Britain and the EU

kabayiri

We (UK) currently enjoy a number of vetos and concessions from the EU, some of them longstanding, and some which attract much resentment from some Euro politicians.

I suspect there will be pressure to replace things like Schengen and the Dublin Agreement, arguing they are not fit for purpose.

My concern is that even inside the EU we will be increasingly marginalised.

I'm hoping the EU referendum process will awaken the public to the issue of Europe, and just how much impact it has on our lives.

wotsthat

Don't get me wrong. I'm interested in the debate but more from the perspective of how do the two sides engage the few floaters in a subject which is mainly of interest to followers of politics rather than 'real' people.

I expect a dreadful mix of Twitter, Facebook, politicos and celebrity and Norway (always Norway).

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

...
I expect a dreadful mix of Twitter, Facebook, politicos and celebrity and Norway (always Norway).

You forget central EU politicians screwing up their own PR.

The Syrian refugee crisis could not have been handled in a less cohesive / PR way at an European level.

Sapphire

wotsthat wrote: »

I expect a dreadful mix of Twitter, Facebook, politicos and celebrity and Norway (always Norway).

Luckily, I don't do either Facebook or Twitter, but I'm dreading the inevitable appearance of the celebrities – that will put me off the whole thing so much.

I still need to know what the advantages of the UK staying in the EU are, balanced against the disadvantages, such as the huge amount of British taxpayers' money that is spent (and often wasted) in Europe; the great influx of EU migrants who are not useful to our economy (and are in fact a drain on it), as opposed to those who are a positive gain; the effect of migration on our health services (as evidenced, for example, by the truly awful treatment of the indigenous elderly and helpless, who have contributed to this country); the influence of migration on depressing the wages of the indigenous population, to the benefit of company owners and the like, but not to the much more numerous low wage earners; the pressure on Britain to accept illegal migrants from outside Europe, coupled with the utter failure of Europe to stem the inflow of potentially tens of millions from the Middle East and Africa, which I believe would be catastrophic for Europe for several key reasons; the potential for illegal migrants to promptly make their way to Britain once they have been given citizenship of Germany (or any other EU country); the loss of our autonomy in general to a United States of Germany.

That's why, unless Mr Cameron manages to put my mind at rest about all these issues following his negotiations with Merkel, I'll most definitely vote 'no' to staying in the EU.

andrewf75

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I want to know, specifically what those benefits are. Then I want to look at whether those benefits are categorically gone should we leave the EU.

These questions are not being answered.

The main benefit as I see it is the economy. If the £3,000 per household per year estimate is correct that is huge. It will effectively knock a big chunk off our GDP.

But its dismissed as scaremongering and lets face it no-one knows for sure so no-one can categorically tell you what will happen. Its all guesswork.

But we need to be prepared for that £3,000 per year as a worst case scenario - or it could even be an underestimate. Its going to cost us something that is for sure.

mayonnaise

wotsthat wrote: »

I expect a dreadful mix of Twitter, Facebook, politicos and celebrity and Norway (always Norway).

And applause levels on Question Time.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

And applause levels on Question Time.

I nominate myself to measure these.

michaels

wotsthat wrote: »

To stay.



To leave.

You're welcome.

Have you never floated different arguements to get others input and help you figure out how things might pan out in practice? I wish I were so smart that I did not have to think about things and instead knew the answer straight away.

wotsthat

michaels wrote: »

Have you never floated different arguements to get others input and help you figure out how things might pan out in practice? I wish I were so smart that I did not have to think about things and instead knew the answer straight away.

You've probably been thinking about these things for years and have a reasonable idea of how you'll vote already. It's not as if we were disinterested and waiting for the campaigns to be launched before impartially weighing up the evidence presented.

I'll be impressed if either side even manages to present old arguments in new and innovative ways. I'll be amazed to hear anything I've not heard before.

Tell you what. I'll put you down as a don't know with Graham.

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

The Syrian refugee crisis could not have been handled in a less cohesive / PR way at an European level.

Not everything can be easily resolved especially when some members are dramatically more affected - there will always be fudges. Would it have been handled any better if there were 28 individual countries trying to solve the problem?

What I found interesting was that Germany seemed act in a way that we're told we can't because of EU rules. Europe has been a handy scapegoat for ineffective national politicians for years.