• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Should We Leave the EU?

Do you believe the UK should stay in or leave the EU?

  • Stay in the EU

    Votes: 229 61.4%
  • Leave the EU

    Votes: 120 32.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 24 6.4%

  • Total voters
    373
Status
Not open for further replies.

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
You should see my big lever arch file of material from the 1975 referendum. ;) a lot of it is in glorious 70s brown!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not quite sure what this meaningless protest tries to achieve as:

1. 10 Downing Street are not likely to accept any post which hasn't been appropriately paid for, nor are they likely to pay for Royal Mail's unpaid postage surcharge; and even if they did,

2. You'd only end up costing taxpayers more, which surely defeats the whole point you're trying to make?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, but if we're saying it's ok to fund publicity produced by the two official campaigns run as companies by limited guarentee then I really fail to see the objection to funding publicity produced by HM government, which can lay claim to democratic accountability and legitimacy (well in majoritarian terms anyway).

Well I'm afraid that's Royal Mails problem, I don't ask for their junk mail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think you would be surprised regarding the immigration question. Certainly the Daily Express had a headline the other day saying that the only way to stop illegal immigration was to leave the EU which was frankly bonkers. Whilst the Express doesn't represent the entire country it was an idiotic thing to say and will appeal to a lot of people who don't know the difference between asylum seekers, legal and illegal immigration and what the EU have to do with it. Combine that with the other papers telling everyone how much we have to pay the EU everyday and that they make all our laws.

Personally I am struggling to find any concrete info to base an informed opinion on.

I didn't see the article in question but I wouldn't say it was necessarily incorrect, I certainly don't see how leaving the EU is going to make the illegal immigration issue worse, in fact I'm struggling to see any valid reason for remaining in the EU.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,398
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
Would I be right in thinking that those who decried the Conservative "Euro-Sceptic" wing in terms of being in opposite political camps now find some of their number attempting strange alliances at this point in time with them?

I wonder if the International Monetary Fund chose an opportune moment in their eyes to make the statement that they did?
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
I didn't see the article in question but I wouldn't say it was necessarily incorrect, I certainly don't see how leaving the EU is going to make the illegal immigration issue worse, in fact I'm struggling to see any valid reason for remaining in the EU.

We subscribe to many international treaties and conventions regarding refugees, and would still be beholden to the European Court of Human Rights if we were to leave the EU anyway. Leaving the EU will have absolutely no effect on the ability of the UK to stop asylum seekers (and if we did, it would be internationally condemned - fat chance we'll ever do that), and the chances of us leaving the ECHR is also nil because it's something the British government had a large hand in setting up, and would - again - be internationally condemned.

As for valid reasons, there's the economic one (we are not just paying £8bn a year in government funding for nothing: we get much higher returns in trade - as well as being used as a stepping-stone for English-speaking multinationals into the EU: not something to be sniffed at), there's the matter of keeping European peace, international cooperation and coherent planning strategies, ensuring trade treaties around the world - the EU spends a large amount of its resources on establishing these, and the UK would have to start again all on its own if we left - along with the fact that we would still be beholden to many EU regulations if we left anyway, just as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are. We'd likely still be paying into the pot if we wanted any sort of special arrangement too (just as those countries do). The idea that leaving is some silver bullet to British freedom (or whatever) doesn't make any sense, and it seems to be something that a lot have pinned their hopes on, as though Britain will suddenly become hugely protectionist and will prevent all sorts of British jobs being lost to abroad etc. Even though unemployment is actually at a 10-year low, and is still very good even if we discount zero-hour contracts.

As for security, the fact is that apart from comments from someone who hasn't worked in MI6 for 10 years (which were also roundly condemned by those who are actually involved in pan-European security today), the EU helps enormously in international counter-terrorism operations. The UK will find it much more difficult to participate in those if we leave, which is something that neither we nor the rest of the EU wants. Fantasies about shutting off borders to stop terrorists makes no sense either: travel for short-stay, which is all you need, will be no easier or harder if we leave.

I've heard the response to many of these points being along the lines of these things either not being necessary (which is false - all of the things listed are very important) or not being something we'd lose if we left because it would be so ridiculous for the UK to stop cooperating on that front (for example: security). But the issue is that we can't pick and choose what parts of the EU we want to cooperate in without paying into it, and being subject to many of the regulations that come out of it. That's the nature of international cooperation which is, whatever your opinion, not going away. Taking for granted the good and saying we'll obviously keep it is extremely naive.

Finally - as for the democratic issue: the European Commission literally consists of people nominated by the member states' governments: i.e. a significant portion of it consists of people our own government put there. There have been almost no situations in which laws are proposed that the UK actually opposes: instead, we ensure that they suit us well. The European Parliament is more democratic than our own, by virtue of how MEPs are elected, and the European Courts are a) not directly part of the EU, and b) aren't elected because electing judges is a really bad idea, and we don't do it in the UK either. Plus, the idea that the EU won't continue to influence and have effects on UK politics if we leave is also silly: the US has considerable influence on UK policy, and an economic powerhouse of a neighbour is absolutely certain to do the same. After all - a very large portion of our trade goes straight through them, and that isn't changing anytime soon.
 
Last edited:

crehld

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2014
Messages
1,994
Location
Norfolk
Would I be right in thinking that those who decried the Conservative "Euro-Sceptic" wing in terms of being in opposite political camps now find some of their number attempting strange alliances at this point in time with them?

I wonder if the International Monetary Fund chose an opportune moment in their eyes to make the statement that they did?

Yes. Those who support or abhore the EU do find themselves making some strange bedfellows. The EU is, fundamentally, built on free market economics and neo-liberalism. A Eurosceptic conservative supporter thus probably has more in common on this issue with the far left than with their own party. And of course the same conundrum applies to Europhile Labour supporters. This probably tells us something about the malleable nature of political ideology and that mainstream political parties' are now 'catch all' rather than 'ideologically driven'.

I can't speak for the IMF, but perhaps they're simply worried about the impact of 'Brexit' upon the functioning and prosperity of the global neo-liberal economic order they depend upon?
 

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,487
Yes. Those who support or abhore the EU do find themselves making some strange bedfellows. The EU is, fundamentally, built on free market economics and neo-liberalism.

It's based on free market economics internally, but it is quite protectionist at its external border when facing the outside world. It is a strange mixture.

This suits economies which trade primarily with their neighbours, like most member starts. It suits an outward-facing economy much less well. I strongly believe that any advantage in international negotiations from the EU's sheer size is more than outweighed by the patchwork of protectionist tendencies within its member states.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,305
Surely this is balanced out by the public funding of the 'in' campaign, which equally has no claims of electoral legitimacy or to represent the majority of this country's citizens ?

As for the Government leaflet - I shall be keeping it as a souvenir along with my millennium bug information leaflet and my copy of the first passengers charter !

You mean the millenium bug which would have had a major impact on many things had people not fixed it beforehand?

2038 will be far worse, I'm planning my pension around it :D
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,380
Location
Liverpool
Well I'm afraid that's Royal Mails problem, I don't ask for their junk mail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I didn't see the article in question but I wouldn't say it was necessarily incorrect, I certainly don't see how leaving the EU is going to make the illegal immigration issue worse, in fact I'm struggling to see any valid reason for remaining in the EU.

This is just a thought but would France have any interest in stopping people leaving Calais for a none EU country if the UK were to become one? Like I say it is just a thought and not me saying that France would let all the camps on to ferries to the UK. At the end of the day the immigration issue is not a major one for me. Just one that drowns out the important stuff like would we be any better off.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,310
Location
Yorks
You should see my big lever arch file of material from the 1975 referendum. ;) a lot of it is in glorious 70s brown!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not quite sure what this meaningless protest tries to achieve as:

1. 10 Downing Street are not likely to accept any post which hasn't been appropriately paid for, nor are they likely to pay for Royal Mail's unpaid postage surcharge; and even if they did,

2. You'd only end up costing taxpayers more, which surely defeats the whole point you're trying to make?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, but if we're saying it's ok to fund publicity produced by the two official campaigns run as companies by limited guarentee then I really fail to see the objection to funding publicity produced by HM government, which can lay claim to democratic accountability and legitimacy (well in majoritarian terms anyway).

That folder does actually sound quite interesting - I wouldn't mind a look through !

I don't personally have any objection to the Governments leaflet, I'm sure people are capable of making up their own minds one way or the other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You mean the millenium bug which would have had a major impact on many things had people not fixed it beforehand?

2038 will be far worse, I'm planning my pension around it :D

Indeed.

2038 now ? Do they ever learn !
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,900
This is just a thought but would France have any interest in stopping people leaving Calais for a none EU country if the UK were to become one? Like I say it is just a thought and not me saying that France would let all the camps on to ferries to the UK. At the end of the day the immigration issue is not a major one for me. Just one that drowns out the important stuff like would we be any better off.

This has been covered elsewhere but,

France may well want to allow people to leave, but the ferries will not load them because of carrier liability.

Every person that a carrier brings into the UK who does not have the correct entry paperwork results in a fine of £2000 for the carrier.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
2038 now ? Do they ever learn !

The 2038 bug is a lot bigger of a problem, although was something far less reasonable for early computers to have avoided due to how it manifests:

Time is stored as a 32-bit number ranging from 32 0s (corresponding to 00:00:00 on 1st Jan 1970) to 0 followed by 31 1s (corresponding to 03:14:07 on 19th Jan 2038). This is called UNIX time. At 03:14:08 the time number will roll-over and be stored as a 1 followed by 31 0s (as you'd expect in any counting system), but that first digit is actually a signifier that the time should be a negative, meaning that it represents some time or other in 1901. Time then counts up from there until 32 1s, which is 23:59:59 on 31st Dec 1969.

This negative function is necessary to represent times between 1901-1970 for spreadsheets etc., but means that time 'runs out' in 2038, causing similar issues to the Milennium Bug. The problem is that it can't be solved by simply storing the year with 4 digits instead of 2, but requires fundamentally changing the way computers count time at a very deep level; it will be impossible to patch older computers to count in 64-bit time due to technical limitations (and the difficulty of doing so), meaning there will have to be wholesale replacement of older hardware at that time; by comparison, the Milennium Bug was often trivial to solve, but required convincing companies to bother doing it in time. It would have been unreasonable to have expected computers to count in 64-bits when UNIX time was conceived due to the massive waste of space that would have been when resources were scarce, as well as the limitations of computers that are not 64-bit counting in 64-bit numbers. However, when the switch-over to that happens in new hardware (as it already is) the space wasted will be absolutely minimal by the standards of the day, and should cover us until the heat death of the universe (15:30:08 on Sunday, 4 December 292,277,026,596).
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,310
Location
Yorks
The 2038 bug is a lot bigger of a problem, although was something far less reasonable for early computers to have avoided due to how it manifests:

Time is stored as a 32-bit number ranging from 32 0s (corresponding to 00:00:00 on 1st Jan 1970) to 0 followed by 31 1s (corresponding to 03:14:07 on 19th Jan 2038). This is called UNIX time. At 03:14:08 the time number will roll-over and be stored as a 1 followed by 31 0s (as you'd expect in any counting system), but that first digit is actually a signifier that the time should be a negative, meaning that it represents some time or other in 1901. Time then counts up from there until 32 1s, which is 23:59:59 on 31st Dec 1969.

This negative function is necessary to represent times between 1901-1970 for spreadsheets etc., but means that time 'runs out' in 2038, causing similar issues to the Milennium Bug. The problem is that it can't be solved by simply storing the year with 4 digits instead of 2, but requires fundamentally changing the way computers count time at a very deep level; it will be impossible to patch older computers to count in 64-bit time due to technical limitations (and the difficulty of doing so), meaning there will have to be wholesale replacement of older hardware at that time; by comparison, the Milennium Bug was often trivial to solve, but required convincing companies to bother doing it in time. It would have been unreasonable to have expected computers to count in 64-bits when UNIX time was conceived due to the massive waste of space that would have been when resources were scarce, as well as the limitations of computers that are not 64-bit counting in 64-bit numbers. However, when the switch-over to that happens in new hardware (as it already is) the space wasted will be absolutely minimal by the standards of the day, and should cover us until the heat death of the universe (15:30:08 on Sunday, 4 December 292,277,026,596).

Even if it doesn't, we'll be swallowed up by the Red Giant before then !
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,892
Location
Fenny Stratford
Jeremy Corbyn has been on television today and made a speech at an event to support Britain staying a member of the EU.

he was - and whilst I am no great fan of his he made some useful points about workers rights. I don't trust Conservatives to preserve the rights we have now outside of the EU. They certainly wont improve them!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,211
Location
SE London
This has been covered elsewhere but,

France may well want to allow people to leave, but the ferries will not load them because of carrier liability.

Every person that a carrier brings into the UK who does not have the correct entry paperwork results in a fine of £2000 for the carrier.

I think the point is that, if the French Government decided not to attempt to stop people from leaving France in order to enter the UK illegally, then there would be nothing to stop those people from so doing - other than whatever security the ferry, rail and haulage companies are able to provide for themselves. Sure, none of the various carriers would want to bring illegal migrants into the UK, and none would deliberately load them, but without the authorities doing anything in Calais, it's unlikely that they would be able to prevent them getting onto lorries and trains - in vastly greater numbers than currently happens.
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
So it's £600 K to each of the two Conservative Party campaign groups to spend as they see fit tearing each other apart - I think this is a great public spectacle, and one I'd be happy to subsidise in my TV licence money if necessary, at the end of which I hope to see both camps defeated and the bodies strewn 'pour encourager les autres'. Trouble is, I can't see Jeremy Corbyn's lot being able to take real advantage, so divided are they: talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sad, though, that Farage, Galloway and Hoey won't be allowed to strut their stuff - I once saw the Moscow State Circus and I thought I'd never see the like of their clowns again, but that lot would run them a close second!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,310
Location
Yorks
Trouble is, I can't see Jeremy Corbyn's lot being able to take real advantage, so divided are they: talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I personally find Jeremy Corbyn's nuanced argument to accept the EU, 'wart's and all' rather more convincing and credible than the unconditional enthusiasm shown by the majority of his party.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,900
I think the point is that, if the French Government decided not to attempt to stop people from leaving France in order to enter the UK illegally, then there would be nothing to stop those people from so doing - other than whatever security the ferry, rail and haulage companies are able to provide for themselves. Sure, none of the various carriers would want to bring illegal migrants into the UK, and none would deliberately load them, but without the authorities doing anything in Calais, it's unlikely that they would be able to prevent them getting onto lorries and trains - in vastly greater numbers than currently happens.

That is always a possibility, but £2000 a head would focus the ferry operator's minds very quickly.

Chaos at Calais is also very much against the interests of a major French port in a comparatively depressed area of the country.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,380
Location
Liverpool
I think the point is that, if the French Government decided not to attempt to stop people from leaving France in order to enter the UK illegally, then there would be nothing to stop those people from so doing - other than whatever security the ferry, rail and haulage companies are able to provide for themselves. Sure, none of the various carriers would want to bring illegal migrants into the UK, and none would deliberately load them, but without the authorities doing anything in Calais, it's unlikely that they would be able to prevent them getting onto lorries and trains - in vastly greater numbers than currently happens.

This is exactly my point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That is always a possibility, but £2000 a head would focus the ferry operator's minds very quickly.

Chaos at Calais is also very much against the interests of a major French port in a comparatively depressed area of the country.

I get your point but it passes the costs on from the French Government to the end users. Us. I'm not saying that that is what would happen but it is something that crossed my mind.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,398
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
I personally find Jeremy Corbyn's nuanced argument to accept the EU, 'wart's and all' rather more convincing and credible than the unconditional enthusiasm shown by the majority of his party.

Yet not so long afterwards, there was the Labour Party MP, Kate Hoey, on television at pains to state the real view held by Jeremy Corbyn, of the EU.

All very confusing...:roll:
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,310
Location
Yorks
Yet not so long afterwards, there was the Labour Party MP, Kate Hoey, on television at pains to state the real view held by Jeremy Corbyn, of the EU.

All very confusing...:roll:

I suspect Kate Hoey's and Jeremy Corbyn's views probably aren't dissimilar on the subject. It's just their opinion on what constitutes the lesser of two evils which is at odds. Not such a confusing concept in a country with a first past the post electoral system I think.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,956
Location
York
I suspect Kate Hoey's and Jeremy Corbyn's views probably aren't dissimilar on the subject. It's just their opinion on what constitutes the lesser of two evils which is at odds. Not such a confusing concept in a country with a first past the post electoral system I think.
And much of politics involves the lesser of two evils. I -- as someone normally totally hostile to Jeremy Corbyn and all he stands for -- found Corbyn's argument rather refreshing for an actual acknowledgement that it's not all black and white and that in the greyness we should do better by arguing out case from the inside. If only over the years more British politicians from all sides had been more willing to get in there and engage and argue our case rather than shout on the sidelines that we knew best all the time (nothing better than that to get people's backs up, is there?) .....
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,577
Apparently, David Cameron won't last long if "he loses" the referendum vote. So, a no vote is a quick way to get rid of the Prime Minister.

Edit: I meant "get rid of" as in remove David Cameron from office.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,398
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
Apparently, David Cameron won't last long if "he loses" the referendum vote. So, a no vote is a quick way to get rid of the Prime Minister.

Edit: I meant "get rid of" as in remove David Cameron from office.

Somehow, for Britain, I feel that there is far more at stake than just a personally held aspiration that you state above (without suggesting someone in the Conservative Party to then become Prime Minister).

David Cameron has already made it known for some time that he will be standing down at the end of the current Parliamentary term
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
Somehow, for Britain, I feel that there is far more at stake than just a personally held aspiration that you state above (without suggesting someone in the Conservative Party to then become Prime Minister).

David Cameron has already made it known for some time that he will be standing down at the end of the current Parliamentary term

Hastening David Cameron's departure is just an added bonus as far as I'm concerned :D
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,305
Hastening David Cameron's departure is just an added bonus as far as I'm concerned :D

Like him or loathe him, there are far worse waiting in the wings.

Corbyn is hardly a cameron-loving chap, and as he rightly points out, as soon as we vote to leave, there'll be a bonfire of workers rights.

I'm afraid this isn't party politics.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
Like him or loathe him, there are far worse waiting in the wings.

Corbyn is hardly a cameron-loving chap, and as he rightly points out, as soon as we vote to leave, there'll be a bonfire of workers rights.

I'm afraid this isn't party politics.

What workers rights? With an endless supply of cheap labour from eastern Europe no longer readily available I'd expect to see some improvements on that front.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
What workers rights? With an endless supply of cheap labour from eastern Europe no longer readily available I'd expect to see some improvements on that front.

From the Tory party, who just want to expand immigration to the rest of the world instead of giving EU migrants a special status? I think this is as deluded as those on the far-left who want to leave so we can become a socialist utopia.

That's aside from the rest of our remaining industry closing down as it no longer remains competitive on the world stage.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top