Cameron spending £9 Million on Brexit Propaganda.

kabayiri

HornetSaver wrote: »

Unquestionably.

Equally, to vote to Leave is to trust in the current Government and the EU to negotiate competently and in good faith, to achieve a sensible new relationship.

This is my problem.

I don't believe our government could negotiate it's way out of a paper bag.

There will be bad feelings in the EU over the negotiations Cameron held for years to come.

Some EU ex-ministers still resent the rebate Maggie achieved, all those years ago.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The EU has made some material concessions to UK concerns and continues to reform and evolve all the time.
...

How has the EU reformed Schengen to deal with the threat from the free movement of terrorists?

There have been concerns with terrorist activity for well over a decade.

I think you are just throwing in soundbites. I'd like to hear clear examples of reform.

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

That isn't a credible exit plan you describe; just a response.

Planning is something you do beforehand, based on risk mitigation strategy.

I'm failing to understand your point, or your argument. Are you blaming the EU for something and if so, what?

Alan_Brown

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

To vote to remain is to accept that the EU isn't perfect but that on balance the benefits of remaining in it at this moment are better for the UK than the costs of voting to leave.

The government of the UK has the power to leave the EU any time it likes. Or call another in/out referendum any time it likes.

If things in the EU remain the same then we continue to have the benefits we have today. If they get better then great we're already in the club. And if they get worse we can always have another referendum and vote to leave.

Staying is the logical choice.

Pace moves slowly in the EU and reforms seem to take a generation to take place. The structure of the EU parliament is that the MEPs can only vote yes or no to policies that come from the European Commission, which is an unelected body consisting of one person from each member state, chosen by the ruling party (ours is a Conservative Lord).

If we vote to remain in, then the EU will see this as an endorsement of the status quo and nothing will change.

Let's not be afraid of change.

mayonnaise

Alan_Brown wrote: »

European Commission, which is an unelected body consisting of one person from each member state, chosen by the ruling party (ours is a Conservative Lord).

The European Commission is indeed a commissioner per member state, dispatched by the democratically elected government of the day.
I never voted for e.g. Jeremy Hunt to be health secretary, did you? Equally, he is appointed by the democratically elected government of the day.

Alan_Brown

mayonnaise wrote: »

The European Commission is indeed a commissioner per member state, dispatched by the democratically elected government of the day.
I never voted for e.g. Jeremy Hunt to be health secretary, did you? Equally, he is appointed by the democratically elected government of the day.

Does Jeremy Hunt create the laws on which MPs vote? Is Jeremy the only avenue for new laws to be created or for existing laws to be amended?

Jeremy Hunt was at least elected to parliament, which is more than the representatives on the European Commission.

mayonnaise

Alan_Brown wrote: »

Jeremy Hunt was at least elected to parliament, which is more than the representatives on the European Commission.

What's your solution, we should only send elected MP's to be EU commissioner? Is that person supposed to juggle both jobs then?

angrypirate

mayonnaise wrote: »

What's your solution, we should only send elected MP's to be EU commissioner? Is that person supposed to juggle both jobs then?

How about they are elected at the same time as MEPs?

Generali

wymondham wrote: »

Are there any up and coming programs/radio shows etc that give the facts about both sides? It would be great to hear unbiased information....

I understand that the Government has made a small pamphlet which presumably contains unbiased material of the sort that you seek.

Alan_Brown

mayonnaise wrote: »

What's your solution, we should only send elected MP's to be EU commissioner? Is that person supposed to juggle both jobs then?

Well, only having elected MEPs on the EU commission would be a step forward. A further step forward would be for a similar setup that we have in the UK (and other European parliaments) where Private member Bills can be raised and voted on. Democracy is not served if all of the laws are created by an unelected body.

However, my solution is that we should leave the EU, which would be better for us and better for the EU. They'll then be able to make the sort of reforms that are necessary to make the Euro work (full fiscal and monetary union) without the UK acting as an Anchor. They'll be more financially secure and have an increasing GDP, which will be good for us too as we export to the EU.

This halfway in, halfway out approach is bad for everyone. It's dangerous for the EU because the Euro simply will not work correctly without closer union and it's dangerous for the UK because if the Euro fails, it will drag down the UK as well.

After listening to Remain campaigners wax lyrical about the benefits of the EU, I always ask the same question "Should the UK have full membership of the EU, including Schengen and adopting the EURO?" I've never had one of them say yes. They are voting for a status quo that puts the brake on the EU and puts all of us at risk.