The 'No to the EU' campaign

[NicD]

Yes, of course, but if DC and a bunch of noisy turncoats in the media (and on here) say 'actually, we want to stay in, no matter how badly we are treated', then why should they even think about negotiating.

It would take the resolve and solidarity of a meaningless (in EU terms) country like Greece to show us the way.

[JensenA]

JMGS4 said:

Nobody thought of the following car sticker?

NO U.S.E!!!

I like that

[AJS-]

Pan Pan Pan
That might be a realistic hope if Cameron was genuinely saying give us a better deal or we leave. So far I haven't seen any sign of that.

[JensenA]

Pan Pan Pan said:

You seem to be forgetting the key ingredient in all of this, the money. No matter which way people want to look at this, in the end it always comes down to the money.
None of the other member states want anything to change, because if it did, it would more than likely cost them more than they are paying into the system now.
But as you pointed out the one option member states have is to exit the EU. If The UK exits, and takes with it its second largest net contributions into EU coffers after Germany, then all the other member states will be required to pay more in, than they do now to keep the thing afloat.
If they are so dumb and corrupt they cannot see this happening, they will (like Greece) continue
with their current attitudes. If (and it is a big if) they see the light, they will want to make sure the UK stays in the EU, and to do that, they must make some sorely needed reforms to the way the EU operates. With the UK`s referendum coming up, they will need to turn their minds to a `possible' UK exit, and act accordingly, Whether they will or not is the question.
As noted earlier, interesting tomes lay ahead

The problem with the EU isn't just 'about money'. It is a political dream, a United States of Europe, and the country that controls the EU is Germany. And no I am not anti-German, I like and admire the Germans, I've lived in Germany, it's a great place to live and work, but it is a fact that Germany controls the EU, and so controls Europe. Germany is the powerhouse of Europe, Germany makes things that Europe and the world needs, and a political U.S.E is in Germany's interests. Germany doesn't really need the UK to be in Europe and rocking the boat, it needs a compliant and willing UK. Germany will still export it's BMW's, Mercs, Audis etc to the UK, it will make sure of that, but very single car in the world depends on German products and technology, so wether the UK is in or out, Germany will continue to thrive, and dominate m

[Pan Pan Pan]

AJS- said:

Pan Pan Pan
That might be a realistic hope if Cameron was genuinely saying give us a better deal or we leave. So far I haven't seen any sign of that.

Sadly I believe you are right, but because the saying He who pays the piper calls the tune `should' apply, this means that this could be the best chance the UK (and other member states) has got of ever reforming the EU into something sustainable.
Whether they are bright enough to see this, or honest enough to accept it and take action on it, remains the big question.
I am not holding much hope out on that one.

[Pan Pan Pan]

JensenA said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You seem to be forgetting the key ingredient in all of this, the money. No matter which way people want to look at this, in the end it always comes down to the money.
None of the other member states want anything to change, because if it did, it would more than likely cost them more than they are paying into the system now.
But as you pointed out the one option member states have is to exit the EU. If The UK exits, and takes with it its second largest net contributions into EU coffers after Germany, then all the other member states will be required to pay more in, than they do now to keep the thing afloat.
If they are so dumb and corrupt they cannot see this happening, they will (like Greece) continue
with their current attitudes. If (and it is a big if) they see the light, they will want to make sure the UK stays in the EU, and to do that, they must make some sorely needed reforms to the way the EU operates. With the UK`s referendum coming up, they will need to turn their minds to a `possible' UK exit, and act accordingly, Whether they will or not is the question.
As noted earlier, interesting tomes lay ahead

The problem with the EU isn't just 'about money'. It is a political dream, a United States of Europe, and the country that controls the EU is Germany. And no I am not anti-German, I like and admire the Germans, I've lived in Germany, it's a great place to live and work, but it is a fact that Germany controls the EU, and so controls Europe. Germany is the powerhouse of Europe, Germany makes things that Europe and the world needs, and a political U.S.E is in Germany's interests. Germany doesn't really need the UK to be in Europe and rocking the boat, it needs a compliant and willing UK. Germany will still export it's BMW's, Mercs, Audis etc to the UK, it will make sure of that, but very single car in the world depends on German products and technology, so wether the UK is in or out, Germany will continue to thrive, and dominate m

No. In the end it is all about the money, all the political dream nonsense is just the wrapping paper. No matter which aspect of the EU is examined, in the end it always comes down to the money.

[Pan Pan Pan]

P,s With the UK being the second largest net contributor into EU coffers after Germany, if the UK exits the EU, guess who will be left trying to hold the EU together financially?
Germany would sh*t itself if it looks like the UK is heading for the door.

[AJS-]

Pan Pan Pan
There has always been the chance to reform, though little incentive. Cameron isn't using what little leverage he has (the prospect od British withdrawal) to push for reform.

[Pan Pan Pan]

AJS- said:

Pan Pan Pan
There has always been the chance to reform, though little incentive. Cameron isn't using what little leverage he has (the prospect od British withdrawal) to push for reform.

I cannot make that out at all.
If the EU is doing so much to keep a basket case, money pit, non contributing country, like Greece
in the system, what will they do to keep its second largest contributor of funds INTO EU coffers in the EU.
Why would they be so keen to keep basket case Greece in, but be prepared to do little, or nothing to keep a country which buys more `from' the EU than it sells `into' the EU, and is its second largest net contributor into EU funds after Germany. It makes no sense at all.

[NicD]

another 'benefit' of EU membership:

European students who have taken out taxpayer-funded loans to study at English universities are a record £43 million in arrears.
The amount owed .. has doubled in two years..One in eight of EU graduates from English universities who are now living abroad are failing to repay.
experts predict this figure will soar after the Government’s decision to allow unlimited numbers to study in England from this September.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141810/St...


Actually, if only one in eight fails to pay that is a result, and worth it to keep the EU and University staff in luxury.

[PRTVR]

JensenA said:

The pro
ith the EU isn't just 'about money'. It is a political dream, a United States of Europe, and the country that controls the EU is Germany. And no I am not anti-German, I like and admire the Germans, I've lived in Germany, it's a great place to live and work, but it is a fact that Germany controls the EU, and so controls Europe. Germany is the powerhouse of Europe, Germany makes things that Europe and the world needs, and a political U.S.E is in Germany's interests. Germany doesn't really need the UK to be in Europe and rocking the boat, it needs a compliant and willing UK. Germany will still export it's BMW's, Mercs, Audis etc to the UK, it will make sure of that, but very single car in the world depends on German products and technology, so wether the UK is in or out, Germany will continue to thrive, and dominate m

I have my doubts if Germany could keep supporting all the poor countries of the EU if we leave, without our contributions they would have to make up the difference, could they afford it? Would the German people vote for it ?
When you end up with more countries struggling financially than you have countries prospering the EU will have major problems.

[Pan Pan Pan]

PRTVR said:

JensenA said:

The pro
ith the EU isn't just 'about money'. It is a political dream, a United States of Europe, and the country that controls the EU is Germany. And no I am not anti-German, I like and admire the Germans, I've lived in Germany, it's a great place to live and work, but it is a fact that Germany controls the EU, and so controls Europe. Germany is the powerhouse of Europe, Germany makes things that Europe and the world needs, and a political U.S.E is in Germany's interests. Germany doesn't really need the UK to be in Europe and rocking the boat, it needs a compliant and willing UK. Germany will still export it's BMW's, Mercs, Audis etc to the UK, it will make sure of that, but very single car in the world depends on German products and technology, so wether the UK is in or out, Germany will continue to thrive, and dominate m

I have my doubts if Germany could keep supporting all the poor countries of the EU if we leave, without our contributions they would have to make up the difference, could they afford it? Would the German people vote for it ?
When you end up with more countries struggling financially than you have countries prospering the EU will have major problems.

Exactly this.

[AJS-]

Pan
They probably would make significant concessions if we asked for them and there was a realistic prospect of us leaving otherwise but we aren't asking for them and Cameron appears to be against leaving whatever the outcome of the negotiations.

It's rather like me coming to buy a car off you and starting with saying "I'm prepared to give you the price you're asking but could you give me a discount anyway?"

[JensenA]

Pan Pan Pan said:

No. In the end it is all about the money, all the political dream nonsense is just the wrapping paper. No matter which aspect of the EU is examined, in the end it always comes down to the money.

It depends how you define 'all about money'. The EU is a political dream, and ideological dream for an equal and prosperous United States of Europe. Why do you think that, for example, KIA decided to build a car assembly plant in Slovakia, and not the UK, Germany or France? It is because the EU gave financial incentives to build a factory in Slovakia, and so increase the prosperity of Slovakia to make it more 'equal' financially to other nations in the EU, as the prosperity of Slovakia increases, it will be able to pay more in membership fees to the EU, and the EU becomes richer and has more money to pursue its ideological dreams. It's Socialism on a grand scale. Remember no one votes in the policy makers of the EU, They are all appointed by existing appointed policy makers, and you're not going to appoint someone who doesn't share you're dream are you?
So yes, it is about money, but only because the money allows you to pursue your ideological dream.

[Pan Pan Pan]

JensenA said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No. In the end it is all about the money, all the political dream nonsense is just the wrapping paper. No matter which aspect of the EU is examined, in the end it always comes down to the money.

It depends how you define 'all about money'. The EU is a political dream, and ideological dream for an equal and prosperous United States of Europe. Why do you think that, for example, KIA decided to build a car assembly plant in Slovakia, and not the UK, Germany or France? It is because the EU gave financial incentives to build a factory in Slovakia, and so increase the prosperity of Slovakia to make it more 'equal' financially to other nations in the EU, as the prosperity of Slovakia increases, it will be able to pay more in membership fees to the EU, and the EU becomes richer and has more money to pursue its ideological dreams. It's Socialism on a grand scale. Remember no one votes in the policy makers of the EU, They are all appointed by existing appointed policy makers, and you're not going to appoint someone who doesn't share you're dream are you?
So yes, it is about money, but only because the money allows you to pursue your ideological dream.

Without the money, a dreams is just well... a dream.
Like I said the bottom line is all about the money., and with the UK being the EU`s second largest net contributor of funds, take away the UK and the `dream' either goes completely, or is very badly dented. Where do you think the money has to come from to set up `factories in Slovakia' in the first place?

[Pan Pan Pan]

[quote=AJS-]Pan
They probably would make significant concessions if we asked for them and there was a realistic prospect of us leaving otherwise but we aren't asking for them and Cameron appears to be against leaving whatever the outcome of the negotiations.

It's rather like me coming to buy a car off you and starting with saying "

This hinges on whether CMD is serious about adhering to the results of a UK referendum, or whether it is just a marketing exercise, and no matter what the result, the UK will be staying in the EU
under a poor set of terms. Rather like some other countries being given the option to keep on voting until they come up with the `right' answer!

[4v6]

From what I can see of the eu, its nothing more than a thinly disguised land grab at its most basic level that is, a non too subtle attempt to rule the world by stealth.

Needs to be stopped and I think Britain is the only country that can do it.

[JensenA]

Pan Pan Pan said:

No. In the end it is all about the money, all the political dream nonsense is just the wrapping paper. No matter which aspect of the EU is examined, in the end it always comes down to the money.

Hmmm, Yes, but no, but Yes, but maybe. It depends on how you define 'It's all about money'. You can argue that Socialism is all about money because it's about distributing money and wealth equally, Socialism. A USE is not Political Dream nonsense, it's the raison d'être of the EU, the political dream of a creating a United States of Europe. It is not a Business model, it's not a business entity with the aim of producing wealth, it's a political ideal, pure and simple. If it was just about money the political and administration side of the EU would be disbanded by 'those in charge'. Remember no one elects the people in charge, they are appointed by those who have already been appointed, and theyre not going to appoint someone who does not share their political dream and ideals are they?
Why do you think companies like KIA build a car assembly plant in Slovakia and not in the UK or Germany? Its not just because the Labour rate is cheaper, It's because the EU provide incentives to companies to build plants in the poorer countries, with the aim of decreasing the financial inequalities of individual states, and so create an 'equal' Europe. It's Socialism on a grand scale.

[AJS-]

Pan Pan Pan said:

This hinges on whether CMD is serious about adhering to the results of a UK referendum, or whether it is just a marketing exercise, and no matter what the result, the UK will be staying in the EU under a poor set of terms. Rather like some other countries being given the option to keep on voting until they come up with the `right' answer!

I think he will adhere to the result, but with a tax payer funded In campaign, the usual scaremongering from "big business" and a loaded question, set against a shambolic Out campaign which isn't even clear on what it is arguing for (I.e. EEA, EFTA, neither) it's very likely to be an In vote anyway. Again it looks more like the 1991 referendum on the USSR than an open debate on the future of the country.

This is only partly Cameron's doing, and in a large part a failure of the Out campaign. However I still think it's woefully optimistic to believe that Cameron is even seeking any meaningful reforms.

[Pan Pan Pan]

AJS- said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

This hinges on whether CMD is serious about adhering to the results of a UK referendum, or whether it is just a marketing exercise, and no matter what the result, the UK will be staying in the EU under a poor set of terms. Rather like some other countries being given the option to keep on voting until they come up with the `right' answer!

I think he will adhere to the result, but with a tax payer funded In campaign, the usual scaremongering from "big business" and a loaded question, set against a shambolic Out campaign which isn't even clear on what it is arguing for (I.e. EEA, EFTA, neither) it's very likely to be an In vote anyway. Again it looks more like the 1991 referendum on the USSR than an open debate on the future of the country.

This is only partly Cameron's doing, and in a large part a failure of the Out campaign. However I still think it's woefully optimistic to believe that Cameron is even seeking any meaningful reforms.

After watching the debates on Sunday Politics this morning it seems Cameron may not have to do much to get EU reform (even treaty change) The EU has apparently spent 88 billion Euros to try to keep the basket case, non productive, non contributing, money pit known as Greece in the Eurozone to stop the EU from unravelling, and some have become concerned that this could be just the start of the EU unravelling.
A second country, but also one that is the EU`s second largest net contributor also leaving in a short space of time, after Grexit it was suggested would make treaty reform (rather than the collapse of the whole system) more a possibility, than say a few months ago.
If Cameron is so dumb, as to not see this as a golden, once in a lifetime opportunity to bring about some real and much needed reform of the EU, not just for the UK but for all member states, then CMD will have to stand for Call Me Dumb.
There is simply no logic in the EU spending billions trying to keep a basket case, non contributing, non productive, intractable country like Greece in the system,. whilst at the same ignoring legitimate requests for reform, from its second largest financial contributor.