Cameron promises in/out referendum on EU

 I'm with you, Woodbug.  

 The one good thing to come out of Britan joining the EU is. The cost of all the new inferstructure projects in spain in the early 2000s, were matched almost to to pound by Britans EU contributions. Thus my tax pounds have funded better roads for me to drive on when I'm on holiday, and the spanish can use them for free!!!! On me.

all this trash mostly from brits proves that the quicker Uk is out the better for everyone

It does not matter whether the U.K. is in or out of the E.U.

It will not make much difference to to the vast majority of people.

The real problem is most countries have increasingly been run for the benefit of the mega rich the beuracrats and the military.

The rich are getting richer and bolder, even they were suprised at how easy it was to  to make the poorest people pay for their 

mistakes. The banks were bailed out but people lost their homes and bankers are still earning millions!

WAKE UP.

Stop all this racist rubbish, its not the foreigners that are the problem but your own privelidged classes who have no qualms

about working across borders to keep you in your place. 

This is the part I find the most concerning, especially when you consider that as this was happening, Jo Public ( in complete ignorance of the background facts hidden by the complex nature of this beast) were being encouraged to take loans in full knowledge that this deck of cards was due to fall…. Governments should have been clamping down on debt to protect their citizens from the inevitable fallout.

The Banks should never have been allowed to offer these crazy loans given the extenuating circumstances, especially given the fact that the public in the main were in ignorant bliss of this complex fraud.

It’s an unforgiveable dereliction of Governments’ duty in my eyes and makes it all the more relevant that Jo Public wake up to the fact that an Independent regulatory body is required to ensure that this form of fraudulent activity is never allowed to happen again.

Neither should we remain in ignorant bliss of the conflict of interests that can arise when the Banks’ influence over those in power can compromise the very nature of our democracy.

 Given all of these concerns shouldn’t effective Banking regulation and a willingness to significantly improve transparency and accountability re expenditure and proper use of EU monies become an essential part of EU reform? So long as there remains an unwillingness to address these vital issues then isn’t it more likely that distrust in the EU and the whole Banking industry will grow? 

This message was last edited by ads on 27/01/2013.

This message was last edited by ads on 27/01/2013.

Problem is ads, that the banks are run by those in power. When the going is good they take the cream and when it’s not, the poor unknowing public pay the bill.  Who paid Barclays 290 million pound fine when they were recently found to be fiddling the LIBOR rates? Probably came out of the publics 'investment' fund that was advanced to the banks by the government without the publics consent.

Gone are the days when a good old fashioned branch bank manager sat down with you and decided if he could allow you to have a loan, based on your track record and ability to repay it, not some kid with a silly title who ‘scores’ the applicant.

It’s high time we reconsidered our positions, as it just goes from bad to worse.

Woodbug

How about this as an alternative:

YOUR 40 PERCENT OR THE BANKS
07 December 2012 @ 22:07

There is only one solution to the banking crisis; it is simple and has
been successfully used over many years. If there is reluctance to
change it can be summed up by the analogy; turkeys don’t vote for
Christmas. The private banking consortiums manipulate governments and,
as in the case of Italy, Greece and elsewhere they replace them.
Goldman Sachs is to all intents and purposes running Europe; today they
call the shots.

They and other private banking conglomerates are not however running
the banking systems of 40 percent of the world’s economies. It is not a
coincidence that these publicly owned independent economies are
concentrated on countries that escaped the 2008 banking crisis. Mostly
but not exclusively they make up the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia,
India and China.

These nations have flourished; their economies surged 92 percent whilst
the private owned banking systems in the West floundered. Call it
unfair competition if you wish. The BRIC countries have a competitive
edge that Western systems, handicapped by private banks, cannot hope to
overcome. Imagine the futility of running a business against
competitors unburdened by 40 percent overheads.

Provided politicians are agreeable, which many are not because they are
in the pockets of privately owned banks, there is no reason why cities
and local authorities could not set up their own publicly owned banking
service. There is hardly a better example of responsible community
banking than the state run independent Bank of North Dakota (BND).

This model could easily be used elsewhere.

The Bank of North Dakota is the only bank to have escaped the U.S.
banking crisis. The government of North Dakota, which owns it, shows an
impressive budget surplus each year. It has the lowest unemployment
level in the United States. There is no state government debt; it
enjoys excellent credit rating with exceptional dividends each year.
These dividends are ploughed back into public services. The BND not
only saves money; it makes money, which supports the community.

There is growing pressure to bring banks into public ownership. Iceland
did so; they issued warrants for the arrest of their banks’ hapless
banking heads. These fled before they could be questioned. The
Icelandic economy is now prospering. The West is following Iceland’s
example and is entering a period of revolution. It is not against
governments, unless they act as the banks protectors: It is a revolt
that will decide whether the banks are private or publicly owned. If
the latter then the crisis is resolved and prosperity returned;
prospects are good. We have a level playing field in international
trade.

Public pressure is mounting; most prominent are the Move Your Money and
Occupy Wall Street movements. According to the former, an estimated 10
million U.S. customers have turned their backs on conventional banking
during the last 24-months. During the same period Credit Unions have
shown unprecedented growth with assets now exceeding $1 trillion
dollars.

By borrowing from their own publicly-owned banks, governments could
eliminate their interest burden altogether. As 2010 closed California’s
debt was $158 billion. Of this amount 44 percent was interest payable
to private banks. Had the banks been publicly owned that $70 billion in
lost interest would have been ploughed back into the economy.

This has been demonstrated elsewhere with unquestioned success; the
countries include Canada, Australia and Argentina. In 2011 the U.S. the
federal government paid out $454 billion dollars interest on the
federal debt; a privately owned banking entity. That was not an
insignificant amount; it is nearly one-third of America’s personal
income tax. This was lost to the taxpayers by being transferred to
privately owned banks. This interest was publicly money; had the banks
been publicly owned then of course this staggering amount could have
been use to pay for services, reduces taxes; both.

It is estimated that bringing a nation’s banks into public ownership
would eliminate the national debt. Many countries have done so; others
did so at a cost: bankers’ inspired war being declared on them.

Public banking may appear to be a radical solution, but it is also an
obvious one. By developing a public banking system, governments can
keep the interest and reinvest it locally. According to Professor
Margrit Kennedy and economist Helmut Creutz, that means public savings
of 35 percent to 40 percent. Costs can be reduced across the board;
taxes can be cut or services increased; market stability can be created
for governments, borrowers and consumers. Banking and credit can become
public utilities, feeding the economy rather than feeding off it.
Source: Truthout. Ellen Brown.

 

 Ads,

I agree publicly owned owned banks would certainly be preferable to what we have now and as long as they were marginal they would be tolerated. If however they were a success and made a serious dent in the banks profits, I fear some "crisis" or beuracratic impediment would befall them.

I am very cynical and I dont think bankers will cheerfully step aside if their fortunes were threatened.

Psychopaths dont normally give in to puplic opinion and they are rich enough to buy a lot of politicians. 

If people were fully aware of these facts and were to recognise the dangers to our way of life by doing nothing, then don't you consider they would be more willing to make their mark via the ballot box (to those prepared to prioritorise an independent banking regulatory body and introduction of publicly owned banks), and vote with their feet by transfering their monies to publicly owned banks? Isn't this all linked to an educative process?

The bottom line is that Jo public needs honest trustworthy role models in power, who are prepared to stand up to those purely intent on self interest at the expense of a nation's well being.

If only it were possible for rational logical argument to hold sway we wouldnt be in this mess.

It would be great if a groundswell of action resulted in some alternative fair banking system that

invigorates the economy.

We need to step back and decide how to go forward in a way that is fair and results in a better quality of life for

everyone.

If we carry on this way I fear a backlash when people feel they have nothing to lose and the results will be ugly. 

I would like to see a panel of experts that could put forward the positives and negatives of staying in and coming out and how by staying in it would affect :

1.     Individuals (from a self interest point of view), so outlining the affect on their jobs, long term prospects, standard of living, laws etc.. in terms the ordinary person can relate to.    Not just how it will affect big business.    After all, the examples we get of how positive it is for us for big business to expand and gain more profit, is that they employ more people for less money generally and by expanding, dodge their tax and therefore do not put back into the countries they are trading in.

2.    Businesses (again from their point of view) with again their prospects (which I doubt they would be able to forecast into the future with the volatility of global economic market factors taken in.

3.    The government and its representatives, an indept look at how it will affect government, its MP's, our sovereignty etc.

All we hear from government is "it is good for the UK" but all we see is self interest and a future prospect for them on the next gravy train. 

We need to know how it affects Joe Bloggs in the street who lives and works all his life perhaps in one town, his job, his family, the costs involved in staying in going forward and how it is likely to affect his life, the controls put on it whilst living in a EU Superstate.    People need to know how all these costs also impact on theirs and their families' futures.

Then, the effects of coming out, but again without the "self interest" spin put on by government officials who do not look at real people's lives but more what will happen to their careers into the future !!!!!!.   

In other words, true honest look at the positives and negatives as a whole, not selective posturing to gain them popularity and votes.    Too much to ask ????

 FYI :  These were the results from the Poll carried out on EOS last week and over the weekend, on whether the UK should leave the EU or not.  591 EOS members participated from 19 different countires.

Should Britain leave the EU? 

NO           50,64%

YES           41,43%

NOT SURE   7,93%

link to blog post and poll :

www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/MACpoll/8993/poll-should-britain-leave-the-eu.aspx

ARE YOU SURPRISED BY THE RESULTS?

As this is predominantly a Spanish forum, I would guess the majority of the votes came from Spain and suggest expats would rather the UK stayed in.    If you had carried out a Poll in the UK, you might just get a different answer.

 FYI

52% were registered votes from the UK 

37% were registered votes from SPAIN 

6% were registered votes from other countries.

Thanks for clarifying that.   So only 52% voted from the UK, but of those how many voted to stay in ?

No not really.......... 18 of the countries don't control the options. It''s what the UK  voters thinks that matters.

Woodbug

 I was just checking out that data right now! :)

Of all the UK voters, registered in the UK

53,65% voted that Britain should leave the EU. 

How can a poll be taken when the details of what people would be committing to is unknown? Is this just therefore a snapshot of gut feel as opposed to educated opinions? I didn't vote as I was too busy trying to find out some details (failing miserably I might add! )

Good point ads - still waiting for the stayins to tell me the benefits though.

53.65% of UK voters want to leave the EU eh ?     Plus that is only a vote on here, makes me wonder how many want out in the UK as a whole then     I would hazard a guess and say many more - perhaps as ads said though, going with a "gut" feeling that the UK couldn't be any worse if we were out but could maybe be better without the strangling laws and costs associated with staying in.