The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[doubleup]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853

Complete and utter pish from Gove.  Its a disgrace that he is not being fully taken to task for this.  There is zero chance that the UK will be allowed to trade freely while being able to ignore single market regulations.  He should be sacked from the government.

Yeah, that was nonsense. He knows very well that we would have to continue to apply EU regulations even if we not members. Stanley Johnson explained why in a nutshell in today's ES:
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/stanley-johnson-my-son-boris-is-wrong-on-brexit-the-eu-is-good-for-the-environment-a3228486.html

"the prime minister tried his best with the renegotiations but..."

So many of those who are campaigning on the remain side are telling us that we'd be voting to stay in a flawed organisation but that staying means we can influence change of some form or other. The issues within the EU are many, too many unelected posts, too little control of finances, a level of overheads and beaurocracy that is unsustainable, it was barely functional with 9 member states it's disfunctional now with 28.
As we've seen recently attempting to balance the interests of the countries within the United Kingdom is difficult, attempting to balance the interests of 28 nations is ridiculously hard. The suggestion of any meaningful renegotiation being possible is just laughable.

Whether we stay or leave we are faced with a significant measure of uncertainty, at least by leaving we can have a greater level of control over our future path.

So you agree that Gove is a liar then?

[david3103]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853

Complete and utter pish from Gove.  Its a disgrace that he is not being fully taken to task for this.  There is zero chance that the UK will be allowed to trade freely while being able to ignore single market regulations.  He should be sacked from the government.

Yeah, that was nonsense. He knows very well that we would have to continue to apply EU regulations even if we not members. Stanley Johnson explained why in a nutshell in today's ES:
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/stanley-johnson-my-son-boris-is-wrong-on-brexit-the-eu-is-good-for-the-environment-a3228486.html

"the prime minister tried his best with the renegotiations but..."

So many of those who are campaigning on the remain side are telling us that we'd be voting to stay in a flawed organisation but that staying means we can influence change of some form or other. The issues within the EU are many, too many unelected posts, too little control of finances, a level of overheads and beaurocracy that is unsustainable, it was barely functional with 9 member states it's disfunctional now with 28.
As we've seen recently attempting to balance the interests of the countries within the United Kingdom is difficult, attempting to balance the interests of 28 nations is ridiculously hard. The suggestion of any meaningful renegotiation being possible is just laughable.

Whether we stay or leave we are faced with a significant measure of uncertainty, at least by leaving we can have a greater level of control over our future path.

So you agree that Gove is a liar then?

I agree that Gove is a politician who is as likely to tell the truth as any other politician.

To define him as a 'liar' because he expressed a view on the future that doesn't coincide with yours seems somewhat OTT.

For every 'lie' that you may list for Gove I'm sure we can find another from the Remain camp.

[MintTrav]

at least by leaving we can have a greater level of control over our future path.

That's one of the main reasons I think we should stay in. The EU has forced us to get on and enact so much beneficial legislation that UK politicians wouldn't have brought in for decades, if ever. Or, even if they wanted to, they would have had to overcome diehard foot-draggers blocking progress - all the anti-discrimination and equality legislation, for starters.

[doubleup]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853

Complete and utter pish from Gove.  Its a disgrace that he is not being fully taken to task for this.  There is zero chance that the UK will be allowed to trade freely while being able to ignore single market regulations.  He should be sacked from the government.

Yeah, that was nonsense. He knows very well that we would have to continue to apply EU regulations even if we not members. Stanley Johnson explained why in a nutshell in today's ES:
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/stanley-johnson-my-son-boris-is-wrong-on-brexit-the-eu-is-good-for-the-environment-a3228486.html

"the prime minister tried his best with the renegotiations but..."

So many of those who are campaigning on the remain side are telling us that we'd be voting to stay in a flawed organisation but that staying means we can influence change of some form or other. The issues within the EU are many, too many unelected posts, too little control of finances, a level of overheads and beaurocracy that is unsustainable, it was barely functional with 9 member states it's disfunctional now with 28.
As we've seen recently attempting to balance the interests of the countries within the United Kingdom is difficult, attempting to balance the interests of 28 nations is ridiculously hard. The suggestion of any meaningful renegotiation being possible is just laughable.

Whether we stay or leave we are faced with a significant measure of uncertainty, at least by leaving we can have a greater level of control over our future path.

So you agree that Gove is a liar then?

I agree that Gove is a politician who is as likely to tell the truth as any other politician.

To define him as a 'liar' because he expressed a view on the future that doesn't coincide with yours seems somewhat OTT.

For every 'lie' that you may list for Gove I'm sure we can find another from the Remain camp.

A liar is someone who says something that they know to be untrue.  Gove knows that there is no "free trade zone" and no possibility of any trade agreement that does not involve "regulation" of some kind.  He knows that the biggest issue brexit has to face is being excluded from the single market, so rather than face that issue, he tells a lie.  He is actually a traitor.

[david3103]

at least by leaving we can have a greater level of control over our future path.

That's one of the main reasons I think we should stay in. The EU has forced us to get on and enact so much beneficial legislation that UK politicians wouldn't have brought in for decades, if ever. Or, even if they wanted to, they would have had to overcome diehard foot-draggers blocking progress - all the anti-discrimination and equality legislation, for starters.

Do you really believe that? Surely the course of human understanding and awareness brought about the anti-discrimanation legislation. There was no EU when Wilberforce was around. No EU when Universal Suffrage was introduced. No EU when the NHS was established. Yet this country managed all those things.
This country has had a Bill of Rights for over 400 years, and created the Mother of Parliaments whilst some of those countries who have 'forced us to get on' were still basically nations of peasant farmers.

The EU has expanded far beyond it's remit, the Eurozone is crumbling to dust and the homogenising of laws across a diverse set of nations leads not to a 'One size fits all' Nirvana, but to a mish mash of legislation that suits nobody well.

It is an undemocratic over expensive layer of interfering government, not a facilitator of trade and equitable treatment of all.

[MintTrav]

at least by leaving we can have a greater level of control over our future path.

That's one of the main reasons I think we should stay in. The EU has forced us to get on and enact so much beneficial legislation that UK politicians wouldn't have brought in for decades, if ever. Or, even if they wanted to, they would have had to overcome diehard foot-draggers blocking progress - all the anti-discrimination and equality legislation, for starters.

Do you really believe that? Surely the course of human understanding and awareness brought about the anti-discrimanation legislation. There was no EU when Wilberforce was around. No EU when Universal Suffrage was introduced. No EU when the NHS was established. Yet this country managed all those things.
This country has had a Bill of Rights for over 400 years, and created the Mother of Parliaments whilst some of those countries who have 'forced us to get on' were still basically nations of peasant farmers.

The EU has expanded far beyond it's remit, the Eurozone is crumbling to dust and the homogenising of laws across a diverse set of nations leads not to a 'One size fits all' Nirvana, but to a mish mash of legislation that suits nobody well.

It is an undemocratic over expensive layer of interfering government, not a facilitator of trade and equitable treatment of all.

Maybe I misworded it. I didn't mean the UK in particular. I just said UK cos that's where we are, but the same applies in all the countries. The EU has forced them all to improve human rights whereas, left to themselves, the politicians and public of probably all of them would have taken forever to do it.

[david3103]

at least by leaving we can have a greater level of control over our future path.

That's one of the main reasons I think we should stay in. The EU has forced us to get on and enact so much beneficial legislation that UK politicians wouldn't have brought in for decades, if ever. Or, even if they wanted to, they would have had to overcome diehard foot-draggers blocking progress - all the anti-discrimination and equality legislation, for starters.

Do you really believe that? Surely the course of human understanding and awareness brought about the anti-discrimanation legislation. There was no EU when Wilberforce was around. No EU when Universal Suffrage was introduced. No EU when the NHS was established. Yet this country managed all those things.
This country has had a Bill of Rights for over 400 years, and created the Mother of Parliaments whilst some of those countries who have 'forced us to get on' were still basically nations of peasant farmers.

The EU has expanded far beyond it's remit, the Eurozone is crumbling to dust and the homogenising of laws across a diverse set of nations leads not to a 'One size fits all' Nirvana, but to a mish mash of legislation that suits nobody well.

It is an undemocratic over expensive layer of interfering government, not a facilitator of trade and equitable treatment of all.

Maybe I misworded it. I didn't mean the UK in particular. I just said UK cos that's where we are, but the same applies in all the countries. The EU has forced them all to improve human rights whereas, left to themselves, the politicians and public of probably all of them would have taken forever to do it.

Ok, but this vote is about whether the UK should carry on being part of what is now essentially a political experiment. I see no benefit to us to continuing to support it.

[MintTrav]

I see no benefit to us to continuing to support it.

Prevention of war?

There are occasional disagreements, but the countries of Europe get on incredibly well with each other these days, and have done for a few decades. It is a total contrast to before when, if they weren't actually at war, they were usually plotting one and working against each other rather than together.

[Rexas]

I don't really know much about all this stuff, and have no facts to back anything up, but it seems to me like the EU is an attempt at getting everyone to work together and help the world (well, europe) to cooperate on an international level to make the world a better place. Isn't this a goal worth working towards?

[Rexas]

Appreciate this may be a very naive/childish view of things.

[david3103]

I see no benefit to us to continuing to support it.

Prevention of war?

There are occasional disagreements, but the countries of Europe get on incredibly well with each other these days, and have done for a few decades. It is a total contrast to before when, if they weren't actually at war, they were usually plotting one and working against each other rather than together.

Correlation is not causation. You might just as easily say that the Eurovision Song Contest has prevented wars. Or could it be that the nations of Western Europe all spent their efforts on assuaging their fear of the Soviet Bear? Maybe it's just variance, it's only 71 years since the last major conflict.

More seriously, have you heard of the United Nations? Founded in 1945.

[david3103]

I don't really know much about all this stuff, and have no facts to back anything up, but it seems to me like the EU is an attempt at getting everyone to work together and help the world (well, europe) to cooperate on an international level to make the world a better place. Isn't this a goal worth working towards?

If that was the totality of the aims and it was being successful then yes, it would obviously be a worthwhile goal.

[Jon MW]

I don't really know much about all this stuff, and have no facts to back anything up, but it seems to me like the EU is an attempt at getting everyone to work together and help the world (well, europe) to cooperate on an international level to make the world a better place. Isn't this a goal worth working towards?

If that was the totality of the aims and it was being successful then yes, it would obviously be a worthwhile goal.

Roughly the aim of the UN was to make everyone get along together.

The aims of a united Europe were to prevent war and famine and to have a free trade network.

Except modern technology in Europe has basically prevented the risk of famine anyway and there is a modern consensus that everyone benefits from free trade and not going to war.

The EU has massive problems with it's lack of accountability and massive levels of waste and corruption plus the consensus on free trade means we'd probably still be able to have a perfectly fine trading network to work with.

But we don't know; and there's a good chance that we 'could' get punished for trying to break it up. If the UK had a vote in the 70's to either join an economic Common Market, a political EU or neither we'd have probably joined the  free trade zone only and we wouldn't have this problem now. As we didn't and it just morphed from free trade into political union then the risk of disruption and recession are just too great. I think for all it's faults the risk of leaving the EU is far higher than the cost of staying.

[TightEnd]

[Rexas]

I don't really know much about all this stuff, and have no facts to back anything up, but it seems to me like the EU is an attempt at getting everyone to work together and help the world (well, europe) to cooperate on an international level to make the world a better place. Isn't this a goal worth working towards?

If that was the totality of the aims and it was being successful then yes, it would obviously be a worthwhile goal.

Roughly the aim of the UN was to make everyone get along together.

The aims of a united Europe were to prevent war and famine and to have a free trade network.

Except modern technology in Europe has basically prevented the risk of famine anyway and there is a modern consensus that everyone benefits from free trade and not going to war.

The EU has massive problems with it's lack of accountability and massive levels of waste and corruption plus the consensus on free trade means we'd probably still be able to have a perfectly fine trading network to work with.

But we don't know; and there's a good chance that we 'could' get punished for trying to break it up. If the UK had a vote in the 70's to either join an economic Common Market, a political EU or neither we'd have probably joined the  free trade zone only and we wouldn't have this problem now. As we didn't and it just morphed from free trade into political union then the risk of disruption and recession are just too great. I think for all it's faults the risk of leaving the EU is far higher than the cost of staying.

Tell that to Donald Trump.