|
Post by macwolfelee on Apr 15, 2016 18:04:51 GMT
I am concerned about the fate of Europe and therefore the world. This would be endangered if we leave. Both economically and politically.
Can't say clearer than that, can I?
I would be interested to know why you feel that Europe would be endangered? Economically, they would lose the second largest net contributor but they would survive. Some of the other countries would have to take up the slack or, God forbid, the EU might have to cut its coat according to the cloth available. Politically, why do you believe that we are significant? Cameron has proved that, even with the threat of a Brexit, the EU isn't prepared to make any significant changes to its present format. That clearly illustrates that they don't think we are that important politically or they would be more worried about our exit. So many of the Remain group admit that the EU needs significant reform but, if they won't reform when we might leave, they certainly aren't going to reform if we chicken out and stay in. What they might be worried about is our exit rocking the stability of the EU boat and starting a snowball effect among other European citizens that causes them (the citizens) to question their continued membership. Not all EU citizens, despite what their political leaders say, are super supportive of the EU bureaucracy. What we do have on our side is the size of our economy (which is why the Norway and Switzerland comparisons are fatuous) and the size of our trade deficit with Europe. They aren't going to refuse to service such a large customer. Roger Economically precisely because they would lose one of the largest contributors but also because trade with the UK would inevitably lessen as we replace it with trade with other non-EU countries.
Politically: The EU was reluctant to accede to Cameron's requests, but these are not the changes I would like to see. The changes I would like to see are in fact on the agenda of several EU countries, i.e. greater integration and more central control to the point of a United States of Europe. The crumbs which Cameron is touting aren't even worth bothering about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 18:28:02 GMT
You make your position clear,I just can't see why you are so fearful? and like all these IN people you haven't convinced me.There is only one fear the INS could have and thats fear of the unknown. Cowardice they called it in The Great War Who says I am fearful? Don't make things up and put words into peoples mouths.
The results of both an In or Out vote are equally uncertain (but not entirely unknown).
Using the word cowardice borders on the offensive.
Of course your fearful.a few posts back you were shouting about Europe collapsing and forecasting possible war, don't you remember? so don't accuse me of making things up. Dont understand what you mean by your second sentence but feel free to expand further. I didn't direct the word cowardice at you personally so your faux outrage is unwarranted. Can you explain to me the point indeed the benefit of a united states of europe. What do I have to gain from that? You are a believer in greater integration but I suggest you cannot tell me any benefits of that integration and for every misguided belief you have I could put a valid alternative.But please convert me.I want you to understand that I am not anti Europe,I just can't understand why I am better off being fully integrated with the Romanian down the car wash. What do I have in common with him? The only people to benefit are the capitalist system who want a pool of cheap labour any colour or creed that will go anywhere and work for little.You just can't sell your argument,can you? You spread fear,cry wolf,tell us we can't survive outside Europe,I think different. In fact I get the impression your one of those that sit on the sofa wave your EU flag while placing your vote in the Eurovision Song Contest
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 18:31:51 GMT
I would be interested to know why you feel that Europe would be endangered? Economically, they would lose the second largest net contributor but they would survive. Some of the other countries would have to take up the slack or, God forbid, the EU might have to cut its coat according to the cloth available. Politically, why do you believe that we are significant? Cameron has proved that, even with the threat of a Brexit, the EU isn't prepared to make any significant changes to its present format. That clearly illustrates that they don't think we are that important politically or they would be more worried about our exit. So many of the Remain group admit that the EU needs significant reform but, if they won't reform when we might leave, they certainly aren't going to reform if we chicken out and stay in. What they might be worried about is our exit rocking the stability of the EU boat and starting a snowball effect among other European citizens that causes them (the citizens) to question their continued membership. Not all EU citizens, despite what their political leaders say, are super supportive of the EU bureaucracy. What we do have on our side is the size of our economy (which is why the Norway and Switzerland comparisons are fatuous) and the size of our trade deficit with Europe. They aren't going to refuse to service such a large customer. Roger Economically precisely because they would lose one of the largest contributors but also because trade with the UK would inevitably lessen as we replace it with trade with other non-EU countries.
Politically: The EU was reluctant to accede to Cameron's requests, but these are not the changes I would like to see. The changes I would like to see are in fact on the agenda of several EU countries, i.e. greater integration and more central control to the point of a United States of Europe. The crumbs which Cameron is touting aren't even worth bothering about.
What difference does it make who Britain trades with ? do you believe all trade with Europe would cease?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 7:34:31 GMT
Well I didn't see the programme, but from the comments on here the In campaign seems once again to have shot themselves in the foot, allowing Peter Mandleson, a very unpopular politician with his own agenda, to get people's backs up. This after the publicity of the glossy leaflets and now the IMF interfering.
As I've said before, I'm totally for the EU and our remaining in, but I despair. If we leave Europe will be in a sorry state, and may collapse into a motley of squabbling states, even into war. Putin is certainly rubbing his hands over this. Yes, the UK could manage outside the EU, but at what price to France, Spain, even Germany, etc? I am as concerned about the rest of Europe as I am about the UK, and can clearly see that the selfish and parochial nationalism which seems to prevail here could easily lead us into a disastrous mistake.
This whole referendum is a mistake. The trust and interdependence with our European allies has already been badly eroded merely to appease a few loudmouth rebels in the Tory party who took the opportunity to twist arms once the moderating influence of the Lib Dems had gone.
I know that this is not a popular view here, but I just hope that at least the electorate as a whole will allow us to get on with the job of reforming the admittedly bloated and self-serving Brussels bureaucracy from within, because we certainly won't be able to do it from without. I just put your first post on the subject up again after re reading it and to be fair you nailed your colours to the mast from the start. The first paragraph I think most would agree with,the second paragraph, I have no interest in the rest of Europe and I don't consider that selfish or parochial,I want Britain out and I believe we joined under false pretext. I dont believe the Referendum is a mistake and if we decide to stay in I don't believe that will end the matter either.I don't want to be interdependent with anyone,this is the country that saved Europe ,have we slipped so far that we need to be dependent on anyone or is it just lazy politicians who think it easier to govern en bloc ? and as for your assertion of moderating Lib Dems well the British People aren't fooled by that which is why they were rejected at the ballot box. I don't know how popular your views are,you talk of being allowed to get on with reforming Europe,I believe thats rubbish,Britain has never won as much as a single vote in Europe ever . Bloated and self serving it certainly is and its been proven that even by threatening to leave we can't reform it , so how do you propose to reform it from within? I believe its beyond reform because history tells me so.I wouldn't be so arrogant to suggest that I have persuaded any reader to leave but surely you see the quandary ? When your reduced to saying you want to stay in Europe because you fear for the other countries in it then I suggest thats not going to persuade many either. I apologise to Albion and other posters if I have reiterated or rehashed what has already been said and to Macwolfee if he is beginning to feel it turning personal which it isn't. but these are crazy times and its a total mess out there.
|
|
|
Post by Albion on Apr 16, 2016 10:55:01 GMT
Economically precisely because they would lose one of the largest contributors but also because trade with the UK would inevitably lessen as we replace it with trade with other non-EU countries.
Politically: The EU was reluctant to accede to Cameron's requests, but these are not the changes I would like to see. The changes I would like to see are in fact on the agenda of several EU countries, i.e. greater integration and more central control to the point of a United States of Europe. The crumbs which Cameron is touting aren't even worth bothering about.
Are you really saying that you have so much concern for what might (but probably wouldn't) happen economically in European countries that you consider this more important than the wellbeing of your own country? As others and I have said, you have no chance of getting meaningful reform in the EU. They have had years to change it. Many, many people, including the Remain camp, admit that it needs reform but cannot hold out any hope of ever achieving that reform. And why would it reform when it suits the bureaucrats within the EU not to reform it, and 27 other countries national interests are to keep it as it is because it suits them, particularly those who are net recipients. There is no desire or will to reform, so hope of reform is a totally forlorn hope IMO. Roger
|
|
|
Post by macwolfelee on Apr 17, 2016 0:19:08 GMT
Well I'm not going to quote everyone who has replied arguing against my point of view, but I think I can summarise my answer very briefly:
The whole ethos of the 'out' camp is that it would be better for 'us'.
'Us' to me means something entirely different from what it means to the 'out' camp.
'Us' to me means the people of Europe as a whole. If that conflicts with the 'us' of the UK then I will back the interests of the whole of Europe.
But even that isn't wide enough. If a disintegrating EU adversely affects economic (and even political) stability further afield, then I will back even the present unsatisfactory EU setup, even if it means the UK is disadvantaged.
Purely national self interest is going to have to be sacrificed if any of the serious problems of the world are to be even ameliorated.
Globalisation has, I'm afraid, overtaken us, and the nation state is beginning to look ever more unsustainable.
I've tried to put my point of view forward forcefully and politely, but the same cannot be said for some of the replies.
I have never voted in the European Song Contest.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 17, 2016 6:47:01 GMT
'Globalisation' has dragged us all down to the lowest common denominator. 'Globalisation' means the world is flooded with poor quality products made from cheap labour. As a Brit, I would prefer the UK to stand out (perhaps as a set of 'independent countries' - Wales, Scotland, England, etc.) from all the other countries and show how things should be done. Perhaps this is 'Racism', wanting the UK and its people to be 'better' than the others, and forge ahead with science and building and maintaining highly respectable education, health and other infrastructure systems, such as a decent telephone/Internet signal, and roads and railways and canals of an impeccable nature. Do we forge ahead or just stagnate? Is there any hope for the UK any more? This is a country that can't even repair 2 slightly damaged canal bridges in 6 months, whereas the Norwegians can do this: broer.no/bro/b/b106_1.jpg Bridge starts at 1:11
|
|
|
Post by Albion on Apr 17, 2016 7:11:00 GMT
But even that isn't wide enough. If a disintegrating EU adversely affects economic (and even political) stability further afield, then I will back even the present unsatisfactory EU setup, even if it means the UK is disadvantaged.
Purely national self interest is going to have to be sacrificed if any of the serious problems of the world are to be even ameliorated.
I think that you may well be over-estimating the effect that Britain leaving the EU would have on the EU, never mind world stability. I have long thought that our so-called political clout in the world is exaggerated and that we should accept that we no longer have have a role in policing the world and going to war to support the US. It suits our politicians to grandstand and play the big world power but that is all. We have economic clout, as the world's 5th largest economy, the second largest net contributor to the EU and a significant market for the EU, but the days of the empire and gun boat diplomacy have long gone. We have armed forces that are a shadow of their former selves and short of equipment (borrowing aircraft carrier deck space from France, sold off any short take off and landing aircraft to the US, scrapped our long range submarine surveillance aircraft etc) so we must finally admit that we are barely capable of defending our own nation never mind policing the world. Your concern for the the rest of the world and the rest of the EU is laudable but have you noticed, say, just one of the other 27 EU nations putting other EU nations first, never mind the welfare of the rest of the world. One could argue that the recent Merkel open door policy to immigrants could be cited as one example of that attitude but even she has now had to reconsider her position after significant internal opposition and unrest from the German people. If nations could/would group together politically to solve world issues (not grandstanding with no real end result as some of the world summits seem to do) then your idealism is laudable but, from bitter experience, one can see that is hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen. The only way it would happen is if the changes benefit many more nations than it disadvantages and we haven't seen that in action yet. Roger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 7:31:07 GMT
Well I'm not going to quote everyone who has replied arguing against my point of view, but I think I can summarise my answer very briefly:
The whole ethos of the 'out' camp is that it would be better for 'us'.
'Us' to me means something entirely different from what it means to the 'out' camp.
'Us' to me means the people of Europe as a whole. If that conflicts with the 'us' of the UK then I will back the interests of the whole of Europe.
But even that isn't wide enough. If a disintegrating EU adversely affects economic (and even political) stability further afield, then I will back even the present unsatisfactory EU setup, even if it means the UK is disadvantaged.
Purely national self interest is going to have to be sacrificed if any of the serious problems of the world are to be even ameliorated.
Globalisation has, I'm afraid, overtaken us, and the nation state is beginning to look ever more unsustainable.
I've tried to put my point of view forward forcefully and politely, but the same cannot be said for some of the replies.
I have never voted in the European Song Contest. As I said earlier you made your position clear from the outset,you said you would find few in agreeance and that I fear is all your correct about. I and others have asked you to clarify and explain some points and you refuse to do so,we know your view so why keep telling us ?we would like you to answer our points so we too can be enlightened as to why we are wrong and you are right but sadly you never do because your wedded to a Dogma that simply says membership of Europe at all costs even at the cost of my own country.I can deal with any of your posts point by point but sadly there is no point when all you do in reply is not answer them and paint some doomsday scenario if Britain leaves.You talk of nation states being unsustainable when increased nationalism is everywhere around us from Scotland to breakaway Russian States but the EU wants a one size fits all approach dictated from Strasbourg and it doesn't work.The OUTS can point to history to prove their opinions and the INS can only point to a possible Armageddon if we leave. Why can't the electorate be given the facts ? don't you see that they can't be given them because they would vote leave.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 17, 2016 7:39:09 GMT
"Why can't the electorate be given the facts ?"
Sheep to slaughter. Keep them happy on alcohol and cheap 'food' (salt, fat, sugar, corn syrup, monosodium glutamate).
When I was a teenager I didn't even think of China, Islam or Immigrants. Nor Celebrity Threesomes - now we're having that shoved down our throats (geddit??!!). Times have changed. It's a very strange world we are entering into - for kids under 15 years of age, the Internet is 'natural'. The Internet has certainly changed my life in ways I never would have expected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 7:54:59 GMT
But even that isn't wide enough. If a disintegrating EU adversely affects economic (and even political) stability further afield, then I will back even the present unsatisfactory EU setup, even if it means the UK is disadvantaged.
Purely national self interest is going to have to be sacrificed if any of the serious problems of the world are to be even ameliorated.
I think that you may well be over-estimating the effect that Britain leaving the EU would have on the EU, never mind world stability. I have long thought that our so-called political clout in the world is exaggerated and that we should accept that we no longer have have a role in policing the world and going to war to support the US. It suits our politicians to grandstand and play the big world power but that is all. We have economic clout, as the world's 5th largest economy, the second largest net contributor to the EU and a significant market for the EU, but the days of the empire and gun boat diplomacy have long gone. We have armed forces that are a shadow of their former selves and short of equipment (borrowing aircraft carrier deck space from France, sold off any short take off and landing aircraft to the US, scrapped our long range submarine surveillance aircraft etc) so we must finally admit that we are barely capable of defending our own nation never mind policing the world. Your concern for the the rest of the world and the rest of the EU is laudable but have you noticed, say, just one of the other 27 EU nations putting other EU nations first, never mind the welfare of the rest of the world. One could argue that the recent Merkel open door policy to immigrants could be cited as one example of that attitude but even she has now had to reconsider her position after significant internal opposition and unrest from the German people. If nations could/would group together politically to solve world issues (not grandstanding with no real end result as some of the world summits seem to do) then your idealism is laudable but, from bitter experience, one can see that is hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen. The only way it would happen is if the changes benefit many more nations than it disadvantages and we haven't seen that in action yet. Roger Its the same old Mandelson Dogma that Macwolfelee spouts sadly.These Farmers have entered the fray now fearing BREXIT. Farming, an industry where your wages are guaranteed by the EU where your new Range Rover is paid for by the tax payer.These people make Mandelsons 30k pension after 4 years service look like beer money.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 17, 2016 7:59:56 GMT
Another pithy statement from the Fox, (Yes it was Pithy, No I don't have lisp) Often your posts make me laugh occasionally they make me think. Nice one
|
|
|
Post by Albion on Apr 17, 2016 9:37:20 GMT
As I said earlier you made your position clear from the outset,you said you would find few in agreeance and that I fear is all your correct about. I and others have asked you to clarify and explain some points and you refuse to do so,we know your view so why keep telling us ?we would like you to answer our points so we too can be enlightened as to why we are wrong and you are right but sadly you never do because your wedded to a Dogma that simply says membership of Europe at all costs even at the cost of my own country.I can deal with any of your posts point by point but sadly there is no point when all you do in reply is not answer them and paint some doomsday scenario if Britain leaves.You talk of nation states being unsustainable when increased nationalism is everywhere around us from Scotland to breakaway Russian States but the EU wants a one size fits all approach dictated from Strasbourg and it doesn't work.The OUTS can point to history to prove their opinions and the INS can only point to a possible Armageddon if we leave. Why can't the electorate be given the facts ? don't you see that they can't be given them because they would vote leave. Steady on cds, we can discuss without being too critical of another's point of view. Honestly we can. Let's show the world that it was certain vociferous members of the CA forum on CWDF that caused the abuse and not those that have chosen to contribute here because of the censorship there. There is some uncertainty in the projections of both sides to be honest. The Remain camp use fear of the unknown (well, about 50 years of unknown) to frighten those who are thinking of supporting Brexit. In truth we don't absolutely know what the future would hold if we left, however that doesn't mean that a determined nation and strong people would not be capable of forging new commercial and mutual support alliances. Unfortunately for a significant number of the present electorate they have known nothing other than membership of the EU and hence will naturally be predisposed to supporting the only reality that they have known. Why else did the Remain camp push for the voting age on this issue to be lowered to 16? It wasn't really for an extended democracy was it? A large addition of electorate numbers that had known nothing else was the real reason for that proposal. The Out camp cannot prove what the future would hold for the same reasons that the Remain camp cannot prove what it would be like if we left and, hence, the emphasis on fear by the Remains. However, based on recent past experience, I am pretty convinced that the much vaunted 'we are better trying to achieve change from within' is just so much wasted breath. We have seen plenty of examples of lack of reform from within to illustrate that those significant reforms are just so much pie in the sky. We need to have confidence in our nation and our people and step forth boldly into a world which won't be half as frightening and uncertain as we are led to believe IMO. Even if there is some short term uncertainty and effect on our economy I am willing to accept that in order to achieve the ultimate goal. There may well be some pain to get some gain but I am sure it will be worth it in the long run. Just look at all the doom mongering after our withdrawal from the ERM and our refusal to join the Euro. Has it meant that we are a weaker country economically, I don't think so, so why would this further distancing ourselves from the EU be such a disaster? Roger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 9:55:46 GMT
As I said earlier you made your position clear from the outset,you said you would find few in agreeance and that I fear is all your correct about. I and others have asked you to clarify and explain some points and you refuse to do so,we know your view so why keep telling us ?we would like you to answer our points so we too can be enlightened as to why we are wrong and you are right but sadly you never do because your wedded to a Dogma that simply says membership of Europe at all costs even at the cost of my own country.I can deal with any of your posts point by point but sadly there is no point when all you do in reply is not answer them and paint some doomsday scenario if Britain leaves.You talk of nation states being unsustainable when increased nationalism is everywhere around us from Scotland to breakaway Russian States but the EU wants a one size fits all approach dictated from Strasbourg and it doesn't work.The OUTS can point to history to prove their opinions and the INS can only point to a possible Armageddon if we leave. Why can't the electorate be given the facts ? don't you see that they can't be given them because they would vote leave. Steady on cds, we can discuss without being too critical of another's point of view. Honestly we can. Let's show the world that it was certain vociferous members of the CA forum on CWDF that caused the abuse and not those that have chosen to contribute here because of the censorship there. There is some uncertainty in the projections of both sides to be honest. The Remain camp use fear of the unknown (well, about 50 years of unknown) to frighten those who are thinking of supporting Brexit. In truth we don't absolutely know what the future would hold if we left, however that doesn't mean that a determined nation and strong people would not be capable of forging new commercial and mutual support alliances. Unfortunately for a significant number of the present electorate they have known nothing other than membership of the EU and hence will naturally be predisposed to supporting the only reality that they have known. Why else did the Remain camp push for the voting age on this issue to be lowered to 16? It wasn't really for an extended democracy was it? A large addition of electorate numbers that had known nothing else was the real reason for that proposal. The Out camp cannot prove what the future would hold for the same reasons that the Remain camp cannot prove what it would be like if we left and, hence, the emphasis on fear by the Remains. However, based on recent past experience, I am pretty convinced that the much vaunted 'we are better trying to achieve change from within' is just so much wasted breath. We have seen plenty of examples of lack of reform from within to illustrate that those significant reforms are just so much pie in the sky. We need to have confidence in our nation and our people and step forth boldly into a world which won't be half as frightening and uncertain as we are led to believe IMO. Even if there is some short term uncertainty and effect on our economy I am willing to accept that in order to achieve the ultimate goal. There may well be some pain to get some gain but I am sure it will be worth it in the long run. Just look at all the doom mongering after our withdrawal from the ERM and our refusal to join the Euro. Has it meant that we are a weaker country economically, I don't think so, so why would this further distancing ourselves from the EU be such a disaster? Roger Genuinely didn't think I was being too critical and I agree with your post 100%
|
|
|
Post by macwolfelee on Apr 17, 2016 18:14:17 GMT
I have never voted in the European Song Contest. I and others have asked you to clarify and explain some points and you refuse to do so,we know your view so why keep telling us ?we would like you to answer our points I have tried to answer any points which I think relevant, but if you think I haven't I'm quite willing to answer any which you think I haven't addressed. A short list would be ideal.
However, there's no point in me answering questions you put which come from a completely different perspective from mine. eg nationalism and a sense of identity.
|
|