

For me, it's not so much about preserving some nostalgic ideal of a bygone time, it is more about the future. I've just touched on schools, but future immigration has implications across all aspects of services and resources and we are experiencing the decline in standards right now.

I know that we will never agree because our views are poles apart. I genuinely struggle to understand where the pro EU people are coming from and I do try. I am not the sort of person who is fixed in their ways and I think I do have an ability to look at arguments from an alternative view point, not being to proud to alter my opinion. I think this is what frustrates me about Pro EU, I can't get past the negatives, they seem to dwarf the positives.

At least we have a vote next month.

Yes it's strange how polarised the debates become and inexplicable opposing views seem. To me the anti EU view is incomprehensible: Tory England is a society that edifies Philip greens who plunder the public purse of half a billion pounds, and then blames immigrants or the poor for the lack of adequate schools or health care. One resolution I found is to not invest as much in national identity as personal identity. I'm in Heathrow,about to fly to Addis abeba and think I, or anyone else, could be as happy or unhappy there as here. Neither Europe, and most definitely not England, are the Nirvana's the local politicians would like you to believe.

 

[tillson]

Yes it's strange how polarised the debates become and inexplicable opposing views seem. To me the anti EU view is incomprehensible: Tory England is a society that edifies Philip greens who plunder the public purse of half a billion pounds, and then blames immigrants or the poor for the lack of adequate schools or health care. One resolution I found is to not invest as much in national identity as personal identity. I'm in Heathrow,about to fly to Addis abeba and think I, or anyone else, could be as happy or unhappy there as here. Neither Europe, and most definitely not England, are the Nirvana's the local politicians would like you to believe.

Don't start me going on Phillip Green and the whole BHS pensions issue. I have a feeling that we will definitely find agreement there despite our differing views on the EU.