View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit (the EU Referendum debate)

Page 4 of 611
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 609, 610, 611  Next

Zziggy
1179498.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:21 am Reply with quote

I'm sure those aren't the only considerations to take into account.

 
barbados
1179500.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:56 am Reply with quote

I could have listed every consideration, but it would be a very long list, and only a fool would think that we a) just get trade deals, and b) Gazillion is an actual unit of measure shouldn't be allowed to participate in the referendum.
The point is, the only thing we can measure is what we get for our money. Not what might or might not happen.

 
Spud McLaren
1179501.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:03 am Reply with quote

As I have said elsewhere I tend towards IN, although not 100% by any means. Things that tend to sway me (and this is only a f'rinstance, it's not the only factor) is labour law decided (either by directive or ECHR rulings) outside this country - here's a list.

OK, the UK could've made these laws without being directed to by Brussels. But it didn't, probably had no intention of doing, and in some cases opposed the measures. Indeed a small rearguard action is still being fought against some of them (on taking leave for childcare, for example) by small groups affiliated to the Tory party - or so I understand.

 
barbados
1179504.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:21 am Reply with quote

This is where things go wrong in the debate Spud, The laws are a by product of what we get for a money.
As you say the UK could've made the laws without Brussels, whether we would have is neither here nor there.

 
Efros
1179506.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:25 am Reply with quote

 
franticllama
1179509.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:42 am Reply with quote

I love that Efros

I was just about to mention that one of founding reasons for the EU was to make it more difficult for countries to go to war with each other. If Germany (for example) were talking about leaving there might be some eyebrows raised in the British countryside and some less than flattering remarks. There might be some real concern as well. We'd be replicating the American's in a rather dangerous way if we were to leave. It would be a bit like how they proposed the UN and tried to get as many countries as possible to join it and then completely failed to do so themselves.

Yes I know it's not the most accurate of parallels and I'm not sure I've explained my thinking very well.

 
Spud McLaren
1179511.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:53 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
This is where things go wrong in the debate Spud, The laws are a by product of what we get for a money.
I'm not sure that a debate can go wrong - it can be widened, deepened or diverted, but it goes where it goes. Nor am I sure that "the laws are a by product of what we get for a money" is a meaningful statement. The laws are exactly what we get for the money, and they enable all the other benefits/encumbrances. The question, as you've said several times, is whether you think the deal is worth the money. In other words, is it a contract worth renewing - the answer to that is a personal one depending on what weight you give to each facet of the deal. I value the workplace safety regulations, for example, or the regulations relating to time off for childcare. Others may not.

 
barbados
1179512.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:57 am Reply with quote

What we get is a legislature that is removed from Westminster.
Do we need Brussels to make laws? Without Brussels would we stop having laws? Or would Westminster continue as it had done for a thousand years before the EU?

 
Spud McLaren
1179513.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:09 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Do we need Brussels to make laws? Without Brussels would we stop having laws? Or would Westminster continue as it had done for a thousand years before the EU?
1. We shouldn't, no, but evidently we need a kick up the arse to make some laws.
2. You can bet your life we wouldn't, but some quite valuable ones would be repealed if some UK politicians & industrialists had their way.
3. Westminster would continue as it had. I'm not sure whether that would be a good thing or a bad one, or just different from what we have currently. But as I said above, some rather advantageous laws (to the ordinary bod in the street) might not be passed. Who knows?

 
barbados
1179516.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:26 am Reply with quote

Exactly, who knows what might or might not have happened? No one.
Who knows what laws will be introduced? No one.

The fact remains that staying in means that Brussels will continue to makethe rules that not only protectour workers, but also prevent water being sold as an aid to hydration. The relevant question is not do we want paternity pay and do we want straight bananas it is do we want Europe making our laws or Westminster

 
Spud McLaren
1179518.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:44 am Reply with quote

A point I should have made earlier is that the EU does not make laws.

It makes directives, which require its member states to make laws under the framework of the directive. This allows for some flexibility according to local conditions.

As regards "The relevant question [...] is do we want Europe making our laws or Westminster", I'm not keen on being told what to do by anyone, so whether it's Brussels or Westminster is entirely irrelevant to me.

And bananas? I thought it was cucumbers, and that we'd debunked that one a long time go.

 
Spud McLaren
1179519.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:45 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Brussels will continue to [...] prevent water being sold as an aid to hydration.
New one on me. Care to expand on that?

 
ali
1179528.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:20 am Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
barbados wrote:
Brussels will continue to [...] prevent water being sold as an aid to hydration.
New one on me. Care to expand on that?


It's basically bolleaux from the Express. A quote from a body with actual knowledge of the facts:

The British Soft Drinks Association wrote:
The European Food Safety Authority has been asked to rule on several ways of wording the statement that drinking water is good for hydration and therefore good for health. It rejected some wordings on technicalities, but it has supported claims that drinking water is good for normal physical and cognitive functions and normal thermoregulation.

 
Spud McLaren
1179529.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:22 am Reply with quote

Thought as much. Thanks!

This illustrates why the perception of the EU is so warped in the UK. I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but I do feel that the EU is woefully misrepresented by both sides, which view has pretty much been expressed by others earlier in the thread.

 
barbados
1179539.  Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:20 am Reply with quote

It was actually the telegraph, I googled "ridiculous EU directives"
I also agree about the strong misinformation that is coming from both sides of the debate.
We need facts about what we get, we need facts about what that means, we need facts about what it costs, and we need to be made aware that everything els is just speculation

 

Page 4 of 611
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 609, 610, 611  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group