The 'No to the EU' campaign

[Bluebarge]

FiF said:

Bluebarge said:

FiF said:

as usual your ilk attack the messengers not the message.

Remind me who was labelling the pro-EU posters as "pricks"?

Pricks who don't want to admit that the aim is total union. Yep not polite. Don't care.

Try taking some water with it, FiF, you're not doing yourself many favours on this thread.

[Bluebarge]

Murph7355 said:

PS Out of interest, are you dependent on providing goods and services to the EU?

Dependent? No, but a large part of my client-base does business with the EU, or are organisations who are here because of the EU Single Market. If that goes, I expect to be a lot poorer.

[FiF]

Bluebarge said:

Try taking some water with it, FiF, you're not doing yourself many favours on this thread.

Whatever, but in comparison with the EU wanting to tear up an agreement signed by all 28 EU Prime Ministers just for the sake of convenience, now that's not doing yourself any favours.

[Bluebarge]

FiF said:

Bluebarge said:

Try taking some water with it, FiF, you're not doing yourself many favours on this thread.

Whatever, but in comparison with the EU wanting to tear up an agreement signed by all 28 EU Prime Ministers just for the sake of convenience, now that's not doing yourself any favours.

That post doesn't make any sense. I've come across you on other (non-political) threads where you have been informative and helpful but here - Jeez. It is possible to profoundly disagree with other's opinions but still be civil (a good friend of mine is a 'kipper - I think he's nuts but I still like him) and Murph7355 and I have had an interesting (to me) exchange of opposing views on here without resorting to abuse. Maybe you should give that a try?

[FiF]

What doesn't make sense? A reference to Juncker wishing to tear up the binding agreement on use of the European Financial Stability Fund and expose UK to 0.7 billion in liabilities towards eurozone. Hth in providing background.

People have a right to point stuff like this out. It should make people angry. Obviously for some it doesn't.

[anonymous-user]

Bluebarge said:

FiF said:

Bluebarge said:

Try taking some water with it, FiF, you're not doing yourself many favours on this thread.

Whatever, but in comparison with the EU wanting to tear up an agreement signed by all 28 EU Prime Ministers just for the sake of convenience, now that's not doing yourself any favours.

That post doesn't make any sense. I've come across you on other (non-political) threads where you have been informative and helpful but here - Jeez. It is possible to profoundly disagree with other's opinions but still be civil (a good friend of mine is a 'kipper - I think he's nuts but I still like him) and Murph7355 and I have had an interesting (to me) exchange of opposing views on here without resorting to abuse. Maybe you should give that a try?

Makes sense to me.

On the other hand, your willingness to remain in a corrupt union that has repeatedly proven its incompetence, and which seems destined to eventually be the ruin of several once quite viable nations just for your short term gain, now that makes no sense.

[Murph7355]

Bluebarge said:

Dependent? No, but a large part of my client-base does business with the EU, or are organisations who are here because of the EU Single Market. If that goes, I expect to be a lot poorer.

I guess our views are swayed by client base - I'm less reliant on any one region for business I suspect.

Though I still don't really get why your clients would be too bothered in the immediate term as little is likely to change. If they need access to Germany, Germany will still need to sell us Audis and BMWs. So your customers will be fine.

If they need access to Greece etc....get other customers

Slightly less tongue in cheek, but a move towards diversifying client base has to be the best approach regardless. In or out, Europe's economy is far from in the rudest of health. Spreading the risk would seem a shrewd move.

(Ignore the personal rubbish. Happens too frequently on here, but shouldn't prevent a good debate ).

[steveT350C]

'Billionaire chemicals boss backs EU exit with claim Britain will THRIVE away from Brussels'

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592243/Bill...

[Ean218]

Bluebarge said:

Dependent? No, but a large part of my client-base does business with the EU, or are organisations who are here because of the EU Single Market. If that goes, I expect to be a lot poorer.

Why? What do you think will happen?

And yes I really am interested to know what it is you are scared of as I cannot see what the fuss is about.

The EU sells us more than we sell it, do you really think they are going to put up trade barriers just because we decided we want our sovereignty back? They would be the losers, not us.

[Scuffers]

steveT350C said:

'Billionaire chemicals boss backs EU exit with claim Britain will THRIVE away from Brussels'

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592243/Bill...

and it's not just him.

Tata Steel closing plant for the same reasons, high energy prices.

how much longer before others follow (to outside the EU?)

[steveatesh]

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...

Interesting developments on Dr Norths site this morning, he is suggesting that the referendum will become more difficult to win the out vote because the direction of travel in the EU is a two speed model, with Associate Membership to be offered to those outside of the Eurozone.

He says all the signs are there that will happen, Cameron will be able to claim it was down to him, and he can go into a referendum saying that the UK gets what it wants.

[Esseesse]

steveatesh said:

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...

Interesting developments on Dr Norths site this morning, he is suggesting that the referendum will become more difficult to win the out vote because the direction of travel in the EU is a two speed model, with Associate Membership to be offered to those outside of the Eurozone.

He says all the signs are there that will happen, Cameron will be able to claim it was down to him, and he can go into a referendum saying that the UK gets what it wants.

Not disagreeing with what you/he says about difficulty of leaving but if that's the result of the yes vote (assuming it's preferable to where we are now) there's still no reason not to vote no.

[turbobloke]

steveatesh said:

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...

Interesting developments on Dr Norths site this morning, he is suggesting that the referendum will become more difficult to win the out vote because the direction of travel in the EU is a two speed model, with Associate Membership to be offered to those outside of the Eurozone.

He says all the signs are there that will happen, Cameron will be able to claim it was down to him, and he can go into a referendum saying that the UK gets what it wants.

This is why CMD is such a good PR fluffer, he makes it hard (to believe what he says).

[steveatesh]

Esseesse said:

Not disagreeing with what you/he says about difficulty of leaving but if that's the result of the yes vote (assuming it's preferable to where we are now) there's still no reason not to vote no.

Absolutely. Dr North is identifying the potential difficulties to th No campaign such an arrangement will cause though, especially when a compliant and ignorant media run the story and big it up, and the massive lack of knowledge in the general UK population who will be suckered into it.

It's all about the veneer, not the underlying issues.

[superlightr]

I think the question or result is being thought about too much.

Its more of an innate urge, I know what why im going to vote and there will be no changing of my mind. Not very cerebral perhaps its more of inner urge, the feeling that its right is deep down to leave. Im sure a lot of other voters cant or wont put it down to any one point and it will be an overall urge/feeling.

The UK has always been us (island) against the rest and it feels that way now to me. I dont know of anyone that wants closer ties with EU, and the ones that did vote last time did not vote for where we are now. Each of us have very little impact in the General election with safe seats, UKIP etc. BUT with the YES NO vote for the EU I understand it will be a straight numbers game who gets the most votes wins.

Edited by superlightr on Friday 24th July 10:00

[FiF]

The problem with the issue raised by Dr North is valid as the real issue is which competencies will remain with the EU.

Let's just look at trade for example as that's a competency that's been outsourced to the EU. People are right to say trade deals are taking 13-16 years to sort out, this is because they are trying to sort deals that are over wide spectrum of goods and involving 28 different nations. Whereas without that wide playing field deals can be struck much more quickly and only on the areas of mutual interest.

The other issue is that trade these days is much more affected by deals done at supranational level and these are then rubber stamped verbatim by the EU, eg WTO, UNECE with regulatory convergence. We don't get any say in these nor in many cases, no pre warning due to our politicians not making proper oversight. They've been concentrating on the things that are easy and highly visible, with hopefully associated positive publicity, and ignoring the hard work of scrutinising the deals between overarching regulatory bodies. Where this is the exclusive preview of the EU we lose visibility and so has the media. The MEPs we send as a protest are useless in this respect.

This is one reason why I will vote to leave is that the presence of the EU in this chain just makes for an encumbrance, an expensive encumbrance and just makes the line of accountability too long and tortuous. Rather like an organisation with far too many management layers.

Leaving won't get rid of regulation, there won't be a bonfire of laws and rules, anyone who believes that hasn't thought it through. But it should revitalise our government and parliament into really looking properly at what matters and to do that we have to take back our responsibilities.

[Bluebarge]

superlightr said:

The UK has always been us (island) against the rest

Edited by superlightr on Friday 24th July 10:00

But that simply isn't true, as a cursory reading of British history would show you. Britain has always sought alliances and ties to and in Europe because that is who we trade with. Even in the days of Imperial expansion Britain was always heavily involved in Continental Europe.

Besides, if the UK does leave the EU, you may find that the definition of "us" changes a bit as the Scots and the Welsh decide where their best interests lie.

[Bluebarge]

Love the way you all call him "Dr North" as if that adds some gravitas to his views. You do know what his PhD was in, don't you?

[fido]

Bluebarge said:

But that simply isn't true, as a cursory reading of British history would show you. Britain has always sought alliances and ties to and in Europe because that is who we trade with.

If you hadn't noticed logistics and international trade have moved on a bit since the 1800s. My car is made in Japan, my phone is designed in the US (made in China) and my camera is German - the idea of the EU as a Free Trade Area (well it isn't anyway - it's a Customs Union) doesn't matter anymore to the UK.

[FiF]

Bluebarge said:

Love the way you all call him "Dr North" as if that adds some gravitas to his views. You do know what his PhD was in, don't you?

You just can't help yourself can you. Nothing of substance again.