The EU: IN or OUT?

BananaRepublic

An issue not addressed except in passing is the future of the EU. I read an interesting article recently by an ex-diplomat and head of a think tank organisation.

The EU could integrate further, but there is a huge imbalance between the south and the north and the east and the west. Many eastern countries are refusing to obey the EU, unlike us. So whether it can integrate more is questionable. And many countries are ignoring freedom of movement due to the refugee and migant crisis. Many are economic migrants attracted by a cushy EU lifestyle, fueling resentment within the EU. There is a resurgence of right wing groups, many extreme. UKIP is mild compared to many.

It could split into a core of France, Germany and like minded states with fiscal probity, and the south, and east.

Or it could decay or break up.

I have no idea which is the most likely, but having met Eastern Europeans, they are culturally very different from Germans and Brits, and I don't see them being pushed around. They joined because of the huge bribes, and the assumed protection from the Russuian Federation which is trying to regain Russia's past glory. So I think large changes will take place. And yet the problem is that for real change from within there must be agreement of all parties, and that is hard to get. It was easy to agree to take in Poland, because the EU countries liked the idea of another member, and Poland leapt at the bribes and protection. But reforming the EU? So I suspect it will bumble on reactively, becoming a monstrosity of indecision and good intentions. Big business love it. They have the money to lobby, and shape laws to their benefit. Hence freedom of movement. Hence TTIP. Hence nonsense such as plant and seed regulations that threatened to put small plant companies out of business. Big business probably likes that it is undemocratic and run on the principle of buggins turn.

buglawton

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I live in London. I am fortunate to get paid a lot, but pay a lot of tax. Much of it goes to people in "the regions"of the UK. Some goes to Europe of which some goes to European projects in "the regions" of Europe and some comes back here going to projects either in our capital or, mostly, in our regions. Loads of our regions get money redistributed out of Europe and out of London, whether they notice it or not.

So, should London cut off the deprived bits of the UK just because they're poor, or don't have great employment prospects, and because they would make my city more congested if they came here for work? A forcible exit of bits of Scotland or Wales from the UK because we would have more for ourselves if we didn't fund their welfare? People would be up in arms.

But somehow it's fine for someone in those poorer areas to say they want to keep taking London's money... because they had the good fortune to be born in the UK, so a slice of the pie is theirs by right, and the Londoners only have wealth because of being lucky to be the focal point of a big economy... but they don't want in turn to pass any money over to Spain or Poland or let the Poles or Spaniards come and visit to try and find a job.

The Spanish and the Poles would probably think that UK is fortunate to be one of the key focal points of a wealthy European economy and they would quite like to go there and have a crack at getting a job. Just like someone in Blackpool might like to go to London or Manchester and have a crack at getting a job.

Similarly most of Europe doesn't think it's unfair that UK and Germany and France and Italy are net contributors, because they're wealthy. Just like someone in Blackpool doesn't think it's unfair that wealthy Londoners and Mancunians are net contributors, because they have more income and assets than people in Blackpool or Burnley or whatever.

Seems that pulling up the drawbridge is a bit of double standards IMHO.

Before imagining that Londoners are subsidising the regions, consider:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england
And that's per capita

bowlhead99

buglawton wrote: »

Before imagining that Londoners are subsidising the regions, consider:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england
And that's per capita

OK, consider it considered. The table at the bottom of that article from summer 2014 shows £4952 per head spent on London residents and commuters compared to £221 in North East - so thanks to Crossrail etc, the London commuters are getting £4700+ extra spend compared to those who are currently getting the least infrastructure money. Crossrail, increasing London's rail capacity by 10% - the largest such increase since WW2 - is expensive.

But then if you look at the amount of income tax being paid per capita, London and the expensive 'stockbroker belt' areas occupied 26 of the top 30 spots on UHY's average income tax bill by constituency analysis.

So if Londoners pay £9k a year and those in Godalming or Sevenoaks or Amersham pay £12-£14k, while Blackpool taxpayers only pay £2.5k... (mentioned in their previous survey) , then it seems that those wanting some Crossrail action are probably funding most or all of that £4.7k extra infrastructure spending themselves, while still picking up the tab for the benefits bill in Kingston Upon Hull.

BucksLady

discat11 wrote: »

another conspiracy theory, it's a new one to me though.

My personal favourite is for people to take their crayons to the polling station as pencil can be rubbed out and the vote changed.

:rotfl:

There is a very interesting discussion on LBC at this very moment and it appears that 'many' people feel that this referendum is rigged. One lady believed that the Freemasons' will be involved on this occasion

Chickabiddybex

Regarding immigration, it's a bit up in the air what would happen. It's however VERY likely that we'd have a similar agreement to other non-EU member European countries. And if left up to our MPS to decide (and of course it's up to them) there's already cross party talks making sure that it is. I'm talking about the same type of agreement that Norway and Switzerland have. Joining the Schengen area.

In order to continue to trade with the EU it is very likely that we will join the Schengen area thus opening our borders even wider than they are now...

I honestly don't understand why people think voting leave will reduce immigration. There is simply no evidence to suggest it. All signs point to Schengen! And that means open borders. Not something people who are anti-immigration want.

BananaRepublic

BucksLady wrote: »

There is a very interesting discussion on LBC at this very moment and it appears that 'many' people feel that this referendum is rigged. One lady believed that the Freemasons' will be involved on this occasion

It is hard to believe how credulous some people are when it comes to conspiracy theories. On one forum for trades, an awful lot doubt the authenticity of the moon landings, preferring to give equal weight to those who say it was staged. Such people have little understanding of the scientific method, or critical thinking, hence go on gut feeling. That is perhaps why Donald Trump thrives. And Nigel Farage dare I say, who is not an asset to the Brexit camp.

ManofLeisure_2

BucksLady wrote: »

There is a very interesting discussion on LBC at this very moment and it appears that 'many' people feel that this referendum is rigged. One lady believed that the Freemasons' will be involved on this occasion

Crazy isn't it. What is of concern is that many of those who do feel the referendum is rigged, will not be voting.

aspiration_2

Chickabiddybex wrote: »

.......
.......
I honestly don't understand why people think voting leave will reduce immigration. There is simply no evidence to suggest it. All signs point to Schengen! And that means open borders. Not something people who are anti-immigration want.

I believe BREXITERs are not anti-immigration. This must be made clear. They want quality controlled immigration. What has happened is walk-in-EU migration from failed economies. Our civil servants (world's highest paid) should be able to negotiate deals without us having to join Schengen.

Scarpacci

aspiration wrote: »

I believe BREXITERs are not anti-immigration. This must be made clear. They want quality controlled immigration. What has happened is walk-in-EU migration from failed economies. Our civil servants (world's highest paid) should be able to negotiate deals without us having to join Schengen.

Unfortunately, remain or leave, I think having to rely on our civil servants is where the plans fall apart. I think the civil servants are the most Europhilic lot, perhaps more so than some of our continental peers, and they're pathologically incapable of acting in Britain's best interests.

I think they bought into this grand European project long before any else, and they've been quietly maneuvering us that way ever since. It's the only explanation for why even in areas where we have a veto, such as our rebate, we still manage to get shafted. We send the wettest of the wet to Europe. Spineless amphibians would be a complement to these people, who don't see their job as standing up for Britain, but instead focus on being "good Europeans" and trying to impress their continental colleagues.

Chickabiddybex

I believe BREXITERs are not anti-immigration. This must be made clear. They want quality controlled immigration.

Either way, leaving the EU doesn't guarantee that and an awful lot of people seem to think it does. In fact, the odds are stacked in a way that leaving the EU would actually open up our borders further.

I don't know why the general public is asked to vote on something without first properly educating them on the decision