Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35817933)

Can anyone explain to me why Scotland are apparently so pro-EU?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35817933)

Can anyone explain to me why Scotland are apparently so pro-EU?

Originally Posted by ntluser (Post 35817884)

As has been suggested before Cameron is going to attempt to convince us that he has extracted major concessions and that we should stay in the EU in the same way that George Osborne tried to con us that he had got the EU to reduce our contribution when in fact he had simply used the UK rebate to cut the cost.

The sad truth is that the Conservatives want to stay in the EU and are now trying to manage both the "YES" campaign and the "NO" campaign to ensure that we stay in. Indeed we now have the scaremongers telling us that leaving the EU will be a leap in the dark. We simply cannot trust the Conservatives to act in the national interest.

Another fact is that the meagre concessions that Cameron has gone for are only a fraction of what the people in the UK wanted.

Though there are trading advantages to staying in the EU which Cameron focuses on, there are considerable disadvantages which ordinary people focus on.

The disadvantages are:-

a) having no control over immigration from the EU and the benefit costs to out of work EU immigrants, not to mention the pressure put on the NHS, housing and schools. Immigrants with needed skills are important to the economy but we need to be able to control how many immigrants come in and who they are.

b) having no control over the financial aspects of the wasteful and ineffective gravy train lifestyle of politicians and civil servants working in the EU

c) being subject to EU laws which adversely affect the UK especially being unable to get rid of EU immigrants who commit crimes and other other problems arising from the EU's Human Rights Act..

d) being expected at some point to take part in financial union and possibly adopting the Euro in the future though admittedly that may be a long way off.

e) being expected to be a major contributor to the EU but being treated as the pariah of Europe and generally ignored because we seek to reform the EU's wasteful ways, though some of that can be put down to Cameron's arrogance and strategy

f) having to support countries like France who cannot secure their end of the Channel tunnel without financial aid from the UK or be expected to bolster up the Euro when the EU is in financial crisis

g) having to take in people from outside the EU because another member country of the EU has given them an EU passport.

h) the continous failure of the EU to produce accounts for at least the last 10 years and its failure to seek cheaper options to achieve the same ends

No doubt other forum members can think of reasons to leave the EU but in essence it is about the lessening ability of the UK to control what goes on within its borders and the dictatorial demands of the EU.

It will be interesting to hear what other forum members think and to see what happens between now and the EU referendum.

Originally Posted by roughbeast (Post 35817947)

Perhaps it is because they are more immune to the decades of misinformation and EU myths dished out by the Murdoch press and The Daily Mail. Scottish cynicism about the media will have been a factor in their immunity. Meanwhile south of the border we have been groomed to the point that 50% of us now want out. So relentless has been the campaign that lies are now accepted as truth.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35817989)

Hmm. I'm far from convinced that lies and propaganda come purely from the 'out' side.

If it's that cut and dry why are the only arguments I've heard so far in favour of staying in hyperbole and baseless claims regarding trade?

I read material from a bunch of people, including heavily from Labour MPs and MEPs, and none have made a persuasive case. All fear, doom and gloom. The exact same arguments that were brought out to try and get the UK into the Eurozone.

The Murdoch press are an easy target for sure, but I'm not convinced it's quite that simple. Indeed the hostility to some negative reports on the EU that can be heard south of the border makes me question this all the more.

Originally Posted by roughbeast (Post 35818021)

It really is worth trawling through the EU myths site, not least because all official EU sites are bound in law to state facts accurately. Here you will find retorts to the bilge trotted out by the Europhobe press and politicians.

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/blog/

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35817933)

Can anyone explain to me why Scotland are apparently so pro-EU?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35817933)

Can anyone explain to me why Scotland are apparently so pro-EU?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35818124)

However, the SNPee has a major problem with any policy that is seen as being Tory, in that it is genetically hard-wired to be in opposition to it. The Nats are Europhiles because they see the Tories as Eurosceptics.

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35818162)

Always a good way to get a yesser confused (not especially hard I know) just get them to explain why one Union where Scotland has a voice and influence greater than it should is bad yet another where they would be very much a minor member with minuscule influence is good.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35818236)

They may also want to note that rejoining the EU will automagically oblige them to join the Euro.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35818236)

They may also want to note that rejoining the EU will automagically oblige them to join the Euro.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35818243)

That means we will have to have immigration controls on the Scottish border if we vote out surely?:D:D:D:D:D:D

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35818260)

If we weren't somewhat 'in' as far as we are already and the question was simply: "should we join the EU?" .......the answer would be "NO" (or words to that effect) :D

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35818815)

Leaving will not be a quick process as all sorts of things will have to be negotiated and put in place before the transition can be completed. There may even be protracted legal challenges to some of what would be necessary and that would inevitably delay things.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35818817)

Sounds like just another opportunity for us to give the 'right' answer if we get it 'wrong' first time around... ;)

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35818903)

Outside the EU we can trade with other countries with the EU telling us if we can.

Plus we can send paedophiles to prison for whole life with out the EU saying its not legal.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35818951)

Only time will tell whether threats actually work in influencing voters but there's no doubt in my mind that such tactics will give further ammunition to the out campaign since it's just that sort of 'big brother' behaviour which they claim is at the heart of what's wrong with the EU.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35818928)

Leave or stay is not cut and dried as the polls are 50:50.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35819105)

Some of the criticisms against the EU are valid – e.g. bureaucracy. However the benefits of a single market far outweigh them. Better to reform, which is to every countries benefit , than cut our noses off to spite our face. Leaving would hurt us more than the EU – it accounts for half of our exports.

I haven’t heard anything positive form the ‘out’ side about life outside the EU; just negative, jingoistic nonsense, and constant racist guff about immigration. Their campaign, if you can call it that, is doomed.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35819115)

We are a massive export market for several European economies (chief among them, Germany) and we are in a very good position to negotiate terms of access that are mutually beneficial to us and the EU. And, once un-shackled from the need to wait for the EU to negotiate trade deals for us, we can get to the important business of dealing with the great emerging economies of the world on our own terms..

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35819115)

If the EU consisted entirely of the single market I might agree with you, but it doesn't.

If access to the single market required full membership of the EU, again, I might agree with you, but it doesn't.

The cost in terms of loss of sovereignty is now manifestly too high. The European project was never about creating a simple trading area, which is what the UK electorate was sold 40 years ago.

We are a massive export market for several European economies (chief among them, Germany) and we are in a very good position to negotiate terms of access that are mutually beneficial to us and the EU. And, once un-shackled from the need to wait for the EU to negotiate trade deals for us, we can get to the important business of dealing with the great emerging economies of the world on our own terms.

And those British businesses that form part of that 79% of trade that occurs entirely within our own borders, would in future only have to contend with market regulation cooked up in Westminster, where there are only 650 MPs, all of them British and familiar with the way we do business, instead of being forced to implement schemes that are actually designed as a protection racket for some inefficient, unreformed industry in the back end of somewhere hot and sunny where nobody does very much for most of the day.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35819118)

Well also their terms. Trade deals aren't symmetrical. Governments put in exemptions, rules and other caveats to protect their interests where they can and so what we can get depends on our strength at the table. For example while a trade deal with America will be in both our interests the disparity between the size of the markets and economies means we need it more. Any agreement is far more likely to be lopsided towards them than towards us.

Negotiating with the EU takes longer but is a stronger entity with a bigger market to offer prospective partners.

The idea we're going to sign great deals in the national interest post-Brexit assumes a far more open world than actually exists.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35819126)

And the idea that we're going to somehow flounder in the world requires wilful neglect of the fact that we managed perfectly well on our own in the world for our entire national history, except for the last 40 years.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35819144)

The EU incidentally is close to closing the American trade deal and we would have to start from scratch.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35819165)

One might wonder whether the UK, acting alone, might have reached some accommodation with the USA rather sooner, had we been able to. Alas, we are compelled to act within the EU, and at the dawn of 2016 that deal is still "close".

What exactly has the EU been doing, all these years? :scratch:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35819060)

If the EU were a government - local or national - they'd have been voted them into oblivion years ago. Sadly, rather like FIFA, the Eurocrats have created themselves a nice cosy environment in which they can propagate their madness and create widespread mayhem unhindered by accountability for any of it. Is it any surprise therefore, that they've become so adept at believing their own rhetoric and perpetuating their own existence? Blatter and his cronies enjoyed years of back patting, lavish indulgence and self congratulation to the point that their indignance at being rumbled, even now, is quite staggering. The EU is really not very different IMHO. Defective, dishonest, incapable of reform and unfit for purpose - who'd want to remain within any such organisation?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35819951)

So what we seem to have is:

- The ability to veto EU laws
- No in-work benefits for EU migrants for a certain number of years.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35819952)

- None of which is to be guaranteed by treaty
- And in any case, does not answer the fundamental reason for euroscepticism, which is the erosion of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35819954)

I think these things were never likely to be addressed by the deal which we all probably agree has a big element of theater about it. The question is if Cameron has done enough for this not be written off a failure in the eyes of the neutrals. If he can come back and say we can veto EU laws and stop giving benefits to migrants that would help him I think. The EU will probably chuck in the nonsense line about us being exempt from joining any 'ever-closer' Union which would purely be cosmetic but crowd-pleasing.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35819959)

Cameron doesn't want us out of the EU because his bosses, those who own and run industry, don't want us out of the EU. And any referendum is going to be a loaded question backed by mass propaganda paid for by bosses of industry. I doubt very much that the question will be a simple "in or out" one.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35819214)

Er, didn't we have elections in May 2014? And also every 5 years previously since the European Parliament was formed since 1979? The people we voted for in those elections are responsible for passing laws along with the Council of the European Union who are directly appointed by the Governments of the union.

I fail to see how people think of this being an undemocratic institution but maybe someone can name a part of the EU that we don't have some kind of say.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35819989)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35820023)

Right, so the rather pointless theatre is all over, and we can now get on with the business of debating whether the EU is good for Great Britain or not.

Originally Posted by ntluser (Post 35820046)

d) we still have to pay the French to control their border as they are conveniently
unable to control the outflow of migrants via the Channel tunnel

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35820049)

This is a separate agreement that requires the cooperation of the French. If they wanted they could say sod it and let us worry about it when they reach our borders.

If we had mass migrants/refugee camps in Dover of people trying to get into France how willing would we be to help the French secure their borders and keep them here?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35820023)

Right, so the rather pointless theatre is all over, and we can now get on with the business of debating whether the EU is good for Great Britain or not.

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35819979)

I don't recall voting for any of those in power in the EU :confused:

Originally Posted by ntluser (Post 35820046)

I think this went as predicted with Cameron, like Osborne, claiming a great victory in negotiations with the EU.

First we had Osborne telling us that, after hard negotiating, he had wrestled concessions from the EU over the UK contribution to the EU budget, then we later discover that he had simply offset the UK rebate against the debt.

Now we have Cameron coming down from the mountain telling us that his proposals for change, inadequate as they are, have been broadly accepted bar the detail.

Unfortunately we still have the same problems:-

a) we still can't control the number of EU migrants coming here

b) we still can't deport foreign criminals

c) we still have to pay a massive contribution to support the EU & to support the gravy train existence of MEPs

d) we still have to pay the French to control their border as they are conveniently
unable to control the outflow of migrants via the Channel tunnel

e) we can't apply national vetos unless 55% of EU leaders agree but given that the UK is unpopular in Europe agreement seems unlikely, indeed Cameron cannot even rely on the support of his so-called allies in the EU

When the EU referendum comes the citizens of the UK need to ensure that they do not make the same mistake with regard to the EU as the Scots did by choosing to remain in the UK.

The government cannot be trusted with the best interests of UK citizens as they are already fixing the vote conditions to ensure that the UK remains within the EU. Heath took us in, Major kept us there and now Cameron wants to keep us there permanently.

UK voters need to wake up to the idea that Cameron's proposals are just window dressing that mean nothing and we should all be ready to vote to leave the EU.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35820218)

Better to have an amicable, controlled split before waiting to the point where all hell breaks loose. I'm voting out!

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35820221)

Agreed.

Better to be in the lifeboat when the ship goes down than re-arranging the deckchairs.

Originally Posted by richard s (Post 35820288)

I have come to change my mind on being a pro-European.... Lets get the hell out.

Originally Posted by richard s (Post 35820288)

I have come to change my mind on being a pro-European.... Lets get the hell out.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35820444)

Why we should be paying anyone for their children who're not living here is beyond me.

Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35820437)

If this deal succeeds for every £350million Britain pays out in benefits it will save 99p. When it comes to abuse of the benefits system we need to look a little closer to home. These Europeans are not lieing and stealing from our system. They're paying taxes in and taking out what they're entitled to.

I read somewhere an example of a 27 year old Polish woman had paid more tax in the UK in 2 years than an entire family of British born benefit claiming citizens had paid in 50 years.

So immigrants are not the problem! It's mostly British families it seems where mom, dad and all kids Jump straight on benefits. Where you have kids that have never seen mom or dad go out to work, then you see immigrant families with both parents working hounded for claiming a little back, it's heart breaking.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35820599)

Better for them to keep their powder dry I reckon. Let the in campaign have the stage now and wait until nearer the time to expose to flaws in their proposition. Right now, the EU and its supporters are doing a great job of showing us just how fatally flawed the whole thing now is.