IN or OUT? All on in the UK for the next 10 weeks.

Forums › Off topic › IN or OUT? All on in the UK for the next 10 weeks.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#1534769 18-Apr-2016 11:04

Hmm, I haven't seen decent arguments beyond immigration problems and the fact that Brussels now supposedly overrules Britain's government on anything it feels like. I wonder if there are concrete examples of either?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1534770 18-Apr-2016 11:05

Geektastic:

roobarb:

Geektastic: No one seems to get the point I'm making by referring to pre EU Britain so I'll try again.

It's an illustration of the fact that Britain used to govern itself. It did so for thousands of years.

Lets start with being ruled by the Romans for four hundred years.

Then the dark ages, possibly with the mythical Briton Arthur

Then invaded by and ruled by the Danes in the North East, and Anglo-Saxons in the south west

With the acceptance of Christianity, we also accepted rule from Rome all over again.

Then invaded by the Normans and ruled by their descendants for a while, even the great Richard the Lionheart would gladly have sold England

Eventually the French kings became English, but we got bored with them and had to ask for the Scots to give us their king.

That worked out for a bit until we had to chop one of their heads off and become a republic.

That didn't work out to well so got the executed King's son back in, lost patience with that line and imported another king from the continent to sort us out.

So over the past couple of thousand years we have numerous examples of being ruled by those from the continent.

As for the empire, the offer from Germany for peace at the start of WWII was stay out of the war and you can keep your empire. Instead we decided to try and save Europe, and the price from the US to save us was bankruptcy and losing the empire.

The British Isles are part of the continent of Europe no matter how much we try and deny it.

We proved that having incestuous royal families intermarried across Europe could not prevent war, perhaps strong economic ties could.

I'd even suggest that over that 2,000 year period, over half of that had the rulers speaking a different language to the native peasants.

You're labouring entirely the wrong point.

What is your point?

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1534815 18-Apr-2016 11:48

Fred99:
Geektastic: You're labouring entirely the wrong point.

What is your point?

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

Agreed, and if you want to include thousands of years of history, the Anglo-Saxons themselves were unwelcome immigrants, eg Hengist and Horsa overstaying their welcome.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1534864 18-Apr-2016 12:29

Fred99:

What is your point?

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

Look, rather than let this develop into some sort of points scoring contest, I will repeat some of Geektastics very valid comments as it would appear that you did not read them or, if you did, would appear to want an argument about views on just immigration.

This has nothing to do with the Empire. Britain has run itself in some form for a very very long time. It has been run by unelected officials in Brussels for a very very short time.

The Common Market was a relatively sensible idea. That morphed into a controlling autocracy with no further consultation with the voters and foolish politicians - particularly in the post-Thatcher period - have allowed ever-more power to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

A common trading block has no reason, for example, to be creating a court of law that can supersede the highest national court in the land and actually disapply UK law where it finds that UK law has not given sufficient or correct effect to EU law. A common trading block has no need to tell sovereign nations that they cannot control who enters their borders. Imagine if the PM of Australia could unilaterally allow 100,000 unscreened refugees to enter New Zealand and NZ could do nothing whatsoever about that?

British people never voted to join a body that would become the United States of Europe in which Britain would be the equivalent of, say, Texas in the USA: nor where they ever even asked to vote on that proposition. It was imposed on them, in effect by stealth.

They have - finally - one opportunity to undo that.

Personally I think Project Fear will triumph and they will vote to stay - after which, the EU will know it can continue on unchecked because the last glimmer of dissent has been extinguished.

I hope the fact that I have highlighted some of the issues help you understand exactly what his point is. It's quite simple really.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1534904 18-Apr-2016 12:44

Interesting to compare the TPPA - where it is feared that occasionally, in certain circumstances, overseas interests may have the opportunity to influence NZ govt and/or companies. Result - widespread protests. Now the EU, where effectively UK's sovereignty, control of borders, right to legislate etc etc is being salami-sliced away all under the guise of better trade. Result - some people say "so what? It's for the greater good".

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535022 18-Apr-2016 15:13

Fred99:

Geektastic:

roobarb:

Geektastic: No one seems to get the point I'm making by referring to pre EU Britain so I'll try again.

It's an illustration of the fact that Britain used to govern itself. It did so for thousands of years.

Lets start with being ruled by the Romans for four hundred years.

Then the dark ages, possibly with the mythical Briton Arthur

Then invaded by and ruled by the Danes in the North East, and Anglo-Saxons in the south west

With the acceptance of Christianity, we also accepted rule from Rome all over again.

Then invaded by the Normans and ruled by their descendants for a while, even the great Richard the Lionheart would gladly have sold England

Eventually the French kings became English, but we got bored with them and had to ask for the Scots to give us their king.

That worked out for a bit until we had to chop one of their heads off and become a republic.

That didn't work out to well so got the executed King's son back in, lost patience with that line and imported another king from the continent to sort us out.

So over the past couple of thousand years we have numerous examples of being ruled by those from the continent.

As for the empire, the offer from Germany for peace at the start of WWII was stay out of the war and you can keep your empire. Instead we decided to try and save Europe, and the price from the US to save us was bankruptcy and losing the empire.

The British Isles are part of the continent of Europe no matter how much we try and deny it.

We proved that having incestuous royal families intermarried across Europe could not prevent war, perhaps strong economic ties could.

I'd even suggest that over that 2,000 year period, over half of that had the rulers speaking a different language to the native peasants.

You're labouring entirely the wrong point.

What is your point?

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

I'm not remotely arguing about immigrants other than the fact that the unelected rulers (see next para!) remove control of immigration from the elected rulers.

My point is that Britain is run by a foreign power based in Brussels.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1535023 18-Apr-2016 15:14

DaveB:

Fred99:

What is your point?

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

Look, rather than let this develop into some sort of points scoring contest, I will repeat some of Geektastics very valid comments as it would appear that you did not read them or, if you did, would appear to want an argument about views on just immigration.

This has nothing to do with the Empire. Britain has run itself in some form for a very very long time. It has been run by unelected officials in Brussels for a very very short time.

The Common Market was a relatively sensible idea. That morphed into a controlling autocracy with no further consultation with the voters and foolish politicians - particularly in the post-Thatcher period - have allowed ever-more power to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

A common trading block has no reason, for example, to be creating a court of law that can supersede the highest national court in the land and actually disapply UK law where it finds that UK law has not given sufficient or correct effect to EU law. A common trading block has no need to tell sovereign nations that they cannot control who enters their borders. Imagine if the PM of Australia could unilaterally allow 100,000 unscreened refugees to enter New Zealand and NZ could do nothing whatsoever about that?

British people never voted to join a body that would become the United States of Europe in which Britain would be the equivalent of, say, Texas in the USA: nor where they ever even asked to vote on that proposition. It was imposed on them, in effect by stealth.

They have - finally - one opportunity to undo that.

Personally I think Project Fear will triumph and they will vote to stay - after which, the EU will know it can continue on unchecked because the last glimmer of dissent has been extinguished.

I hope the fact that I have highlighted some of the issues help you understand exactly what his point is. It's quite simple really.

It's been made very clear that he thinks it has everything to do with the empire.

I don't have a comprehension problem. You haven't helped by repeating what had been said, which in context are all very spurious emotional arguments IMO - with more than a hint of straw-man ("Texas"? "cannot control who enters"?).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535024 18-Apr-2016 15:15

DaveB:

Fred99:

What is your point?

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

Look, rather than let this develop into some sort of points scoring contest, I will repeat some of Geektastics very valid comments as it would appear that you did not read them or, if you did, would appear to want an argument about views on just immigration.

This has nothing to do with the Empire. Britain has run itself in some form for a very very long time. It has been run by unelected officials in Brussels for a very very short time.

The Common Market was a relatively sensible idea. That morphed into a controlling autocracy with no further consultation with the voters and foolish politicians - particularly in the post-Thatcher period - have allowed ever-more power to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

A common trading block has no reason, for example, to be creating a court of law that can supersede the highest national court in the land and actually disapply UK law where it finds that UK law has not given sufficient or correct effect to EU law. A common trading block has no need to tell sovereign nations that they cannot control who enters their borders. Imagine if the PM of Australia could unilaterally allow 100,000 unscreened refugees to enter New Zealand and NZ could do nothing whatsoever about that?

British people never voted to join a body that would become the United States of Europe in which Britain would be the equivalent of, say, Texas in the USA: nor where they ever even asked to vote on that proposition. It was imposed on them, in effect by stealth.

They have - finally - one opportunity to undo that.

Personally I think Project Fear will triumph and they will vote to stay - after which, the EU will know it can continue on unchecked because the last glimmer of dissent has been extinguished.

I hope the fact that I have highlighted some of the issues help you understand exactly what his point is. It's quite simple really.

Halleluja!!

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535033 18-Apr-2016 15:19

Fred99:

DaveB:

Fred99:

What is your point?

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

Look, rather than let this develop into some sort of points scoring contest, I will repeat some of Geektastics very valid comments as it would appear that you did not read them or, if you did, would appear to want an argument about views on just immigration.

This has nothing to do with the Empire. Britain has run itself in some form for a very very long time. It has been run by unelected officials in Brussels for a very very short time.

The Common Market was a relatively sensible idea. That morphed into a controlling autocracy with no further consultation with the voters and foolish politicians - particularly in the post-Thatcher period - have allowed ever-more power to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

A common trading block has no reason, for example, to be creating a court of law that can supersede the highest national court in the land and actually disapply UK law where it finds that UK law has not given sufficient or correct effect to EU law. A common trading block has no need to tell sovereign nations that they cannot control who enters their borders. Imagine if the PM of Australia could unilaterally allow 100,000 unscreened refugees to enter New Zealand and NZ could do nothing whatsoever about that?

British people never voted to join a body that would become the United States of Europe in which Britain would be the equivalent of, say, Texas in the USA: nor where they ever even asked to vote on that proposition. It was imposed on them, in effect by stealth.

They have - finally - one opportunity to undo that.

Personally I think Project Fear will triumph and they will vote to stay - after which, the EU will know it can continue on unchecked because the last glimmer of dissent has been extinguished.

I hope the fact that I have highlighted some of the issues help you understand exactly what his point is. It's quite simple really.

It's been made very clear that he thinks it has everything to do with the empire.

I don't have a comprehension problem. You haven't helped by repeating what had been said, which in context are all very spurious emotional arguments IMO - with more than a hint of straw-man ("Texas"? "cannot control who enters"?).

No, no and again, no.

It has nothing per se to do with the Empire. It has to do with the fact that until 1973 Britain did a perfectly good job of running itself as a sovereign state for a very very long time. The original point also included the fact that many people voting on the issue this year cannot remember that time because they were not alive. Ergo, it will be even harder for them to evaluate what 'out' looks like or could look like.

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#1535063 18-Apr-2016 15:30

For those who have iplayer, there's an interesting documentary on Britain's relationship with the continent. I watched the first episode which covered how they got into the ECC in the first place.

I'm torn.

According to the documentary, they only got on board when they saw that economically Europe was doing much better. As a trade agreement it is essential. However the benefits of open borders are not so clear. Even before the current refugee crisis, economic migrants have been pouring into the UK without them having any control over them. On the other hand, I think the British people have benefitted from social regulation that would never have happened if it wasn't in the EU.

Can't decide myself.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1535075 18-Apr-2016 15:52

This should have been dealt with by referendum before the UK entered the EU. I also think generation affecting decisions should never happen by stealth or mid term of a Government, it needs to be an election issue clearly put to the voting public or a separate referendum vote.

Where it concerns sovereignty and the dilution of sovereignty the vote should not be 50/50 it should be a clear majority of say 70/30

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1535084 18-Apr-2016 16:05

The common market was joined in 1973, under Edward Heath.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/1/newsid_2459000/2459167.stm

There was a referendum after joining the common market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

Result was in favour of staying.

It became the EU following the Maastricht Treaty in 1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty

The British electorate was never given the opportunity to vote directly on the changes brought in by the treaty.

That put's it under John Major's watch.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1535125 18-Apr-2016 17:34

MikeB4:

Where it concerns sovereignty and the dilution of sovereignty the vote should not be 50/50 it should be a clear majority of say 70/30

I agree on the need for a clear majority. Unfortunately this referendum is not being run that way.

From the polls so far it looks like it is going to be a very close run thing. If the final result ends up like that there are going to be a lot of very unhappy Brits.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1535150 18-Apr-2016 18:44

MikeB4:

This should have been dealt with by referendum before the UK entered the EU. I also think generation affecting decisions should never happen by stealth or mid term of a Government, it needs to be an election issue clearly put to the voting public or a separate referendum vote.

Where it concerns sovereignty and the dilution of sovereignty the vote should not be 50/50 it should be a clear majority of say 70/30

The problem is, the "scope" of EU involvement has changed so dramatically since the UK decided to join. It's a bit like NZ deciding (via general election) to join the TPPA with its current conditions, then the TPPA bloc gradually changing the agreement to include free migration from any TPPA country and the power of a TPPA council to change or veto any NZ law, or overrule court judgments. Perhaps the kiwis who think UK should stay "for the common good" would like to comment on their views of this analogy?

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1535192 18-Apr-2016 20:45

shk292:

The problem is, the "scope" of EU involvement has changed so dramatically since the UK decided to join. It's a bit like NZ deciding (via general election) to join the TPPA with its current conditions, then the TPPA bloc gradually changing the agreement .............

I am totally against the TPPA for the very reason above. Stealth in politics does not sit well with me, as I am old school and still have this belief that government should be there to represent the wishes of the people.

As jmh pointed out for those that have iPlayer, watch Europe: Them or Us. It is a real eye opener and one cannot help but think about the TPPA. More disturbing and I think overlooked by many people is how some of these deals are put together, with future changes planned years ahead of their time.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13