Britain and the EU

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Will my kids suffer a worse education?

Graham Jr. might develop a broader intellectual and cultural horizon than Graham Sr. and may perhaps wish to advance his uni education with a spell in another EU university partly funded through the Erasmus programme?

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

I can't see any positives to excessive pollution. Why?

because excess pollution from diesel is good for industry
and you can't see any negative for ordinary people about things good for industry

.string.

wotsthat wrote: »

Thinking about this I think the onus is on the no camp to explain what would be so great about leaving. The stay camp have the advantage of the status quo, and the implied fear of the unknown so can run a positive campaign.

The No camp are going to have to get the balance right between bigging up the future and looking like they're running the UK down.

If things were crap in the UK it might be an easier sell.

It took me a moment or two to work out that in this context the "No camp" are anti Union!

But I agree with your remark about it being up to the,"Leavers" to justify changing the status quo. In fact just before reading your posted I posted pretty well the same point in another thread.

Masomnia

.string. wrote: »

It took me a moment or two to work out that in this context the "No camp" are anti Union!

But I agree with your remark about it being up to the,"Leavers" to justify changing the status quo. In fact just before reading your posted I posted pretty well the same point in another thread.

But the status quo is one of change

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Thinking about this I think the onus is on the no camp to explain what would be so great about leaving. The stay camp have the advantage of the status quo, and the implied fear of the unknown so can run a positive campaign.

We regain control of many things.

We avoid being tramlined down certain paths.

We save huge sums of money.

We can open up and trade with the world.

And as the yes camp can't really provide anything really worth staying for, bar how great it is for already wealthy business folk/individuals and some implied fear stories, I really can't see any reason as to why we'd stay.

Look at that. You asked once and got 5 reasons straight away. Marvelous.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

because excess pollution from diesel is good for industry
and you can't see any negative for ordinary people about things good for industry

Fallacious argument. I asked if what's good for business and people had to be mutually exclusive. The answer is no and I doubt you'd disagree.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We regain control of many things.

We avoid being tramlined down certain paths.

We save huge sums of money.

We can open up and trade with the world.

And as the yes camp can't really provide anything really worth staying for, bar how great it is for already wealthy business folk/individuals and some implied fear stories, I really can't see any reason as to why we'd stay.

Look at that. You asked once and got 5 reasons straight away. Marvelous.

If the roles were reversed and I'd posted this list of game changers you'd, rightly, be embarrassed for me.

Masomnia

antrobus wrote: »

Blair wanted British membership of the Euro to be his 'legacy'. Still didn't get us into the Euro, now did it.

If you had been paying attention you would know that even former Euro enthusiasts such as Mandelson have now given up on the idea. I think you would struggle these days to find a single politician who even thought it was worth considering the idea. Thus I believe it will be a very, very, very long time before we have another PM who is pro-Euro.

P.S. Sweden, which is supposed to be committed to joining the Euro, still shows no sign of actually doing so.

There are a fair few countries who currently don't have the Euro but are obliged to join. As they do so over the next 5 - 10 years our position on the outside will become untenable; of course we will join sooner or later. As I say it won't be long until we have a PM who takes us in, presumably based on the same arguments the pro-EU camp are making now.

If you take what Mandelson says at face value then you truly are beyond hope. He's smart, he knows the UK public don't want the Euro, he knows the best way to get it is to keep his mouth shut during the referendum.

Up until polling day we will hear a lot about the economy, trade, and the City (I don't dispute the EU is good for those things) but we will not hear about the Euro, we will not hear about why European Parliamentary Supremacy is good thing, we will not hear about why direct EU taxation is a good thing, why a European army is a good thing, why we need to give up sovereignty, or indeed why closer union is a good thing. All these things are happening but they are not popular.

You clearly don't understand the point.

Once you have decided to leave the EU, you tell them of your intention. At which point, the EU "shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union".

Thus it would be "rather silly" just to leave without having first negotiated the "future relationship with the Union".

Well clearly.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Fallacious argument. I asked if what's good for business and people had to be mutually exclusive. The answer is no and I doubt you'd disagree.

if that's what you meant, then a totally pointless question

however simply because something is good for business doesn't always make it good for society in general

wotsthat

.string. wrote: »

It took me a moment or two to work out that in this context the "No camp" are anti Union!

I assumed no was anti EU only because Graham is going to vote no.

Just looked it up and it's remain.... Or leave....

Removes the advantage of the positive 'yes' statement.