EU In or out

[fortune]

We have 28 pages of members comments on this subject but I'm sure that there will be a lot ( the majority) of the general public who don't actually make their mind up where to put the X until they are actually in the booth. Powder will have to be keep dry until the later stages to have any impact. The situation in Turkey at the time will have an impact on the situation at that time because with the advent of warmer weather the migrants will want to chance their arm at getting closer to the west and if Turkey thinks that offloading them to force europe's arm into giving them entry, they will bus them down to the coast and point them in the direction of the Greek islands. Double points for them. destabilise the old foe Greece even more and put pressure on the EU. If the news at that time is full of footage of tens of thousands upon thousands of migrants wandering across Europe heading in this general direction that will have an impact. All of the EU countries by that time will be well hacked off by then especially if there is a public backlash by nationalists in those countries. Dave is all up front now but how will this pan out later? We can chew this all of the time but it is the majority that will decide and from some that I have asked about this, A. they don't give a monkeys and B. have no clue about what it all means. I don't see a middle man laying it all down and plotting the balance of the options. Kind of a Peter Snow swingometer type of thing to illustrate to the masses what it is all about. That is if anyone knows and each side doesn't just ya boo the other sides idea such as gove today and the legality of the deal that Dave says is cast iron but gove says it isn't. sort the bones out of that lot.

Edited February 25, 2016 by fortune

[Psyxologos]

 

That`s a quote from the second article you listed (Fullfact). So you`ll have to ask the author for a definition.

 

I apologise. I am on my phone and must have missed it. But what do you think is a significant amount? I, for one would have thought that anything above 40% would be significant. I am only asking as the Westminster paper, if I remember correctly, talks about 8% to 14%

[Danger-Mouse]

 

I apologise. I am on my phone and must have missed it. But what do you think is a significant amount? I, for one would have thought that anything above 40% would be significant. I am only asking as the Westminster paper, if I remember correctly, talks about 8% to 14%

 

No apology necessary

 

Honestly, I think that even 1% is too much. We have our own parliament and a legal system that dates back 800+ years. It`s a legal system that has formed the basis for many other democracies own laws and rightly so because on the whole it is fair and just.

 

I do not wish to see a single law foisted upon us by any entity that is not the UK government. There should never be a point where we are forced to comply with laws that our own parliament has not proposed.

 

I think trade with europe is great and I hope in the event of a Brexit we can continue to do amicable business with our neighbours. I hope we will continue to be allies against whatever threats the future may bring. But what I do not want is them telling us how we may live our lives.

 

I don`t particularly like our own goverment being overly legislative. I think that the role of government should be to run the country with as little interference in our lives as possible. But at least where our government is concerned I have the choice to vote for whichever faction I prefer (admittedly a rather useless vote as I live in a labour heartland where a goat with a red ribbon round it`s neck would win the seat).

[Vince Green]

Never before will such a monumentally significant vote be taken in this country by an electorate who have virtually no idea what the facts and issues really are. They might just as well flip a coin and be done with it!

 

Its almost bizzare if you stop and think about it for a few moments

[secretagentmole]

 

 

 

I don`t particularly like our own goverment being overly legislative. I think that the role of government should be to run the country with as little interference in our lives as possible. But at least where our government is concerned I have the choice to vote for whichever faction I prefer (admittedly a rather useless vote as I live in a labour heartland where a goat with a red ribbon round it`s neck would win the seat).

Oh you live in Corbyn's constituency?

[Scully]

 

No apology necessary

 

Honestly, I think that even 1% is too much. We have our own parliament and a legal system that dates back 800+ years. It`s a legal system that has formed the basis for many other democracies own laws and rightly so because on the whole it is fair and just.

 

I do not wish to see a single law foisted upon us by any entity that is not the UK government. There should never be a point where we are forced to comply with laws that our own parliament has not proposed.

 

I think trade with europe is great and I hope in the event of a Brexit we can continue to do amicable business with our neighbours. I hope we will continue to be allies against whatever threats the future may bring. But what I do not want is them telling us how we may live our lives.

 

I don`t particularly like our own goverment being overly legislative. I think that the role of government should be to run the country with as little interference in our lives as possible. But at least where our government is concerned I have the choice to vote for whichever faction I prefer (admittedly a rather useless vote as I live in a labour heartland where a goat with a red ribbon round it`s neck would win the seat).

Just about sums it up for me.

[FalconFN]

Never before will such a monumentally significant vote be taken in this country by an electorate who have virtually no idea what the facts and issues really are. They might just as well flip a coin and be done with it!

 

Its almost bizzare if you stop and think about it for a few moments

Hey, that's democracy for you!

[FalconFN]

Interestingly David Owen is backing the out campaign now. Bit of a political has-been but certainly gives a broader political demographic.

[Penelope]

Predictable .

 

so the demographic for leave and stay suggests the following split

 

Leave:

poor education no qualifications

over 55

predominantly male

UKIP / right wing views

 

Stay:

well educated with higher qualifications

under 25

male / female

Labour, Lib, Green Left wing views

[UKPoacher]

 

I disagree, and I could go on a long post explaining why, but I suspect this will not make a bit of a difference. I am not hoping to convince anyone, all I was hoping for was throw some facts in. I just cannot sit by and read all this sensationalism. Thanks for taking the time to read them at least.

They are not all facts. Much of it are predictions and they can be swayed whatever way the author want the outcome to portray. The few facts include details of the EU meddling in things they have no right to be involved in, and again the facts are cherry picked and exclude all the unpopular involvement from the EU.

[UKPoacher]

 

Once again, I believe you are somehow misled by those who spread inaccurate information. The british parliament has a paper (the one I found is from 2010, but it gives you an idea) that bursts this bubble. Fullfact has a newer study on it. Fight misinformation the only way it matters: by constantly learning about issues you are asked to comment...

Then how can a high ranking Government Minister openly publish a paper listing one of the main reasons he wants out are EU policies and laws imposed upon the British Parliament with no recourse to annulling or amending these policies and laws? The same Minister has reasoned that the UK is no longer a Democracy because unelected Ministers in Brussels can make policies and laws that directly affect UK citizens with no means of the UK citizens voting them out?

 

None of these statements have been countered by the 'In' supporters or the EU itself.

[UKPoacher]

 

No apology necessary

 

Honestly, I think that even 1% is too much. We have our own parliament and a legal system that dates back 800+ years. It`s a legal system that has formed the basis for many other democracies own laws and rightly so because on the whole it is fair and just.

 

I do not wish to see a single law foisted upon us by any entity that is not the UK government. There should never be a point where we are forced to comply with laws that our own parliament has not proposed.

 

I think trade with europe is great and I hope in the event of a Brexit we can continue to do amicable business with our neighbours. I hope we will continue to be allies against whatever threats the future may bring. But what I do not want is them telling us how we may live our lives.

 

I don`t particularly like our own goverment being overly legislative. I think that the role of government should be to run the country with as little interference in our lives as possible. But at least where our government is concerned I have the choice to vote for whichever faction I prefer (admittedly a rather useless vote as I live in a labour heartland where a goat with a red ribbon round it`s neck would win the seat).

 

Totally agree. The whole point of this is that the trading agreement we were willing to join has become a second and superior government with no democratic means to put pressure on it or to change it.

[Rewulf]

Then how can a high ranking Government Minister openly publish a paper listing one of the main reasons he wants out are EU policies and laws imposed upon the British Parliament with no recourse to annulling or amending these policies and laws? The same Minister has reasoned that the UK is no longer a Democracy because unelected Ministers in Brussels can make policies and laws that directly affect UK citizens with no means of the UK citizens voting them out?

 

None of these statements have been countered by the 'In' supporters or the EU itself.

 

Exactly.

Goves letter puts many things into perspective,and sums up the feelings of many of the out camp.

But hey,what would we know,we are all uneducated are we not?

[juby trap]

464 out 1 in.

[need a recount/quote]

[sandspider]

 

Depends on how much sterling falls by and whether the BoE raises rates to protect it. My prediction is a minor uptick in rates. Perhaps 50 basis points in the short term. Rates are low across the globe so they won't leap overnight.

 

[mick miller]

I'm afraid, after having spoken to many of my luvvie London friends, the general consensus is that we're better IN as 'we wouldn't be able to support ourselves financially as a country' and 'who would deal with us, the days of the British Empire are long gone' and 'no-one would invest in the UK' and 'we need the immigration due to our lazy sub-class of work shy lower classes'... etc.

 

Brilliant.

Edited February 25, 2016 by mick miller

[Psyxologos]

 

No apology necessary

 

Honestly, I think that even 1% is too much. We have our own parliament and a legal system that dates back 800+ years. It`s a legal system that has formed the basis for many other democracies own laws and rightly so because on the whole it is fair and just.

 

I do not wish to see a single law foisted upon us by any entity that is not the UK government. There should never be a point where we are forced to comply with laws that our own parliament has not proposed.

 

I respect your sentiment, although I disagree on a very crucial, in my opinion, point. It is the membership of the uk to the European family that allows us to enjoy some of the most fair laws -for example- in employment (the European working directive [not a law, but works like one], maternity/paternity leave); the environment and many other areas of our life. Of course there have been some trivial, may I say mistaken, or even plain stupid laws,directives or what have you coming from the EU, but by far, the legislative influence to your and my life has been very positive, although we might not know that these laws came from there. I do not agree with the idea that these laws *might* have come along from uk lawmakers. My reason for saying this is that these laws I mentioned for example, pre existed in other European countries and the uk simply adopted them. The same goes with many uk laws that became EU law. A simple explanation is that the EU laws, directives etc are a collection of these laws that all member states together consider to be working well and therefore should be adopted; along with some new legislation developed in collaboration.

[rjimmer]

 

Exactly.

 

But hey,what would we know,we are all uneducated are we not?

Unlike the academics and intellectuals who brought about 70 years of misery for the masses within the Soviet Union and had my grandfather's cousin's family murdered in 1918, along with another relation in the late 1940's.

[Psyxologos]

Then how can a high ranking Government Minister openly publish a paper listing one of the main reasons he wants out are EU policies and laws imposed upon the British Parliament with no recourse to annulling or amending these policies and laws? The same Minister has reasoned that the UK is no longer a Democracy because unelected Ministers in Brussels can make policies and laws that directly affect UK citizens with no means of the UK citizens voting them out?

 

None of these statements have been countered by the 'In' supporters or the EU itself.

 

If you are talking about Gove, I honestly would not take anything he says seriously. He and hunt are just about the most corrupt politicians amongst a sea of corruption. Which brings me to another issue. Looking at who fronts the 'outsiders' (Galloway, farce, Gove, IDS) one could reasonably say that it is as if they are trying to put people off from voting out. We are talking about the creme de la creme of vomit...

[Penelope]

From another section of this site. A good enough reason if any.

 

HEGEMONY THY NAME IS BIRDLIFE

February 24^th 2016

Birdlife co-ordinates the work of partnership, and individual partner organisations, around the world. It is the hub of around 50 birder conservation societies. They have a ‘partner society’ in every EU country. It is the Opus Dei of the Corporate Conservation universe providing the glue of systematic deceit at EU level. The RSPB is its prelate by virtue of being its largest funder, founder, and most creative strategist.

BIRDLIFE provides the RSPB with supra-national powers in line with the EU Commission’s policy of cultivating, and utilizing ‘civil society’ as a policy-making resource. Thus, Birdlife struts its stuff in the EU Commission committee rooms at will, often in priority over Government officials and Ministers. Individual UK voters have no access to this invidious cakewalk. The classification ‘civil society’, is a euphemism for ‘democratic deficit’, it is the fuel in the Commission’s tank. By these collaborative means, the RSPB and the WWT et al bypass the self-governing democracy of UK voters, Parliament, and in particular, the English Shooting Public.

Birdlife says: ‘BirdLife works in Brussels to influence EU decision-makers, and gives advice and training to help BirdLife partners deal with EU Policy related issues in their countries’.

‘... is a global partnership of national conservation organisations that share common objectives and work together in advocating and carrying out priority conservation actions’.

The RSPB says: ‘As well as being the UK partner, we are also the largest organisation within the partnership. We are strongly committed to the principle of mutual assistance and co-operation that underpins BirdLife and we work with, and in support of, local partners in all our international efforts’.

The RSPB contributes around 10% of Birdlife’s annual turnover. The UK Government and the EU contribute around another 10% (taxpayer’s money). The balance comes from the 50 odd international and EU ‘partners’ at around, 1.5% a piece.

We now turn to the subject of Lead: The EU’s REACH regulation regime (introduced in 2007) places responsibility on industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances:http://ec.europa.eu/...ch/reach_en.htm

In the case of Lead (Pb) REACH accepts and understands that it is not a chemical. It is a naturally occurring Element (a native metal). It sits alongside the likes of, Gold, Silver, Iron, Chrome etc. in the Periodic Table.

There are no ‘conditions’ placed upon native metals by the EU REACH programme for the very obvious reason that they are not chemicals. REACH is centred upon the risks or hazards that ‘chemicals’ might present. Lead (Pb) is a native metal not a chemical. However for example, tetraethyllead (CH₃CH₂Pb) is an organo-lead based chemical that was used in petrol in the past. Tetraethyllead is not Lead it is a combination of a number of different substances combined together by a stable chemical bond to create a chemical. As such,Tetraethyllead falls with the REACH remit.

So what did Birdlife et al do? They lobbied the EU REACH regime for Lead to be re-classified as a chemical rather than a native metal. Their thinking was/is that if Lead were classified as a chemical it could then be prohibited from use in any manufactured product as a toxic chemical, including Lead ammunition, as that also is a manufactured product. At a stroke, they saw a backdoor swing open to prohibit the manufacturing of Lead ammunition (throughout the EU). A strategic coup without one shot fired, leaving its enemy (Shooting) bobbing in its wake.

Imposing their anti-lead anti-shooting ideology, the WWT, RSPB and (John Swift’s BASC?) sidelined the normal democratic UK parliamentary process by going direct to the EU Commission via Birdlife, but they hit a snag.

The bureaucrats at REACH were not the same shoo-in as the bureaucrats at the EU Birds Directive office. They understood science. The EU REACH regime refused to re-classify Lead as a chemical for the obvious reason that it was not a chemical, and wished to avoid becoming a serious scientific laughing stock. Birdlife were not political priority for REACH, but that could change.

Birdlife was rigid with shock. It mustered the full force of its moral indignation and put out a petulant press release (Brussels – 4th February 2016) headed, ‘European Commission fails to ban toxic ammunition’. It quoted the poisonous Oxford Symposium on Lead (100,000 UK ducks dead from lead lie), and the 70% English non-compliance with the ‘Lead regulations libel’ (launched by WWT/BASC 2010 report), and dead raptors. Birdlife blew its top. Read the attached Pdf or link: http://www.birdlife....bird-lives-risk it’s a bundle of stiletto assertions calculated to deceive, kill shooting, and persecute gamekeepers.

Few of the English Shooting Public know about this. The absolute silence on the matter by the English Shooting organisations (in particular the CA & BASC), and the stalwart English Shooting Press, indicates how out in the cold they are.

Since 2013, the full exposure of the John Swift/BASC Lead betrayal, it has become increasing clear that English Shooting was sleepwalking to its own demise, for 30 years or more. It is uncertain if it now possesses the ability, intellectually or otherwise, to turn this around.

The RSPB, architect of Birdlife International, harnesses the full political opportunity presented to it by the EU Commission. The RSPB and the WWT lobbied for, and drafted much of the EU Commission European Directive 1979/409/EC and Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, an Act of Parliament, was fully amended to comply with the WWT, RSPB, EU Commission Directives.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was rewritten to enshrine EU Directives, thus DEFRA (and Natural England) became the local office directly responsible to the EU Commission. It is charged with the implementation, and enforcement of, EU Directives Nos. 1979/409/EC & 2009/147/EC. Liz Trust has no say in the matter, she is purely ‘front of house management’, on behalf of the EU Commission. Remember, the previous DEFRA Minister was Owen Patterson who was removed by No.10 because of his robust (unacceptable) anti-EU stance and replaced by Liz Trust (pro-EU stance). One Minister paid the price of honest independence the other was selected because of a lack of independence (i.e. a safe pair of hands).

http://www.face.eu/ John Swift (ex CEO of the BASC) is still the Treasurer of FACE EU. He was a ‘Founder’ member (he claims). FACE EU was concocted (and funded) by the EU; its key claim to fame is that it introduced the AEWA agreement to the EU at the EU’s behest. The AEWA is responsible for the campaign to ban (all) Lead ammunition. The creator of the AEWA is the UN. FACE EU is a founding sponsor and agent of the AEWA agreement. It urged the UK (Labour) government via BASC/WWT/RSPB to sign up to it. The AEWA grasp of science is as propaganda laden as that of Birdlife; avoid empirical scientific proof at all times, facts should not exist.

FACE EU is the (Shooting) gateway to the EU Commission. No member of the English Shooting public or English shooting organisations can approach the Commission direct, and expect any result or even be heard.

Both FACE and BIRDLIFE receive funding from the EU. The EU Commission played a formative role in the setting up of these 2 organisations. As such, you will not gasp in surprise to hear that FACE EU and Birdlife have a strongly drafted, formal ‘partnership agreement’ - see attached Pdf.

The so-called FACE UK, when chaired by Lord Gardiner (now Ex CA Board), allowed John Swift full scope to ensure that the flawed and libellous WWT/BASC 2010 report on the English compliance with the regulations on the use of Lead ammunition to be submitted directly to the EU Commission despite being fully aware of its fatal flaws.

The WWT/BASC report claimed mendaciously that 70% of English shooters did not comply with the DEFRA regulations. It based its false allegations on tests carried out on birds whose provenance could not be established. The birds in question were ‘oven ready’ had gone through the meat trade, and were of unknown age (previously frozen?). Were as likely as not to have originated in southern Ireland, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or elsewhere within the EU from areas where it was perfectly legal for wildfowl to be shot with Lead ammunition. DEFRA funded the report to £65,000. The best that can be said about it is that it was useless. John Swift was CEO of BASC at the time of its involvement with this report.

REQUIRED READING: http://quillette.com...ry-of-bull****/. Those who read and understand this dissertation will know that the so-called ‘Oxford Symposium on Lead’ published by the WWT & RSPB is in fact garbage, and that the entire Conservation Industry is guilty of this kind of malpractice. It has little choice, as it could not exist without it.

THE LINKS BELOW RELATE TO THIS NEW-LETTER AND PROVIDE CONTEXT

http://www.birdlife....bird-lives-risk

http://ec.europa.eu/...ch/reach_en.htm

www.birdlife.org/sites/.../birdlife_europe_press_release_04.02.16.pdf

http://www.rspb.org....l/birdlife.aspx

BirdLife International

http://www.rspb.org....icy/policy.aspx

NATURE FAKING: http://www.atlasobsc...honeyguide-bird

BirdLife International

http://www.rspb.org....icy/policy.aspx

http://www.unep-aewa.org/

Pdf ATTACHMENTS: 1) EU-REACH LEAD pact_rmoa_lead_en -2) face BIRDLIFE agreement_en -3) Bird life ENDS25_0001042125_SIR_20131231_E
– 4) HEGEMONY THY NAME IS BIRDLIFE

The UK corporate conservation industry and its army of activists and volunteers are still licking their wounds at the loss of a Labour government. If they lose the EU Commission, they will become suicidal. With nothing left to shield and nurture their ideological mania, under the gaze of a wiser UK public, they could become very dangerous.

Arnold Chapkis ©2016

[chrisjh]

 

I respect your sentiment, although I disagree on a very crucial, in my opinion, point. It is the membership of the uk to the European family that allows us to enjoy some of the most fair laws -for example- in employment (the European working directive [not a law, but works like one], maternity/paternity leave); the environment and many other areas of our life. Of course there have been some trivial, may I say mistaken, or even plain stupid laws,directives or what have you coming from the EU, but by far, the legislative influence to your and my life has been very positive, although we might not know that these laws came from there. I do not agree with the idea that these laws *might* have come along from uk lawmakers. My reason for saying this is that these laws I mentioned for example, pre existed in other European countries and the uk simply adopted them. The same goes with many uk laws that became EU law. A simple explanation is that the EU laws, directives etc are a collection of these laws that all member states together consider to be working well and therefore should be adopted; along with some new legislation developed in collaboration.

 

this is a very good point and the main reason i cant make a landing on which side of the fence i sit, i really like the fact we have protection from the sort of people (most on the leave band wagon) who would turn the clock back and have children working in the mines scrap the NHS and turn the UK into some 3rd world state forn the working man & woman, equally i like a limit on who can come into the UK (although i suspect that ship has sailed and were stuck with a what we have already)

[SneakyD]

The problem with the argument that the EU gives Britain fair laws is that you are admitting that the European Commission supersedes the democratic will of the British people. Do you also think it is ok for the Commission to set aside national election results and appoint place men as 'national leaders'. Where should their authority end?

[rodp]

 

this is a very good point and the main reason i cant make a landing on which side of the fence i sit, i really like the fact we have protection from the sort of people (most on the leave band wagon) who would turn the clock back and have children working in the mines scrap the NHS and turn the UK into some 3rd world state forn the working man & woman, equally i like a limit on who can come into the UK (although i suspect that ship has sailed and were stuck with a what we have already)

You honestly think it could go back to that, really ??

[rodp]

The problem with the argument that the EU gives Britain fair laws is that you are admitting that the European Commission supersedes the democratic will of the British people. Do you also think it is ok for the Commission to set aside national election results and appoint place men as 'national leaders'. Where should their authority end?

Because that's only a few steps away, our "leaders" will sign up to that eventually in exchange for more and more money. You only have to look at Blair to see just how deceitful power makes folk, and the eu is corrupt with power over which we have absolutely no say.

[Danger-Mouse]

 

I respect your sentiment, although I disagree on a very crucial, in my opinion, point. It is the membership of the uk to the European family that allows us to enjoy some of the most fair laws -for example- in employment (the European working directive [not a law, but works like one], maternity/paternity leave); the environment and many other areas of our life. Of course there have been some trivial, may I say mistaken, or even plain stupid laws,directives or what have you coming from the EU, but by far, the legislative influence to your and my life has been very positive, although we might not know that these laws came from there. I do not agree with the idea that these laws *might* have come along from uk lawmakers. My reason for saying this is that these laws I mentioned for example, pre existed in other European countries and the uk simply adopted them. The same goes with many uk laws that became EU law. A simple explanation is that the EU laws, directives etc are a collection of these laws that all member states together consider to be working well and therefore should be adopted; along with some new legislation developed in collaboration.

 

Fair enough.

 

I`m sure that the EU has brought in beneficial laws as well as the stupid ones. However that doesn`t change the fact that all of these laws are forced upon us with no recourse for us to say "No" if we don`t want them. It also doesn`t change the fact that at times our parliament is barred from passing laws it wishes to because of EU directives.

 

If the EU made recommendations that were then discussed in our democratically elected parliament that would be tolerable, but it doesn`t. This unelected body simply says this is what`s best for everyone and we have to do it even if it`s to the detriment of our people.