BREXIT - Why?

colsten

littld wrote: »

I don't need to be an ex-head of MI6 to know that we don't have any friends in Europe.

That is so much nonsense and smacks of xenophobia.

littld wrote: »

History is enough.

History is an important factor and should teach us that encouraging interaction at universities, businesses and for leisure helps people to understand each other much better than isolationist behaviour.

zolablue25

littld wrote: »

I don't need to be an ex-head of MI6 to know that we don't have any friends in Europe. History is enough.

...and I'm sure the current debate on In/Out is certainly making us many more friends :cool:

colsten

OldBeanz wrote: »

In the 1970's you could guarantee a good meal in any French town or even supermarket. Drink enough wine and you were quids in. France is now the biggest overseas franchise for McDonald's and there are far better eating establishments in the UK.

I don't know where you are eating, but I can still get the same french grub in the same french restaurants I could 40 years ago. Of course there are more McDonald's and other fast food chains in France now, just as there are more of them in the UK now.

I agree with you that you can get much better food in Britain now than you could get 20, 30, 40 years ago. It's called progress, and was in part brought about by people being able to move and set up shop freely throughout the EU.

You seem to expect that progress in the EU is a given but that other countries in the EU should stand still.

littld

colsten wrote: »

That is so much nonsense and smacks of xenophobia.

History is an important factor and should teach us that encouraging interaction at universities, businesses and for leisure helps people to understand each other much better than isolationist behaviour.

We don't have a history of European nations defending the UK. This is not xenophobia it is factual history.

I am in no way isolationist. I believe in global co-operation which is the only way I can see things working. What is the point making rules and tackling climate change in Europe but ignoring China and Africa? If anything, the EU is isolationist as it is only concerned with member countries.

We interact with universities all over the world and we always have. What has a protectionist agricultural bloc got to do with academic progress?

BananaRepublic

littld wrote: »

I don't know of a single incident where UK was threatened and an EU country stepped up as an ally. I don't need to be an ex-head of MI6 to know that we don't have any friends in Europe. History is enough.

We declared war on Germany to defend Europe from the Nazis, and nearly bankrupted ourselves. We then stationed troops in Germany, at huge expense to us, to maintain the peace. When the Falklands were invaded, France supplied Exocet missiles to the Argentinians. Friends? Each country acts according to self interest.

At present we pay massive amounts in to the EU, largely to support Poland, the Baltic States, Greece and others. Why? As far as I can see this is due to some grand Socialist scheme, or aggrandisment on the part of the Eurocrats.

I doubt we will leave but if we do, it will be interesting to see the terms we get. It will depend on good negotiations.

atush

colsten wrote: »

I don't know where you are eating, but I can still get the same french grub in the same french restaurants I could 40 years ago. Of course there are more McDonald's and other fast food chains in France now, just as there are more of them in the UK now.

I agree with you that you can get much better food in Britain now than you could get 20, 30, 40 years ago. It's called progress, and was in part brought about by people being able to move and set up shop freely throughout the EU.

You seem to expect that progress in the EU is a given but that other countries in the EU should stand still.

i have owned a house in france for over 20 years now. The food in many french restaurants isnt what it was, but if you search well you can find fantastic food at reasonable prices still. You just maybe have to look a little harder, but still abounds.

The difference is, 20 years ago the food in the UK outside of london has increased in quality exponentially. Not as cheap as france though.

And the McDonalds nearest to my house in france is ALWAYS heaving with french people. Making it hard for me to get my coke and use the free wifi lol. Sometimes the line is so long i have to use the drive thru.

BookerTee

It seems to me that all of the debate on the EU is focused on the 'unknown consequences' of leaving. Well if they are all so unknown why should we believe they are bad? The negative effect of EU interference has been highlighted many times overriding our own government (prison votes, deporting terrorists, sticking us with billions in extra payments).

I cant say I have ever heard a single benefit of being part of the EU.

jimjames

BookerTee wrote: »

I cant say I have ever heard a single benefit of being part of the EU.

Seriously? Have you actually looked or checked? Part of the problem is that so many things are taken for granted but were EU originated.

Paid annual leave
No roaming charges across EU
Equal pay
Time off work
Maternity pay up to 12 months
Parental leave
Healthcare across EU
Right to live (and work) across EU - taken up by many Brits in France and Spain
EU wide standards for products
2 year warranty on goods


You may not think they're important but things like workers rights are likely to be first in the firing line if we leave.

Dird

The Spectator Debate: Should Britain leave the EU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTJGBBjkGo

Currently listening to opening speeches at work o:

colsten

Ballard wrote: »

A lot has been said about the cost of membership. It's not cheap. As I understand it, farmers get the bulk of the returning money so if we leave I'd expect either farmers to get subsidies direct from our tax or some would go under. Brexiters will insist that the money that we stop sending to Brussels will be ploughed into the savagely underfunded NHS. Yeah, of course it will.

There is an assumption that all the money that presently goes into the EU could be saved and used otherwise, e.g. for the NHS or for early State Pensions for disgruntled women.

This assertion by the Out campaign is grossly misleading, and it's a disgrace that the leading lights of the Out campaign keep telling people £350m a week could be saved, without putting this number into any context whatsoever. They are ruthlessly exploiting those who think "wow, threehundredandfifty million", and who have no idea how this number relates to anything else.

Firstly, there will be costs to whatever other trade agreement we would have with the EU, as is manifested by the Swiss or Norwegian payments to the EU, which are not dissimilar to ours per head of the population.

Secondly, if we stopped paying, there would be a negative effect on our trading with the EU. By EU Treaty, EU countries must not give tariff-free access to non-EU members. A Treaty that can only be changed by unilateral agreement of all members and it's safe to assume that there would be at least one country, but probably more like 27, who would not agree to make an exception for Britain.

Thirdly, the EU budget is actually a tiny part of our expenditure, and it would essentially be a drop in the NHS or Pensions or Benefits or any other ocean. I won't apologise for posting this pie chart again, as it can't be shown often enough.