EU Deal - Money still sent to other economies

mwpt

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well you appear to have no trouble having an opinion on everyone elses opinion?

As for my opinion - as you may have guessed, I'm now a firm out voter. I did say I would wait for this deal, but it's of little surprised that such a poor deal has my mind made up. Hell, it's such a poor, vague deal, with so many get out clauses which means it can be torn up at a whim that even those pro-EU are embarrassed by it.

You can trivalise it with your 12 people statement - but you'd be missing the point by a large margin.

One of the problems with the IN vote (and I am an IN voter) is that some fail to take the concerns of the OUT voters seriously. They believe they can trivialise them as bigoted when I just don't believe that is what it boils down to.

I hope whoever runs the IN campaign doesn't make that mistake.

By the way Graham, I for one believe your views are unfounded, particularly because I watched you try to frame the Greece situation as Europe dictating a sovereign political policy. I understand why you think this but believe you're mistaken and therefore are basing your out vote on mistaken beliefs. Just my opinion.

I firmly believe that the UK is on sounder and more stable ground being part of the EU not to mention the personal benefits that if the UK suffers a shortage of work I have 27 other countries to choose from at the drop of a hat, and sunnier places to retire safely one day if I choose. These to me are just a few huge benefits, outweighing any negatives.

I think the world needs to move toward closer integration, not revert to nationalist tendencies.

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

That they haven't suggests either there is a private understanding that stay in will win or they don't care if Britain leaves. Perhaps the later is true but I think that would be a risky strategy for the EU to pursue so I assume that it is the former, that it was felt (perhaps communicated by Cameron) that no concessions were needed as the referendum would be won any way.

I think the whole thing was a misjudged exercise by Cameron to hold his party together until a referendum. I genuinely don't know whether he went in expecting to be able to get more, or just wanted to be able to claim he'd renegotiated and didn't appreciate that such an inept negotiation would do more harm than good to his credibility.

I think it's unfair to try and judge the EU's motives. If the only things they could offer that would have an impact on British voters were changes that the other members feel would undermine the entire institution then the least bad choice was not to change.

There are a lot of anti-EU voters who and MPs who wouldn't have been happy with anything short of getting back full border controls, huge amounts of money, the effective end of the European courts etc. There's another large demographic who are neutral about the EU.

If Cameron had accepted that Freedom of movement wasn't going anywhere, and thus anyone wanting full control over immigration couldn't be won over, he could have focused on negotiating improvements in the EU that would have shown more neutral voters that the EU can be improved.

If he'd come back with a deal that, for example, limited the increase in the EU budget for the next 10 years to 90% of the average increase in EU government budgets, it would resonate with neutral voters (it'd also be viable because there's plenty of support for limiting EU spending outside the UK, and ultimately we have the ability to veto increases anyway).

Graham_Devon

mwpt wrote: »

One of the problems with the IN vote (and I am an IN voter) is that some fail to take the concerns of the OUT voters seriously. They believe they can trivialise them as bigoted when I just don't believe that is what it boils down to.

I hope whoever runs the IN campaign doesn't make that mistake.

By the way Graham, I for one believe your views are unfounded, particularly because I watched you try to frame the Greece situation as Europe dictating a sovereign political policy. I understand why you think this but believe you're mistaken and therefore are basing your out vote on mistaken beliefs. Just my opinion.

I firmly believe that the UK is on sounder and more stable ground being part of the EU not to mention the personal benefits that if the UK suffers a shortage of work I have 27 other countries to choose from at the drop of a hat, and sunnier places to retire safely one day if I choose. These to me are just a few huge benefits, outweighing any negatives.

I think the world needs to move toward closer integration, not revert to nationalist tendencies.

I fully respect your opinion and can see where you are coming from.

However, my opinion on Germany framing Greece is unchanged. My mind was made up when after after all the fuss Greece finally agreed to the bailout measures. We must remember this was after weeks of torment and pressure to agree. Once Greece did agree, Germany threw the agreement out and said it needed to be redesigned.

At that point a lot of people could see the game that was being played. It wasn't about money any longer, it was about having the wrong type of political party in charge of Greece. That's no longer the case.

Now we have another situation with Greece - that is the threat from Germany to seal Greece up and force them to deal with the immigrants. That's pretty shocking when you look at the part the German chancellor took in the refugee crisis (which it's widely believeed could have finished her).

Two are most definately tangoing when you look at Greece and Germany. However, Germany have far more power and are willing and are using it.

All just my humble opinion. shared by others, but obviously not by all.

For what it's worth - if it weren't for the political will to have one state run by Germany and the whole "the EURO is the most important thing above everything else" the EU is a pretty decent thing. It's just, IMHO, gone too far with the only outcome from here to be to go even further. If we wish to change our benefit system, we shouldn;t have to plead with someone in Brussels, who has most likely got there via Germany. WE pay for the benefit system, the EU doesn't.

And for the record I have nothing against Germany and will be heading back hopefully this year - its the politics I take issue with.

mwpt

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I fully respect your opinion and can see where you are coming from.

However, my opinion on Germany framing Greece is unchanged. My mind was made up when after after all the fuss Greece finally agreed to the bailout measures. We must remember this was after weeks of torment and pressure to agree. Once Greece did agree, Germany threw the agreement out and said it needed to be redesigned.

At that point a lot of people could see the game that was being played. It wasn't about money any longer, it was about having the wrong type of political party in charge of Greece. That's no longer the case.

Now we have another situation with Greece - that is the threat from Germany to seal Greece up and force them to deal with the immigrants. That's pretty shocking when you look at the part the German chancellor took in the refugee crisis (which it's widely believeed could have finished her).

Two are most definately tangoing when you look at Greece and Germany. However, Germany have far more power and are willing and are using it.

All just my humble opinion. share by others, but obviously not be all.

And I still believe you are misrepresenting what actually happened which is sad because your vote counts and it affects me. But we've debated all those issues above before so not going to make much difference doing it again.

Graham_Devon

mwpt wrote: »

And I still believe you are misrepresenting what actually happened which is sad because your vote counts and it affects me. But we've debated all those issues above before so not going to make much difference doing it again.

True. I'm not sure it can be misrepresented, as we all take what we take from the same information and come to individual conclusions.

The one thing that does stand out though, regardless of our opinions on it all was that it was hardly a beacon of light for the EU as a whole.

The result of all that back last year is that Germany now owns a lot of Greek infrastructure all bought as severely reduced prices.

If there was anything to come out of those negotiations and the resulting actions, it's that were hardly a unison of harmony - neither are we looking out for and supporting other countries. If that were the case, Germany wouldn't now own large swathes of Greek infrastructure. Instead, they would be genuinely helping them and supporting them. And look how Cyprus was treated...

The refugee crisis highlighted, to me at least, that the "one for all" system simply doesn't and will never work.

Anyway, regardless of our opinions on wrongs and rights of individual countries - I must say it's lovely to have a genuinely decent respectful conversation when it comes to the EU.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

One of the problems with the IN vote (and I am an IN voter) is that some fail to take the concerns of the OUT voters seriously. They believe they can trivialise them as bigoted when I just don't believe that is what it boils down to.

I hope whoever runs the IN campaign doesn't make that mistake.

It looks like a cabinet minister is going to run the IN campaign, AIUI at least. Ms May perhaps??? Possibly with Bozza as a sidekick.

A big problem OUT faces is that they don't have a leader or even a single group to represent them. Yessers had the SNP but the natural equivalent, UKIP, is loathed by a significant part of the country.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

It looks like a cabinet minister is going to run the IN campaign, AIUI at least. Ms May perhaps??? Possibly with Bozza as a sidekick.

A big problem OUT faces is that they don't have a leader or even a single group to represent them. Yessers had the SNP but the natural equivalent, UKIP, is loathed by a significant part of the country.

True, currently.

I'm not sure a particular group is needed for the out campaign though. Theres an entire political party devoted to it for a start.

With the recent polls and now Cameron and his negotiation, the IN campaign appears to be doing the work of the OUT campaign. Plus it's very difficult for anyone currently serving to go against the political establishment.

The IN Campaign need to be careful that they don't panic and simply end up walking down the well troden path of threats and fear. I don't think that's going to work as I think it's been overused - though I could be wrong.

mrginge

Generali wrote: »

It looks like a cabinet minister is going to run the IN campaign, AIUI at least. Ms May perhaps??? Possibly with Bozza as a sidekick.

People who may aspire to lead a political party may wish to avoid signing their career death warrant by leading a campaign to do the exact opposite of what a large number of their MPs and members want.

angrypirate

mrginge wrote: »

People who may aspire to lead a political party may wish to avoid signing their career death warrant by leading a campaign to do the exact opposite of what a large number of their MPs and members want.

I think its more likely May and Bojo will just lay low, quietly saying stay. They are more interested in their future cabinet positions than doing what they truly believe is best for the country - and I think they believe out is best but their ambition overrules that

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

True, currently.

I'm not sure a particular group is needed for the out campaign though. Theres an entire political party devoted to it for a start.

With the recent polls and now Cameron and his negotiation, the IN campaign appears to be doing the work of the OUT campaign. Plus it's very difficult for anyone currently serving to go against the political establishment.

The IN Campaign need to be careful that they don't panic and simply end up walking down the well troden path of threats and fear. I don't think that's going to work as I think it's been overused - though I could be wrong.

it would seem to me that UKIP is a handicap to the exit camp.