The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
.
Talking of which, does anyone agree with me about the spectacular level of ineptitude displayed yet again by Dave? He's got a solid working majority in parliament, Labour are in disarray and run by a bunch of hopeless congenital idiots who the electorate find laughable, and yet Dave's managed to conjure himself into a situation where he may well have to resign. And all over what? A completely pointless (and failed) renegotiation of our terms of EU membership. What an absolutely useless gold-plated duffer!
Yes, for the first time I'd actually consider voting Labour (well, not now obviously). I cannot believe how ineffectual Cameron is.Talking of which, does anyone agree with me about the spectacular level of ineptitude displayed yet again by Dave? He's got a solid working majority in parliament, Labour are in disarray and run by a bunch of hopeless congenital idiots who the electorate find laughable, and yet Dave's managed to conjure himself into a situation where he may well have to resign. And all over what? A completely pointless (and failed) renegotiation of our terms of EU membership. What an absolutely useless gold-plated duffer!
steveT350C said:
The sincerity of Vote Leave has been called into question many times previously.More on this... http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/we-told-...
It appears that Dominic Cummings and Matthew Elliott, as suspected, are dicks.
Andy Zarse said:
Talking of which, does anyone agree with me about the spectacular level of ineptitude displayed yet again by Dave? He's got a solid working majority in parliament, Labour are in disarray and run by a bunch of hopeless congenital idiots who the electorate find laughable, and yet Dave's managed to conjure himself into a situation where he may well have to resign. And all over what? A completely pointless (and failed) renegotiation of our terms of EU membership. What an absolutely useless gold-plated duffer!
Indeed, additionally it's a situation created by a promise that he likely thought he would never have to honour.Andy Zarse said:
Talking of which, does anyone agree with me about the spectacular level of ineptitude displayed yet again by Dave? He's got a solid working majority in parliament, Labour are in disarray and run by a bunch of hopeless congenital idiots who the electorate find laughable, and yet Dave's managed to conjure himself into a situation where he may well have to resign. And all over what? A completely pointless (and failed) renegotiation of our terms of EU membership. What an absolutely useless gold-plated duffer!
Absolutely. He rarely misses an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.fblm said:
Andy Zarse said:
Talking of which, does anyone agree with me about the spectacular level of ineptitude displayed yet again by Dave? He's got a solid working majority in parliament, Labour are in disarray and run by a bunch of hopeless congenital idiots who the electorate find laughable, and yet Dave's managed to conjure himself into a situation where he may well have to resign. And all over what? A completely pointless (and failed) renegotiation of our terms of EU membership. What an absolutely useless gold-plated duffer!
Absolutely. He rarely misses an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
ds they would be, in spite, perhaps of national interests within the EU.Ladies and gentlemen, THIS you really do need to read.
Link above is to the full piece, but here's a taster.
Link above is to the full piece, but here's a taster.
The view from Cullingworth said:
I am a genuine sceptic in all this. I don't really believe in ever more draconian immigration controls, I don't want a sort of pseudo-fascist isolationist approach to the economy for that is lunacy. And I absolutely believe that the EU has played a role (albeit a smaller one than its vanity permits) in securing peace and harmony on what was a divided continent. So I ought to be a supporter of the EU except for a couple of real problems.
The first is that the EU's economic and social policies act to make Europeans poorer - this is true of the Common Agricultural Policy, it's true of its policies on the environment, and its true of its restrictive approach to rules on labour, health and welfare. Above all the EU is inward-looking and concerned with protecting what is here now rather than looking forward to what might be there tomorrow. The result is corruption, sclerotic economic growth, misplaced intervention and a preference for managed trade (like the TTIP) rather than free trade.
Worse than all this is that there is no way in which the EU can change this approach, it has ossified into a rigid protectionist mindset and a defensiveness about external criticism that merely shows how weak the 'union' is in reality. The sorry tale of Greece and the Euro should remind us that the EU will watch citizens starve rather than give one inch of ground on its programme - even when that programme is demonstrably failing.
The EU has all the trappings of democracy - a parliament, elections, grand debates and a constant babble about 'citizens'. But it is not a democracy because none of the actions available to the demos are able to change the policies of the union - these policies are set in stone, immutable and unchanging. Vast libraries of impenetrable prose are churned out giving the impression of change but which, on close inspection, change little of any significance or substance.
So no, I don't give a fig about when or whether migrants from Poland can claim benefits - it's a pretty marginal issue to the challenge of reforming the benefits we give to our own citizens. Nor do I care much about net migration or about the essentially meaningless wibble that is national sovereignty. But I do care about my ability, along with my neighbours, to have a real say in the decisions made by governments that affect my life. And - as is shown by the conclusion of David Cameron's negotiations - there is no prospect of the EU permitting this to happen or for us to move towards a polity genuinely founded on the principles of free speech, free enterprise and free trade.
So I shall - and you should - vote to leave.
The first is that the EU's economic and social policies act to make Europeans poorer - this is true of the Common Agricultural Policy, it's true of its policies on the environment, and its true of its restrictive approach to rules on labour, health and welfare. Above all the EU is inward-looking and concerned with protecting what is here now rather than looking forward to what might be there tomorrow. The result is corruption, sclerotic economic growth, misplaced intervention and a preference for managed trade (like the TTIP) rather than free trade.
Worse than all this is that there is no way in which the EU can change this approach, it has ossified into a rigid protectionist mindset and a defensiveness about external criticism that merely shows how weak the 'union' is in reality. The sorry tale of Greece and the Euro should remind us that the EU will watch citizens starve rather than give one inch of ground on its programme - even when that programme is demonstrably failing.
The EU has all the trappings of democracy - a parliament, elections, grand debates and a constant babble about 'citizens'. But it is not a democracy because none of the actions available to the demos are able to change the policies of the union - these policies are set in stone, immutable and unchanging. Vast libraries of impenetrable prose are churned out giving the impression of change but which, on close inspection, change little of any significance or substance.
So no, I don't give a fig about when or whether migrants from Poland can claim benefits - it's a pretty marginal issue to the challenge of reforming the benefits we give to our own citizens. Nor do I care much about net migration or about the essentially meaningless wibble that is national sovereignty. But I do care about my ability, along with my neighbours, to have a real say in the decisions made by governments that affect my life. And - as is shown by the conclusion of David Cameron's negotiations - there is no prospect of the EU permitting this to happen or for us to move towards a polity genuinely founded on the principles of free speech, free enterprise and free trade.
So I shall - and you should - vote to leave.
We really have to take stock at what we are seeing. We are seeing, a democratrically elected head of state who is running around the place, NOT ,overseeing the running this country , but kow towing to a bunch of unelected beuracrats so as to allow a soveriegn state being allowed to run its own affairs , under its own conditions in its own country!!!
Then we have that fat slug Shulz, basically saying, that whatever is agreed now, can be undone in the future. A sort of "We'll get you back in the future" . Unelected dictatorial bd , making threats.
Its truly risible, unbelievable.
This vote is quite simply the most important in my lifetime, iff we do not get out now, we are just going to end up as a faceless region as part of a Continental dictatorship.
Then we have that fat slug Shulz, basically saying, that whatever is agreed now, can be undone in the future. A sort of "We'll get you back in the future" . Unelected dictatorial b
d , making threats. Its truly risible, unbelievable.
This vote is quite simply the most important in my lifetime, iff we do not get out now, we are just going to end up as a faceless region as part of a Continental dictatorship.
Hosenbugler said:
Then we have that fat slug Shulz, basically saying, that whatever is agreed now, can be undone in the future. A sort of "We'll get you back in the future" . Unelected dictatorial bd , making threats.
Let me preface my comments by saying I love Germany, especially Bavaria, and always feel very at home there. d , making threats.Schultz is the absolute worst sort of rotten Kraut, a cruel and sinister sociopath who puts party and dogma above the individual and who would have happily slotted into a position of authority seventy five years ago. To borrow a phrase from The Major in Fawlty Towers, he's a "BAD EGG!".
FiF said:
It's difficult to know who to support, Leave.EU is going with Flexcit renamed to The Market Solution. But leave.eu is Arron Banks who frankly needs to shape up and stop saying stuff that can be easily shot down as twaddle.
Wish they would all put their differences aside and form one group - they need to be more professional ffs.They also need more media savvy folks who can explain, using a few short sentences, what leaving will actually mean. As it stands because of their lack of answers there are too many uncertainties about leaving and the undecided voters hate uncertainty.
A subject I am interested in and yet find hard to follow. Hopefully the in-fighting will stop and the outers will now concentrate on the out campaign rather than fighting each other.
Divide and conquer would be a very simple tactic the way things are at the moment.
UKIP supports Grassroots Out:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_supports_grassroots_out
Divide and conquer would be a very simple tactic the way things are at the moment.
UKIP supports Grassroots Out:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_supports_grassroots_out
alfie2244 said:
A subject I am interested in and yet find hard to follow. Hopefully the in-fighting will stop and the outers will now concentrate on the out campaign rather than fighting each other.
Divide and conquer would be a very simple tactic the way things are at the moment.
UKIP supports Grassroots Out:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_supports_grassroots_out
the in-fighting appears to be two people - Elliot and Cummings from Vote leave.Divide and conquer would be a very simple tactic the way things are at the moment.
UKIP supports Grassroots Out:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_supports_grassroots_out
BlackLabel said:
FiF said:
It's difficult to know who to support, Leave.EU is going with Flexcit renamed to The Market Solution. But leave.eu is Arron Banks who frankly needs to shape up and stop saying stuff that can be easily shot down as twaddle.
Wish they would all put their differences aside and form one group - they need to be more professional ffs.They also need more media savvy folks who can explain, using a few short sentences, what leaving will actually mean. As it stands because of their lack of answers there are too many uncertainties about leaving and the undecided voters hate uncertainty.
The summary of just stage 1 of 6 identified stages in Flexcit is posted below.
TL:DR In the first two years nothing much will change, and the groundwork will go in to establish a base where we, UK, can proceed in the direction and the pace we want, whilst maintaining a smooth, stable and economically neutral position.
Flexcit stage 1 summary said:
Leaving the EU will have significant geopolitical and economic consequences. But we believe it is unrealistic to expect a clean break, immediately unravelling forty years of integration in a single step. Following a vote in a referendum and an Article 50 notification, therefore, we have set out a process of staged separation and recovery.
In all, we identify six stages, where we expect progress to be driven by political realities. In the first stage, which deals with the immediate process of leaving the EU, we believe that an agreement must be sought within the initial two year period allowed in the formal Article 50 exit negotiations. We also believe continued participation in the EU's Single Market will be necessary, for the short to medium term.
The six stages involve both short-term and longer-term negotiations, to achieve a measured, progressive separation. In the first stage, there are three possible ways of securing an exit. One is by rejoining the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and trading with the remaining EU member states through the European Economic Area (EEA) – the so-called Norway Option. Another is the "shadow EEA" and the third we call the "Australian process".
As part of the first stage, we would repatriate the entire body of EU law, including that pertaining to agriculture and fisheries. This would not only ensure continuity and minimise disruption – and reduce what would otherwise be massive burdens on public and private sector administrations – but also buy time for a more considered review of the UK statute book.
We would continue with co-operation and co-ordination with the EU at political and administrative levels, where immediate separation of shared functions is neither possible nor desirable in the short term.
These would include the research programme (Horizon 2020), the Single European Sky and the European Space Programme, certain police and criminal justice measures, joint customs operations, third country sanitary and phytosanitary controls, anti-dumping measures, and maritime surveillance. Such issues are in any event best tackled on a multi-national basis, and there is no value in striking out on our own just for the sake of it.
Thus, the first stage is limited to a smooth, economically neutral transition into the post-exit world. It lays the foundations for the UK to exploit its independence, without trying to achieve everything at once. Subject to a referendum to approve the initial exit agreement, the basic framework for a withdrawal could be in place within two years of starting negotiations.
Full document hereIn all, we identify six stages, where we expect progress to be driven by political realities. In the first stage, which deals with the immediate process of leaving the EU, we believe that an agreement must be sought within the initial two year period allowed in the formal Article 50 exit negotiations. We also believe continued participation in the EU's Single Market will be necessary, for the short to medium term.
The six stages involve both short-term and longer-term negotiations, to achieve a measured, progressive separation. In the first stage, there are three possible ways of securing an exit. One is by rejoining the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and trading with the remaining EU member states through the European Economic Area (EEA) – the so-called Norway Option. Another is the "shadow EEA" and the third we call the "Australian process".
As part of the first stage, we would repatriate the entire body of EU law, including that pertaining to agriculture and fisheries. This would not only ensure continuity and minimise disruption – and reduce what would otherwise be massive burdens on public and private sector administrations – but also buy time for a more considered review of the UK statute book.
We would continue with co-operation and co-ordination with the EU at political and administrative levels, where immediate separation of shared functions is neither possible nor desirable in the short term.
These would include the research programme (Horizon 2020), the Single European Sky and the European Space Programme, certain police and criminal justice measures, joint customs operations, third country sanitary and phytosanitary controls, anti-dumping measures, and maritime surveillance. Such issues are in any event best tackled on a multi-national basis, and there is no value in striking out on our own just for the sake of it.
Thus, the first stage is limited to a smooth, economically neutral transition into the post-exit world. It lays the foundations for the UK to exploit its independence, without trying to achieve everything at once. Subject to a referendum to approve the initial exit agreement, the basic framework for a withdrawal could be in place within two years of starting negotiations.
BlackLabel said:
Wish they would all put their differences aside and form one group - they need to be more professional ffs.
They also need more media savvy folks who can explain, using a few short sentences, what leaving will actually mean. As it stands because of their lack of answers there are too many uncertainties about leaving and the undecided voters hate uncertainty.
I think part of the issue is that there is one 'in' scenario but many 'out' scenarios in the event of Brexit.They also need more media savvy folks who can explain, using a few short sentences, what leaving will actually mean. As it stands because of their lack of answers there are too many uncertainties about leaving and the undecided voters hate uncertainty.
It means that 'in' can drive at one point and hammer it home with everyone in the campaign.
Whereas 'out' has different people in their campaign who want different outcomes from the same vote on the ballot paper, making outlining the future vision for 'out' hard to do across the board.
cookie118 said:
I think part of the issue is that there is one 'in' scenario but many 'out' scenarios in the event of Brexit.
It means that 'in' can drive at one point and hammer it home with everyone in the campaign.
Whereas 'out' has different people in their campaign who want different outcomes from the same vote on the ballot paper, making outlining the future vision for 'out' hard to do across the board.
plus the reality that the FUD over out is real and not just as some presume set dressing by in ... It means that 'in' can drive at one point and hammer it home with everyone in the campaign.
Whereas 'out' has different people in their campaign who want different outcomes from the same vote on the ballot paper, making outlining the future vision for 'out' hard to do across the board.
also some of the 'outs' being proposed are the worset of both words - any form of flexit ends up with legislation by fax and complete exit will ber an utter cluster f
k ( as it seems to be a dream of the kippers and/oe people who still say 'Keenya' ....cookie118 said:
BlackLabel said:
Wish they would all put their differences aside and form one group - they need to be more professional ffs.
They also need more media savvy folks who can explain, using a few short sentences, what leaving will actually mean. As it stands because of their lack of answers there are too many uncertainties about leaving and the undecided voters hate uncertainty.
I think part of the issue is that there is one 'in' scenario but many 'out' scenarios in the event of Brexit.They also need more media savvy folks who can explain, using a few short sentences, what leaving will actually mean. As it stands because of their lack of answers there are too many uncertainties about leaving and the undecided voters hate uncertainty.
It means that 'in' can drive at one point and hammer it home with everyone in the campaign.
Whereas 'out' has different people in their campaign who want different outcomes from the same vote on the ballot paper, making outlining the future vision for 'out' hard to do across the board.
mph1977 said:
plus the reality that the FUD over out is real and not just as some presume set dressing by in ...
People are seeing with their eyes the risks of being in, and staying in, a shambles in which (for example) the EZ is teetering on the brink. There's plenty of FUD on both sides. turbobloke said:
mph1977 said:
plus the reality that the FUD over out is real and not just as some presume set dressing by in ...
People are seeing with their eyes the risks of being in, and staying in, a shambles in which (for example) the EZ is teetering on the brink. There's plenty of FUD on both sides. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff