The 'No to the EU' campaign

[Mr_B]

TKF said:

The best arguement I've seen is one politician who was honest and said "If it means we're all a little worse off I'm willing to accept that to get our country back". That would mean accepting the other side is right on the economics argument and so they'll not use it. And they will lose.

It was Farage. It wouldn't mean accepting the other side is correct on the economics, because it's simply to big and complicated for anyone to prove they would be right. I'd say so far only one side has been proved utterly wrong, and that's all the pro EU side who said the exact same thing about joining the Euro and the impending doom and millions of jobs at risk. I don't buy their same scare story this time around either. You seem to.

[AJS-]

Just looking at Cameron's demands according to that article:
FOR WORKERS FROM THE EU:

Tough Talking Dave said:

No in-work benefits until they have been in Britain for four years

No social housing for four years

No child benefit or tax credits paid for children living outside the UK

FOR UNEMPLOYED EU MIGRANTS:

No support from the UK taxpayer

Deportation if they do not get a job for six months

Other measures include:

Impose restrictions on EU migrants bringing in family members from outside the EU

Longer bans on rough sleepers, beggars and fraudsters returning to the UK

Tougher rules on deporting foriegn criminals

Refusing to allow other countries to join the EU without imposing controls on the movement of their workers until their economies have reached UK levels

Do the current treaties actually prevent us from doing any of those things? Or does it just require the UK to implement them differently?

I suspect we are just seeing a bit of political theatre with CMD asking Juncker, Merkel and co to frown for the cameras so he can claim a victory for tough negotiations when in fact he hasn't negotiated a single thing.

[BlackLabel]

turbobloke said:

Cameron humiliated as France and Germany tighten grip on Europe with secret No Thanks pact against Britain

• Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande agree deal to tighten political union
• Franco-German pact shores up Eurozone without EU treaty change
• PM has vowed to use treaty change to enact string of key demands
• Came as PM held talks with EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker at Chequers

Quite short sighted of the French and Germans. If Cameron comes out of this whole process with limited concessions it only makes an 'out' vote more likely.

[turbobloke]

Mr_B said:

TKF said:

The best arguement I've seen is one politician who was honest and said "If it means we're all a little worse off I'm willing to accept that to get our country back". That would mean accepting the other side is right on the economics argument and so they'll not use it. And they will lose.

It was Farage. It wouldn't mean accepting the other side is correct on the economics, because it's simply to big and complicated for anyone to prove they would be right. I'd say so far only one side has been proved utterly wrong, and that's all the pro EU side who said the exact same thing about joining the Euro and the impending doom and millions of jobs at risk. I don't buy their same scare story this time around either. You seem to.

In addition there's short-term and then there's medium-long-term.

If uncertainty around the time of the vote and following an Out decision causes market nervousness, and one or two companies pull for selfish corporate reasons (and why not) so be it, the cure follows from taking a dose of medicine.

The chances of being worse off in the long haul are remote, but not zero. Which is good enough on any business decision making basis.

[turbobloke]

BlackLabel said:

turbobloke said:

Cameron humiliated as France and Germany tighten grip on Europe with secret No Thanks pact against Britain

• Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande agree deal to tighten political union
• Franco-German pact shores up Eurozone without EU treaty change
• PM has vowed to use treaty change to enact string of key demands
• Came as PM held talks with EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker at Chequers

Quite short sighted of the French and Germans. If Cameron comes out of this whole process with limited concessions it only makes an 'out' vote more likely.

[Richyboy]

Politicians wanting us out the EU thereby reducing troughing opportunities, it would be like pigs voting for a sunday roast. Plus the media bias, I'm betting that we stay in.

[steveT350C]

Dr Ruth Lea CBE, Chairman of Economists for Britain, writes to the President of the CBI, Sir Mike Rake: http://t.co/Tn0MC0Mldr

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

fblm said:

s2art said:

I dont consider our negotiating position weak at all.

I didn't say it was. I said adding more things you need out of a negotiation makes your position weaker. Damage to your financial services sector is a huge risk of an exit. You can't just imagine it will all be taken care of and dismiss it, even the risk of an exit is going to damage the UK in the run up to the referendum as firms put investment on hold.

If so, then so be it. After Labour spent the country onto its knees the spending had to stop, that meant (rocket science moment ahead) less growth in central spending for a while, as the bloated public sector got trimmed down while the private sector ramped up. The position now is significantly healthier. The EU represents bloat, a costly incompetent supranational layer of bossy bureaucracy that wasn't needed before it existed and continues now for the ego of its "leaders" with the impoverishment of several of its nation states to the benefit of a few others. All the more reason to get shot of it when we can and resume on a path of self-determination.

This is a good illustration of why a national debate on the subject is entirely pointless; because I am pointing out the risks you assume I am some dripping wet EU-phile so feel the need to over rule my concerns with a more important discussion! The fact remains, protecting your income from financial services weakens your hand in any trade negotiation, as does every other thing you need to protect. That said, today, I'd vote out despite the quite massive risks of exit. You can not underestimate the possibility of the EU throwing its toys out the pram and cutting its nose off to spite it's face in a trade war. The very fact that there is a good chance they would behave like that is reason enough, IMO, to leave. Staying is akin to having battered wife syndrome. My personal preference would be Cameron managing to secure genuine reform of the EU to make leaving a moot point but I find that unlikely. Interesting times.

[turbobloke]

fblm said:

turbobloke said:

fblm said:

s2art said:

I dont consider our negotiating position weak at all.

I didn't say it was. I said adding more things you need out of a negotiation makes your position weaker. Damage to your financial services sector is a huge risk of an exit. You can't just imagine it will all be taken care of and dismiss it, even the risk of an exit is going to damage the UK in the run up to the referendum as firms put investment on hold.

If so, then so be it. After Labour spent the country onto its knees the spending had to stop, that meant (rocket science moment ahead) less growth in central spending for a while, as the bloated public sector got trimmed down while the private sector ramped up. The position now is significantly healthier. The EU represents bloat, a costly incompetent supranational layer of bossy bureaucracy that wasn't needed before it existed and continues now for the ego of its "leaders" with the impoverishment of several of its nation states to the benefit of a few others. All the more reason to get shot of it when we can and resume on a path of self-determination.

This is a good illustration of why a national debate on the subject is entirely pointless; because I am pointing out the risks you assume I am some dripping wet EU-phile...

You assumed that I assumed that; I didn't. After "so be it" the comments are general. I've read your posts on the EU, you have no drips that are easily visible.

[Mark Benson]

AJS- said:

Just looking at Cameron's demands according to that article:
FOR WORKERS FROM THE EU:

Tough Talking Dave said:

No in-work benefits until they have been in Britain for four years

No social housing for four years

No child benefit or tax credits paid for children living outside the UK

FOR UNEMPLOYED EU MIGRANTS:

No support from the UK taxpayer

Deportation if they do not get a job for six months

Other measures include:

Impose restrictions on EU migrants bringing in family members from outside the EU

Longer bans on rough sleepers, beggars and fraudsters returning to the UK

Tougher rules on deporting foriegn criminals

Refusing to allow other countries to join the EU without imposing controls on the movement of their workers until their economies have reached UK levels

Do the current treaties actually prevent us from doing any of those things? Or does it just require the UK to implement them differently?

I suspect we are just seeing a bit of political theatre with CMD asking Juncker, Merkel and co to frown for the cameras so he can claim a victory for tough negotiations when in fact he hasn't negotiated a single thing.

I was expecting Dave to go to Junckers with a list of tough demands while being prepared to have them watered down.

He appears to have taken the watered down version with him....

Still, the 'in' campaign suffered a critical blow today - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

You assumed that I assumed that; I didn't. After "so be it" the comments are general. I've read your posts on the EU, you have no drips that are easily visible.

I thought I inferred that you assumed that but as you didn't mean to and don't then I don't, assume that. So be it.

[turbobloke]

fblm said:

turbobloke said:

You assumed that I assumed that; I didn't. After "so be it" the comments are general. I've read your posts on the EU, you have no drips that are easily visible.

I thought I inferred that you assumed that but as you didn't mean to and don't then I don't, assume that. So be it.

Presumably

[Ayahuasca]

AJS- said:

Just looking at Cameron's demands according to that article:
FOR WORKERS FROM THE EU:

Tough Talking Dave said:

No in-work benefits until they have been in Britain for four years

No social housing for four years

No child benefit or tax credits paid for children living outside the UK

FOR UNEMPLOYED EU MIGRANTS:

No support from the UK taxpayer

Deportation if they do not get a job for six months

Other measures include:

Impose restrictions on EU migrants bringing in family members from outside the EU

Longer bans on rough sleepers, beggars and fraudsters returning to the UK

Tougher rules on deporting foriegn criminals

Refusing to allow other countries to join the EU without imposing controls on the movement of their workers until their economies have reached UK levels

Do the current treaties actually prevent us from doing any of those things? Or does it just require the UK to implement them differently?

I suspect we are just seeing a bit of political theatre with CMD asking Juncker, Merkel and co to frown for the cameras so he can claim a victory for tough negotiations when in fact he hasn't negotiated a single thing.

Mickey Mouse 'demands'.

I would like more of:

Sovereignty of UK parliament over UK laws
No jurisdiction for EU courts over UK affairs
Right to make our own trade treaties outside the EU
Right to leave the common fisheries policy
Right to leave the common agricultural policy

And that is just for starters

[anonymous-user]

Mark Benson said:

Still, the 'in' campaign suffered a critical blow today

I was about to post exactly the same thing...

[turbobloke]

fblm said:

Mark Benson said:

Still, the 'in' campaign suffered a critical blow today

I was about to post exactly the same thing...

Indeed it's perfect timing from El Tone. Out campers will be delighted.

[anonymous-user]

Ayahuasca said:

Mickey Mouse 'demands'.

Agreed. It seems neither the UK government nor the EU have learned anything from the Scottish nonsense last year. A tenner says nothing happens until a month out from the referendum when both sides st themselves, the Government 'gets tough' and the EU 'capitulates' on some points, only to renege on that later, like they did the UK rebate/CAP reform.

[Foppo]

Agree about the fishery policy U.K.Trawler men have lost out.But this was partly their own fault they understated their fish quota's to the E.U.and got robbed.
Never understood the E.U. Agriculture policy.Why should farmers be so heavy subsidised we are paying for it. The whole E.U is becoming a minefield is history repeating itself and the Germans running the show?

[anonymous-user]

Foppo said:

Never understood the E.U. Agriculture policy.

Its all about the French way of life. You have to admit, they have a point, especially if you can get someone else to pay for it.

[Scuffers]

Foppo said:

Agree about the fishery policy U.K.Trawler men have lost out.But this was partly their own fault they understated their fish quota's to the E.U.and got robbed.
Never understood the E.U. Agriculture policy.Why should farmers be so heavy subsidised we are paying for it. The whole E.U is becoming a minefield is history repeating itself and the Germans running the show?

CAP is easy to understand once you realise what it was based on in the first place.

the problem was the French were massively subsidising their farmers (as were the Spanish to some extent), this had the effect of dragging down the farm gate prices, and thus when free trade came about, it was less than a level playing field.

so, to get farm gate prices to rise to their market rate, they went the intervention route, set price floors and brought everything surplus at the floor price.

the first problem this caused as grain mountains, wine lakes, etc etc. as the only way to keep the subsidies rolling was to buy up the excess.

this got very silly very fast, the EU were paying people to store these mountains, and they were paying well, to the point people were building huge barns to rent out for intervention.

they then went the other route, and instead of guaranteeing prices, they paid direct subsidies, went for paying for farmers NOT to farm (set-aside) etc etc.

after this then turned into yet another farce, they went with single farm payments based on all kinds of mumbo-jumbo.

this is where we are now.

in the mean time, the world price for food has collapsed, (see milk for the latest example), and the only ones benefiting from all this are the big supermarkets.

[ChemicalChaos]

I suspect this will be a much bigger blow to the IN campaign:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...


Eu to have control over all corporation tax rates? Foxtrot right Oscar with that one....