BREXIT

ads,

you are putting the horse before the cart.  It is not a referendum on what reforms should be made it is " in or out " of the EU.

When the REMAIN vote is sealed in June then hopefully everyone will be pursuing their loal MP's and MEP's with credible, workable and well thought out reforms.

Just heard Mr. Gove's speech.  He is very articulate but lives in his own fantasy world.  Sounds like he is going to rewrite the EU Charter on Trade by establishing a western Free Trade Zone with the UK at its centre.  Somebody should tell him the empire is gone.

Not sure what anyones plans are for reforming the EU. Probably not wise to have plans because they are unlikly to be fulfilled. Our politicians were going to revise the CAP after we joined in the 70's but never dented it. But we do know what we get by staying in.

Some of what we get by staying in.

1. Lack of democracy and accountability.
2. Continued massive payments (pocket money back-not to be spent on sweets).
3. Lack of influence (diluted as one in 28). We are always outvoted in Council.
4. A second tier economy being dragged about by the Eurozone.
5. Low growth well behind the new world economies.
6. Mismatch of trading ambition, we are now for better or worse a service economy and unless we get a single market in services very soon we have to get out. The EU continues to promote spiteful legislation aimed at the City and we have no veto.
7. From the above an ever worsening balance of trade with the rest of the EU.
8. Continuing massive immigration.
9. Resulting in high property prices and the concreting over of much of the UK in the short term.
10. Arrest, and trial of our citizens by people who we would not consider legally trained.
11. Mr Cameron’s worthless negotiation result. He could have gone for something worthwhile and perhaps gone down in history as one of our better PMs. He blew it.
12. Continuance of the common external tariff slowing our growth of trade with the rest of the world.
13. Continuance of the CAP. The very first item that our governments were going to get revised in the 70’s.
14. No hope of revival of our fishing fleet.
15. Eventually, unemployment on the EU model because the EU cannot compete with the rest of the world.

The horse before the cart is surely not relevant here is it, especially when requirement to reform keeps re-appearing in the EU debate?

It is a perfectly credible question to ask about future strategy to reform in terms of credible logistics and numbers of existing pro reformists who must have already made their concerns and aspirations known during these last few years of the EU Parliament?

I find it incredulous that no strategy or discussion papers have been presented with regard to a reform agenda during these recent years i.e.even before the option for an EU referendum was mooted.

Surely voters are entitled to know what has been openly presented/discussed to date, who are the pro-reformists and are these Parliamentarians in a minority given the status quo?

Perrypower - that's a cheap shot about "the empire" but considerably below the belt - he didn't mention the word "empire" once!  So is the idea that if there's no good accurate criticism to make you manufacture it?. 

But I suppose that's just following Cameron & co with their equally lightweight scare campaign.

If you listen to Michael Gove's comments they make a lot of sense.  Not sure I'll necessarily vote that way, but I might if there's nothing better from the other side. 

@tteed - Wealthiest - US, China. Japan, Germany, UK/France. The difference between the UK and France is within the margin of error and last year the UK included economic activity from prostitution and the drugs trade as part of it's calculation of economic activity. Brazil and India not very far behind and will soon pass France/UK. The position would change again, were Scotland to vote for independence as would be the case with Spain ( about 13th)  if Catalonia goes its own way.

I was intruiged by Mr Gove's speech - we pull out, don't pay any more subscriptions, pick and choose what the rules we will adhere to and then demand the same benefits as if we stayed in. I just don't understand why some people think Johnny Foreigner won't just agree to that. What could possibly go wrong? 

Some of what we get by staying in.

1. Lack of democracy and accountability. Apart from the commissioners (appointed by our head of government) everyone else from the council to the MEP is elected. Funding is agreed by the commission which includes a UK commissioner)
2. Continued massive payments (pocket money back-not to be spent on sweets). Your "massive" payments have been repeatedly over exagerrated. Over 4 billion back (not including the rebate) is hardly pocket money. 
3. Lack of influence (diluted as one in 28). We are always outvoted in Council. Everyone has a one in 28 influence. Can't see your point
4. A second tier economy being dragged about by the Eurozone. You mean the pound? The one Cameron has made an agreement that it wil not be affected? 
5. Low growth well behind the new world economies. UK growth depends on what the UK does. Don't try and blame the EU. It goes up and down all the time.
6. Mismatch of trading ambition, we are now for better or worse a service economy and unless we get a single market in services very soon we have to get out. The EU continues to promote spiteful legislation aimed at the City and we have no veto. The service economy includes the financial one. We do rather well on that score and the earnings from financial services, insurances and so on outweigh our physical exports many, many time
7. From the above an ever worsening balance of trade with the rest of the EU. So do we stop buying BMWs and buy Toyotas instead? Would that cut the deficit? No, it would simply move it somewhere else.
8. Continuing massive immigration.And that's the real bit that concerns you. OK, I will agree it would stop EU immigration but how would it stop it from the rest of the world? If UK implemented the EU rules on freedom of movement, like other EU countries do. the problem would virtually disappear. Again, blaming the EU (who put regulations in place) on a UK failing (who ignore the rulings). Do you reckon all those in UK will up sticks overnight because they will no longer get benefits or free healthcare? All those at Calais will say "OK, Ahmed, UK has withdrawn so we might as well pack up and go home". Rot.
9. Resulting in high property prices and the concreting over of much of the UK in the short term. Now that is rubbish. UK already has one of the highest level of property prices. Leaving the EU would cause a collapse as the currency would fall, interest rates would have to rise and many people would find themselves in negative equity. 
10. Arrest, and trial of our citizens by people who we would not consider legally trained. Any examples of that? Are you suggesting the brown shirted mobs are going to come knocking on our door and drage our citizens out? Which Ukip pamphlet did you get that one from? 
11. Mr Cameron’s worthless negotiation result. He could have gone for something worthwhile and perhaps gone down in history as one of our better PMs. He blew it. No, he didn't. Read what he got and it is quite substantial.  
12. Continuance of the common external tariff slowing our growth of trade with the rest of the world.The EU has negotiated, on behalf of EU countries and the UK, trade agreements with 57 different countries and another 50 in the pipeline. On exit, UK would have renegotiate those agreements and several strong countries have already indicated they will not do so. 
13. Continuance of the CAP. The very first item that our governments were going to get revised in the 70’s. The CAP has been revised several times. In 83 it was over 80% of the EU budget and is now down to 35%. UK is no longer a net contributor to the CAP since 2011.
14. No hope of revival of our fishing fleet. Our fishing fleet is very strong, thank you. 
15. Eventually, unemployment on the EU model because the EU cannot compete with the rest of the world. I wouldn't mind unemployment on the lines of Germany, for example. We are in the EU at the moment and, despite these foreign hordes overrunning the place, our unemployment seems to be going down on a regular basis. Is all this going to change? 

So, that's your opinion and you come out with a lot of rubbish to which I have replied with probably the same amount of rubbish. You are making things up so I'm allowed to do so as well.

All you've done is complain about "Project Fear" from the IN crowd and come up with your own version of it. 

Well said bobaol - the point  complaining about the EU stopping the UK trading with the rest of the world doesn't stand up to any scrutiny  - Germany exports much, much more to India and China than the UK. I don't think there is any sensible justification for blaming the EU for the UK's failure to penetrate emerging economies,  any more than blaming the EU for the UK's housing crisis.

1. Lack of democracy and accountability. Apart from the commissioners (appointed by our head of government) everyone else from the council to the MEP is elected. Funding is agreed by the commission which includes a UK commissioner) - MEP's are the only ones elected and they do not get to make policy.
2.  
3. Continued massive payments (pocket money back-not to be spent on sweets). Your "massive" payments have been repeatedly over exagerrated. Over 4 billion back (not including the rebate) is hardly pocket money.  --- Where?
4.  
5. Lack of influence (diluted as one in 28). We are always outvoted in Council. Everyone has a one in 28 influence. Can't see your point. --- If we were one in one we would have absolute influence on policy designed in our own interests. If we are outvoted we have no influence.
6.  
7. A second tier economy being dragged about by the Eurozone. You mean the pound? The one Cameron has made an agreement that it wil not be affected? ----The Eurozone countries are making decisions in defence of the Euro, these are not in our interest. We are increasingly in the 2nd tier.
8.  
9. Low growth well behind the new world economies. UK growth depends on what the UK does. Don't try and blame the EU. It goes up and down all the time. --- You know perfectly well that it is EU growth we are talking about. But eventually we will be affected by it.
10.  
11. Mismatch of trading ambition, we are now for better or worse a service economy and unless we get a single market in services very soon we have to get out. The EU continues to promote spiteful legislation aimed at the City and we have no veto. The service economy includes the financial one. We do rather well on that score and the earnings from financial services, insurances and so on outweigh our physical exports many, many time. --- Just  my point, unless there is a single market in services we would be better out. We make money from the rest of the world and are barred from most EU countries. What is the point in being in a market where we can't trade?
12.  
13. From the above an ever worsening balance of trade with the rest of the EU. So do we stop buying BMWs and buy Toyotas instead? Would that cut the deficit? No, it would simply move it somewhere else. ---- Comment does not match the statement. Look up our continuing and increasing trade deficit with the EU. We pay a massive sum to belong to a club that screws us.
14.  
15. Continuing massive immigration.And that's the real bit that concerns you. OK, I will agree it would stop EU immigration but how would it stop it from the rest of the world? If UK implemented the EU rules on freedom of movement, like other EU countries do. the problem would virtually disappear. Again, blaming the EU (who put regulations in place) on a UK failing (who ignore the rulings). Do you reckon all those in UK will up sticks overnight because they will no longer get benefits or free healthcare? All those at Calais will say "OK, Ahmed, UK has withdrawn so we might as well pack up and go home". Rot. ---- Certainly it concerns me. Our wise governments of the past designated green zones in order to make our country a pleasant place to live. But  I would also like my grandchildren to be able to afford a house, get a reasonable wage and be free from terrorism. (Abuse show lack of argument).
16.  
17. Resulting in high property prices and the concreting over of much of the UK in the short term. Now that is rubbish. UK already has one of the highest level of property prices. Leaving the EU would cause a collapse as the currency would fall, interest rates would have to rise and many people would find themselves in negative equity.  -----  More abuse, You really have to justify your statements unless you want them judged  (but in this cased rightly) as you judge the original statement. Demand fuels price rises, always has. More people, more homes needed, price rises. The UK is well able to stand on it's own two feet.
18.  
19. Arrest, and trial of our citizens by people who we would not consider legally trained. Any examples of that? Are you suggesting the brown shirted mobs are going to come knocking on our door and drage our citizens out? Which Ukip pamphlet did you get that one from? Look it up for yourself, clues - European arrest warrant, brits, months, innocent. Our right to freedom from unjust arrest I beleive goes back to Magna Carta. Not seen a UKIP pamphlet since the last election.
20.  
21. Mr Cameron’s worthless negotiation result. He could have gone for something worthwhile and perhaps gone down in history as one of our better PMs. He blew it. No, he didn't. Read what he got and it is quite substantial.       He did not get what he said he was going to get and what he did get was laughable and will probably not see the light of day. Again it is easy to find out both what he wanted and what he got, but even what he wanted goes no way to solving our problems with the EU.
22.  
23. Continuance of the common external tariff slowing our growth of trade with the rest of the world.The EU has negotiated, on behalf of EU countries and the UK, trade agreements with 57 different countries and another 50 in the pipeline. On exit, UK would have renegotiate those agreements and several strong countries have already indicated they will not do so. ----- What has that to do with the Common External Tariff? But in any case the UK will be able to negociate quickly and in our own interest without taking into account the other 27 nations. The EU has in fact a very poor record at negociating and we are tied to those deals. BTW the numbers of jobs in the EU, especially Germany, dependant on selling in the UK gives us a very strong hand in any negociation.
24.  
25. Continuance of the CAP. The very first item that our governments were going to get revised in the 70’s. The CAP has been revised several times. In 83 it was over 80% of the EU budget and is now down to 35%. UK is no longer a net contributor to the CAP since 2011. That is because the majority of the small proportion we get back goes to agriculture, making us ineficient in food production like the rest of the EU.
26.  
27. No hope of revival of our fishing fleet. Our fishing fleet is very strong, thank you. --- I'm temped to be abusive like you. Again look up the facts. Our fishing fleet is a shadow of what it was before we joined the EU and our fishing grounds have been fished out by Spanish and other EU trawlers. I knew people that were put out of work.
28.  
29. Eventually, unemployment on the EU model because the EU cannot compete with the rest of the world. - I wouldn't mind unemployment on the lines of Germany, for example. We are in the EU at the moment and, despite these foreign hordes overrunning the place, our unemployment seems to be going down on a regular basis. Is all this going to change?  - How about Greece, Spain, Portugal? Employment in the UK has been rising for years.
30.  
31. So, that's your opinion and you come out with a lot of rubbish to which I have replied with probably the same amount of rubbish. You are making things up so I'm allowed to do so as well.--- I never make anything up. You have out r.......d me, No doubt about it.

All you've done is complain about "Project Fear" from the IN crowd and come up with your own version of it. ---???????

This message was last edited by tteedd on 19/04/2016.

See, tteedd, you come out with all these claims (and I have no idea what your agenda is by popping up on this site) and then don't bother doing any research whatsoever. 

For example, I stated the EU funds the UK and your ever so well researched answer was Where?  How about other links posted have already put on but you haven't, obviously, bothered to read them. Mariedav gave a link a while back and the link says:
 

The UK gets money back

The government then gets some of that money back, mainlythrough payments to farmers and for poorer areas of the country such as Wales and Cornwall.

In 2015, the UK's ‘public sector receipts’ amounted to £4.5 billion

Does that answer your pithy Where?

You also said only the MEPs are elected. Another distortion as only the Commissioners (one from each country in post for 5 years) aren't elected. The Council is the head of government for each country so they are elected. The Council of MInisters is made up of a minister of state (one from each country) who are also elected by the country. Bit like the cabinet in the House of Commons is not elected directly but members are elected MPs. If the discussion is about agriculture then our Min of Ag and Fish (if that's what he's still called) fills in. So again, no research on your part just accepting headlines and soundbites. The "unelected" commission (although appointed by the head of government in each state) only produce legislation as directed by the Council (our elected heads of governments or ministers acting on their behalf).

Now, I'm not going to answer each point (again) and said a while back that I wouldn't post on this thread. It's just annoying when things are said that are obviously untrue and no research has been done on it. You can say things over and over again and blame the EU for everything. It just doesn't make it true. And you haven't made anything up? 

And that's it. As this is Eye on Spain I shall only reply or comment on things affecting those of us living or visiting Spain which is fair. There are enough sites in UK dealing with this and rubbish being spouted on both sides (just for the record, Osborne's "forecast" was total loose stool water of the worse kind. Then again, Gove's little speech today was so Little Englander that it was cringeworthy. Pure guesswork on both sides presented as fact. 

One does not have to be clever to know that you should not stick your hand into boiling water, and that you will be seriously damaged if you do so. And that same instinctive knowledge should be with everyone when considering all the very obvious situations regarding what the EU stands for, and offers to its member states.

Ever since the domineering nations (those that colonised and screwed third world countries of their cheap labour and valuable products) began to realise that they could no longer carry on their shameful business. Now, certain of those colonies have become extremely powerful and rich. In doing so, they more than challenge their former masters - they are, in fact, the new dominators, especially because some are massive. This, of course, is boring and well known, but it is precisely the reason the EU was created!! 

I have a feeling that the ´outers´ think that some sort of dictator suddenly appeared and said, I´m going to create a thing called the Common Market and trick as many European countries into joining it so that, eventually, I can dominate them for my own purposes. But, of course, that is not what happened. Many thinkers realised (a long time ago) that survival depended on people - if you had more than your enemy, then you had a much better chance of winning a battle. And that applies today also - the more productive, organised, relatively intelligent, healthy and loyal people in a nation means a better chance of survival against a nation with less of those same sort of people.

Unfortunately, when nations join together, especially because of their proximity to each other, not all of those nations comprise all the required virtues - those that lack need to be helped by their superior partners. And one of the most important ways of helping the inferior partners is by raising their standards by giving them monetary support (this happened when Spain, after many years of being ´held-back´ by the regime that ended in the mid seventies, started blossoming with the help of EU money).

Germany, Britain, France and the Netherlands (others to lesser extent) are countries that ´help´ the poorer nations of the EU with high monetary payments to the less fortunate nations - it is a great shame, of course, that there are certain bad eggs in the basket and, one day (hopefully), they will be purified or thrown out. The richer nations do not put-in money to get money out, all nations put-in to strengthen all in the club and make it more able to compete with other dominant economic competitors!!

The UK, if it goes-it-alone, will find itself unable to compete with even some of the poorest of nations. And what nations will care about Great Britain´s plight? The reasoning given by many of the ´outers´ as to how the UK will survive is by being influenced by far too assumed esoteric reasoning - it fools the ´outers´ far too easily and readily, and that is so dangerous for the UK, a nation that does not deserve its future to be determined by a flawed system called ´referendum´ - people were put into government to represent those that put them in, and it is those people, called MPs, who should be making decisions for the good of the nation!

I apologise for saying what everyone, almost certainly, knows and,if you have got this far, I also apologise for not having a final punch-line - but that´s how the cookie crumbles!

Glad the abuse has been reduced.

I'm interested in the good of my country. If you read my past posts you will find the I was for the EU and voted in in 75. But you cannot continuously defend the undefendable and I finally came to my senses in 1992 when the EU refused to support the pound in the ERM having supported the Franc the previous year.

As I suspect you know I have been around for the previous posts. There has been a habit on this thread of erronously dishing peoples quotes on EU receipts and expenditure by deliberately or otherwise misreading the original satement. For this reason I have not been using figures.

You said: 'Your Massive payments have been overstated.'

I said:  'Where?'

So I suspect your following statment to be flam.

All my comments were well reasearched and accurate and I do not use abuse. I stand by them.

The title of the thread is Brixit. Not 'how would Brexit affect Spain'. But for the record I own property in Spain, try to speak Spanish and spend quite a bit of time there.

I agree with your sentiments on Mr Osbourne's thesis even if I would not use your colourful terms. I have yet to hear Mr Goves speech. What concerns me is that the government agreed to allow ballanced argument and expenditure on the referendum and is now repeatedly undermining that agreement using taxpayers money.

Labour remains low key. I can only assume that what ever happens they will want to be able to claim it was all the Tories fault.

Posted by tteedd 3 Mar 2016

 Added to all this we would be free of our £51M per day contributions and have regained our democracy.

No, I'm not going through all 5 odd pages on this thread but you did mention on a post a couple of days later that you had shown how much we pay the EU and the 51 million quid a day kept cropping up. 

Bye

It was actually 25 pages ago.

It had been used on question time as our contribution and questioned there, so I checked it out.

Orthers used very similar figures and were heavily criticised by you and others and I stopped using it.

But the fact is that it is correct and the objectors including yourself mis-represented it as being reported as the amount saved or net expenditure.

After this I used the term large amount or similar. In fact somewhat tongue in cheek I used the whole range of differing amounts that had been reported, in one post.

Goodnight

The European Union has lost its attractiveness because it meddles too much in people’s lives, the most senior bureaucrat in Brussels admitted today. 

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said the EU had passed too many laws that should have been left for national governments to decide.

In a stark assessment, the former prime minister of Luxembourg conceded the bloc is ‘losing economic clout’, but he said this meant countries needed to work together more rather than less.

At the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Mr Juncker was questioned by British MPs on the EU’s future.

Asked by Tory MP Nigel Evans whether the EU recognised there was a problem as Euroscepticism grows throughout the continent, Mr Juncker replied: ‘We are not blind.’

He said: ‘We are listening to those who are expressing their views. You are right in saying the European project has lost parts of its attractiveness.

‘What does the European Commission do? The Commission is doing less.

‘I think that one of the reasons that European citizens are stepping away from the European project is that we are interfering in too many domains of their private lives. And too many domains where the member states are better placed to take action and pass legislation.’

Maybe now a little scared because the UK might leave, and "IF" the UK did leave would others follow?

 

" And too many domains where the member states are better placed to take action and pass legislation. "

This seems somewhat ironic, since all too many citizens have been asking the EU Commission during this past decade to do more in terms of protecting European citizens rights with regard to property purchase across member states and adherence to the rule of law, such that member states are adequately monitored and regulated to ensure they comply with the rule of law!

By this I include the following protections as defined within the world justice project ....

1. The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
4. Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Let's hope they don't abandon this essential protection for all EU citizens wherever member states fail to adequately adhere to the principles as defined above.

I think there is some truth in what Junker is saying. I believe the EU will change for the better in the future. I have never believed it was a perfect organisation. Please tell me what large and complex political or commercial grouping is?

However it's far better to belong to it and work inside for reform that outside unable to influence anything. 

Some former US senior politicians, including Larry Summers a respect economic professor at Havard have this morning signed a letter stating that Britain will lose it's status in the world if it leaves and suffer economic decline. 

There is now so much support for the 'stay' position it seems to me the writings on the wall for Brexit. You simply cannot ignore solid political knowledge and expereince against ideas suggested by utopian dreamers such as Gove and Bo Jo.

I think there is some truth in what Junker is saying. I believe the EU will change for the better in the future. I have never believed it was a perfect organisation. Please tell me what large and complex political or commercial grouping is?

Micky: How come what Junker is saying has truth and yet the people who have been saying this all along, ie, Gove and Bo Jo, who are apparently utopian dreamers ????

However it's far better to belong to it and work inside for reform that outside unable to influence anything. 

Micky: If we vote out there is no need to influence anything, the EU can go on their merry way, we have had more than 40 years trying to influence without success.

Some former US senior politicians, including Larry Summers a respect economic professor at Havard have this morning signed a letter stating that Britain will lose it's status in the world if it leaves and suffer economic decline. 

Micky: Please don't quote 'US senior politicians' as they are only looking after their own interests and also it may not be too long before Donald Trump is a 'US senior politician'....!!!!!

There is now so much support for the 'stay' position it seems to me the writings on the wall for Brexit. You simply cannot ignore solid political knowledge and expereince against ideas suggested by utopian dreamers such as Gove and Bo Jo.

Micky: It is down to the people of the UK to decide if we are to stay or go, either way I am happy to abide by the decision and not infer that the 'other side are inferior'

Do you really imagine Britain can leave the EU and sail off into the sunset unaffected by what happens in the worlds largest single trading block 22 miles from it's shores?

The point about Junkers speech is he was signalling change.To change anything, firstly you need to recognise the need. 

The US is the most successful country on the planet. Their global influence is very important especially to the UK. Are you saying these former senior politicians don't know what they are talking about? They are retired from politics and have no vested interest in the outcome. They offer their knowledge and experience. Should voters simply cast that aside?

I did not suggest one side or the other was inferior. I suggested Messers Gove, Johnson aan Farage are dreamers. Dreamers in the sense they wish Britain to return to a former state that never really existed. Britain struggled post war and come to that prewar. Britain has tried going it alone, history tells us the outcome only too clearly. I hope the voters can see that.

I did not suggest one side was inferior

It would be a change, you usually say 'misguided'. And usually after telling us what their position is, whether it bears any relationship to reality or not.

Most Brexiters are comparing the future in the EU with the future outside the EU. You keep telling us they wish to reconstruct either the distant past or the Empire.

What happened when we went in might be instructive, but the periods after the W Wars are irrelevant.

Here is an excellent article on the UK _US Special Relationship. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36084672

Here are the opening lines;

Even before World War Two had ended, Washington was musing on how a victorious but exhausted Britain would adjust to a world where it had less power and influence.

The US Secretary of State Edward Stettinius wrote to President Roosevelt and said: "Never underestimate the difficulty an Englishman faces in adjusting to a secondary role after so long seeing leadership as a national right."

The Americans were uncertain of how Winston Churchill saw the post-War world and Britain's place in it.

In 1944, just before the Normandy landings, he had turned to General de Gaulle of France and told him: "Every time Britain has to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we will chose."