Should We Leave the EU?

[TheKnightWho]

Yes, the NHS depends on foreign staff. Yes, we're grateful to those staff for treating us when we're ill. Yes, we should be training our own citizens so they become doctors and nurses. These things can all be true.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But that all requires increasing the amount of money spent on the NHS, which is exactly what the Tory government doesn't want to do.

I do not understand Aldaniti's objection at all, because it seems to fail to take into account the fact that a larger population requires more to be employed by the NHS, but that this is offset by the tax contributions of those same immigrants. Study after study has shown immigration is a net positive economically.

Now, if people have objections on a cultural level then fine - but if we want to argue that public services are under strain then we have nowhere else to look but the current government; and leaving the EU would simply give them more power to continue doing what they're already doing.

 

[zuriblue]

Johnson, IDS, Gove and Farrage can be voted out. TTIP will be trickier to remove.

Cameron, Osborne and co are amongst the strongest proponents of TTIP so any post Brexit trade deal is likely to contain TTIP as a matter of course.

And if you think this shower will divert any funds saved by Brexit to the NHS (given the current Health Secretary has previously called for its privatisation) then I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[furnessvale]

Now, if people have objections on a cultural level then fine - but if we want to argue that public services are under strain then we have nowhere else to look but the current government; and leaving the EU would simply give them more power to continue doing what they're already doing.

So we use the EU to impose a left wing agenda on the UK that the people have not voted for?

Fine, but I hope no-one complains when the right wing take over the EU and stop Corbyn doing what he wants when he is democratically elected in the UK.

 

[yorksrob]

And you think Johnson, IDS, Gove and Farage are going to protect the NHS?

Cameron, Osborne and co are amongst the strongest proponents of TTIP so any post Brexit trade deal is likely to contain TTIP as a matter of course.

And if you think this shower will divert any funds saved by Brexit to the NHS (given the current Health Secretary has previously called for its privatisation) then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Yet Cameron, Osbourne and co are also strong proponents of remaining in the EU, which suggests it is pretty much guaranteed if we stay in.

I have my doubts as to how long Cameron and Osbourne could credibly remain in position were they to lose the referendum vote.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So we use the EU to impose a left wing agenda on the UK that the people have not voted for?

Fine, but I hope no-one complains when the right wing take over the EU and stop Corbyn doing what he wants when he is democratically elected in the UK.

If you want to complain about the cuts to the NHS, then I am saying that you should look in the right place.

You can't criticise the EU for something it hasn't done, and then when I point out the real cause say "the EU is imposing a left-wing agenda on us then?". It's completely contradictory.

The EU is not stopping the government from cutting the NHS - the NHS is being forced to look to foreign workers because of the cuts of the current government.

 

[furnessvale]

If you want to complain about the cuts to the NHS, then I am saying that you should look in the right place.

I have made no such complaint.

I am relaxed about the NHS using immigrant labour but see no reason why that has to be used as an excuse to allow unlimited immigration from the EU into all aspects of UK employment.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have made no such complaint.

I am relaxed about the NHS using immigrant labour but see no reason why that has to be used as an excuse to allow unlimited immigration from the EU into all aspects of UK employment.

Then I'm not sure my original response was relevant to you in the first place then.

 

[miami]

Yet Cameron, Osbourne and co are also strong proponents of remaining in the EU, which suggests it is pretty much guaranteed if we stay in.

I have my doubts as to how long Cameron and Osbourne could credibly remain in position were they to lose the referendum vote.

After today's Tory infighting I suspect Cameron will be out by the beginning of July, replaced with the loonie "*******s". Oh how I miss John Major.

TTIP is a modern trade agreement (TPPA is another one), the type we'll have to sign up for to trade post brexit. The rEU is bigger than the uk and will therefore be able to get more concessions than the uk. rEU and Uk combined would be able to get the most.

The complaints about TTIP that I've heard come from people with no actual plan (ukip, trump), and from the eu parliament.

If we leave the EU, Johnson (a friend of turkey) will have signed us up to TTIP, free movement of people, and all the other corporate benefits well before 2020, as well as privitising the NHS, and Corbyn will not win in 2020. The anti-Europe branch of the tories have been trying to do this since the 90s, Major held on by the skin of his teeth, then 13 years of labour and a 5 year coalition meant they couldn't do anything. The next 9 years will be hell for anyone who doesn't vote for the more extreme part of the Tory party (ie 80-85% of us).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So we use the EU to impose a left wing agenda on the UK that the people have not voted for?

Fine, but I hope no-one complains when the right wing take over the EU and stop Corbyn doing what he wants when he is democratically elected in the UK.

Your implying the uk government represent the will of the people, but it doesn't.

 

[yorksrob]

After today's Tory infighting I suspect Cameron will be out by the beginning of July, replaced with the loonie "*******s". Oh how I miss John Major.

TTIP is a modern trade agreement (TPPA is another one), the type we'll have to sign up for to trade post brexit. The rEU is bigger than the uk and will therefore be able to get more concessions than the uk. rEU and Uk combined would be able to get the most.

The complaints about TTIP that I've heard come from people with no actual plan (ukip, trump), and from the eu parliament.

If we leave the EU, Johnson (a friend of turkey) will have signed us up to TTIP, free movement of people, and all the other corporate benefits well before 2020, as well as privitising the NHS, and Corbyn will not win in 2020. The anti-Europe branch of the tories have been trying to do this since the 90s, Major held on by the skin of his teeth, then 13 years of labour and a 5 year coalition meant they couldn't do anything. The next 9 years will be hell for anyone who doesn't vote for the more extreme part of the Tory party (ie 80-85% of us).

We already have a trade agreement with North America. The best plan for the timebeing would be to continue with that.

You're right that labour needs to come up with a philosophy for running the country which doesn't simply ape the corporatist, privatisation agenda of the Tories. It will be unusual, after twenty years of Tory lite but it will have to be done.

 

[miami]

I'm in my 20s, so this will essentially be one of the biggest votes of my lifetime.

And frankly, I do not know which way to vote. The cynical side of me says, "if Obama wants us to stay in the EU, then we should bloody leave". I also wonder if the immigration "problem" is as bad as the exit side are spouting, I can hardly see the whole of Turkey flooding over here. I've seen plenty of videos of "immigrant riots in Belgium/Calais", "Muslims taking over Belgium/they want Sharia law" which look horrifying, but to me shout of trying to win votes through fear and that's probably the idea, and probably anything but immigrants rioting. Most probably, they are probably political riots? God knows. I do wonder the current state of affairs in Calais/Belgium?

Then there's TTIP, and the possible sell off of the NHS "if" we stay, (again probably a ploy)

NB: I'm not anti immigration, but I do believe it should be done 'properly' and be controlled

But then, I also worry about leaving the EU, and what we can be set to loose. Things like the working time directive COULD be attacked. Plus the seemingly unknown effect it may have on future trade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Turkey isn't joining the eu until Cyprus forgive them, no matter how much Douglas Carswell and Boris Johnson want it.

I saw an "immigrant riot in Calais burning a police car" video. It was left wing French natives in Paris doing their annual riot at whatever it is this year. However let's assume they are, how would us leaving eu help? typical project fear campaign techniques.

On immigration as a whole, is there really a difference between someone from Madrid going to London and getting a job compared with someone from Aberdeen doing the same thing?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

http://news.sky.com/story/1703817/nineteen-rescued-from-inflatable-boat-in-channel

No doubt English tourists trying to avoid the French industrial action.

We only have 4 operational Border Force boats, 2 are in the Aegean sea which means 2 are left for the whole of the UK, the French have over 40.
We have scrapped our only Border Force aircraft so have no eyes in the sky at all.

And leaving the EU would help how?

 

[Barn]

On immigration as a whole, is there really a difference between someone from Madrid going to London and getting a job compared with someone from Aberdeen doing the same thing?

Yes, a bit. We can and do plan for our own natural population growth in the long term. We can't plan for EU immigration because it depends on the relative performance of EU economies.

 

[furnessvale]

Your implying the uk government represent the will of the people, but it doesn't.

No problem. You can vote them out every 5 years. Just don't expect people to be happy with the backdoor method of getting the EU to do what our democratically elected government doesn't wish to do.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No problem. You can vote them out every 5 years. Just don't expect people to be happy with the backdoor method of getting the EU to do what our democratically elected government doesn't wish to do.

Only a valid argument if you think the current system is democratic. It isn't.

 

[furnessvale]

Only a valid argument if you think the current system is democratic. It isn't.

Let's hope you feel the same when Corbyn is stopped in his tracks by a (by then) right wing EU.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Let's hope you feel the same when Corbyn is stopped in his tracks by a (by then) right wing EU.

Why do you keep assuming you know my political opinions, and why are you so sure I'm hypocritical?

If the best argument you have is "you'd do the same in my position" with no evidence, then that isn't much of an argument at all. Especially when you have nothing to back it up.

 

[miami]

No problem. You can vote them out every 5 years. Just don't expect people to be happy with the backdoor method of getting the EU to do what our democratically elected government doesn't wish to do.

You can vote the EU parliament out every 5 years too.

Except the EU parliament only passes things when the representitives of 50% of the population vote to pass it. In the UK it's nearer 18%, or 36% if you're being generous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, a bit. We can and do plan for our own natural population growth in the long term. We can't plan for EU immigration because it depends on the relative performance of EU economies.

But the relative performance of the Scottish/Welsh/Northern/Western economy affects how many people go to London, something we can't plan for.

 

[tony_mac]

Will the USA, China etc be joining in or is it just the EU giving away hard earned research?

You do realise that this research is normally 'given away'? Sharing results with others is usually the point of the research. And researchers normally have some form of international collaboration anyway.

Anyway, if anything, the USA is ahead of us on this...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

The Administration is committed to ensuring that, to the greatest extent and with the fewest constraints possible and consistent with law and the objectives set out below, the direct results of federally funded scientific research are made available to and useful for the public, industry, and the scientific community

Admittedly, I can see a lot of practical difficulties to be worked out in how to implement this idea, but to my mind this does provide a good example of the kind of thing for which having a supranational organization like the EU can be really useful.

What typically happens at the moment is that the authors of an article pay a fee to the journal so that they will make the article available for free. There's obviously a disincentive to paying the fee, but making it compulsory will at least level the playing field. It's still early days, so nobody really knows yet how this will work long-term.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Personally I think the problem is not so much sheer numbers but about lack of ability to plan for growth.

It's all very well blaming the government for not allocating resources properly. Doctors take years to train, doctors' surgeries take months or years to get planning permission and be built, teachers take years to train, new schools take years to be built. Housing schemes can take a decade to be built.

We have no idea what next year's immigration figures will be because it depends so much on the economies of other countries. We've been genuinely surprised as a country just how popular a destination we are. I think we'll be surprised again as our living wage is introduced, particularly if it does start to track actual costs of living. The rate is several times basic wages in parts of eastern Europe.

There is some truth in what you say, but as an argument I'd say it's rather weak: Net migration levels over the last 10 years have mainly held between 200K and 300K/year, so it's probably not hard to extrapolate for the next few years. Even without free movement, you'd still have to deal with emigration, which just like immigration, will be highly dependant on other countries' economies. So while I'd agree that free borders makes planning a bit harder, but it's really just an incremental issue on a process that's already very imprecise in any case.

Besides, the actual net migration level the last 10 years has amounted to between 0.3% and 0.5% of the UK population per year. That's really not a high proportionate increase. If I was running a business and I complained that I couldn't plan properly because my client base was increasing by 0.5% a year and that was too much for me to cope with, I think you'd probably conclude that I must be completely incompetent! Yet this rate is being suggested as a reason for the Government being unable to plan!?! (NB. There is a possible get-out in some cases: That 0.3% to 0.5% nationally undoubtedly includes larger changes in some local areas).

You're right that building houses and health centres etc. takes time, but it shouldn't be taking years and years to do so (with the one obvious exception of actually training doctors - you're correct that that process necessarily takes some years).

And a more serious point in many cases is: What planning? You're talking about immigration harming the Government's ability to plan, but I see precious little indication that the Government is giving much thought to even trying to systematically plan in many cases (with a few good exceptions - rail being one obvious one). To take housing as an example: Where are the Government estimates of how many houses are likely to be needed in 10 years time and where, with accompanying plans for how the Government are going to make sure those houses get built, along with accompanying infrastructure? What has the Government done? Well, far from planning for the future, it's just passed the Housing Act which actually forces local authorities and housing associations to sell their houses (a move that we know often simply results in those same houses being let privately at much higher rents after a few years), yet restricts the ability of local authorities to build replacement council houses: A move that appears inexplicable, other than as an ideologically-based attempt to limit social housing. I know my local authority are doing their utmost to get more affordable houses built, but feel the Government is hampering them at every step. Based on past experience, in a couple of years time, immigration will no doubt trotted out again as a scapegoat for the resultant increased lack of housing when the real problem appears to be that the Government is too busy pursuing free market ideology to actually sort out the housing shortage (although I'd agree that immigration does add to the pressure, so it is an extra factor).

 

[yorksrob]

There is some truth in what you say, but as an argument I'd say it's rather weak: Net migration levels over the last 10 years have mainly held between 200K and 300K/year, so it's probably not hard to extrapolate for the next few years. Even without free movement, you'd still have to deal with emigration, which just like immigration, will be highly dependant on other countries' economies. So while I'd agree that free borders makes planning a bit harder, but it's really just an incremental issue on a process that's already very imprecise in any case.

Besides, the actual net migration level the last 10 years has amounted to between 0.3% and 0.5% of the UK population per year. That's really not a high proportionate increase. If I was running a business and I complained that I couldn't plan properly because my client base was increasing by 0.5% a year and that was too much for me to cope with, I think you'd probably conclude that I must be completely incompetent! Yet this rate is being suggested as a reason for the Government being unable to plan!?! (NB. There is a possible get-out in some cases: That 0.3% to 0.5% nationally undoubtedly includes larger changes in some local areas).

You're right that building houses and health centres etc. takes time, but it shouldn't be taking years and years to do so (with the one obvious exception of actually training doctors - you're correct that that process necessarily takes some years).

And a more serious point in many cases is: What planning? You're talking about immigration harming the Government's ability to plan, but I see precious little indication that the Government is giving much thought to even trying to systematically plan in many cases (with a few good exceptions - rail being one obvious one). To take housing as an example: Where are the Government estimates of how many houses are likely to be needed in 10 years time and where, with accompanying plans for how the Government are going to make sure those houses get built, along with accompanying infrastructure? What has the Government done? Well, far from planning for the future, it's just passed the Housing Act which actually forces local authorities and housing associations to sell their houses (a move that we know often simply results in those same houses being let privately at much higher rents after a few years), yet restricts the ability of local authorities to build replacement council houses: A move that appears inexplicable, other than as an ideologically-based attempt to limit social housing. I know my local authority are doing their utmost to get more affordable houses built, but feel the Government is hampering them at every step. Based on past experience, in a couple of years time, immigration will no doubt trotted out again as a scapegoat for the resultant increased lack of housing when the real problem appears to be that the Government is too busy pursuing free market ideology to actually sort out the housing shortage (although I'd agree that immigration does add to the pressure, so it is an extra factor).

Very good points, well made. A further enforced sale of social housing will be a disaster.

Alas, this is down to domestic policy and the "flog everything that's not screwed down" ethos that has afflicted British politics for the last thirty years.

 

[Barn]

You're right that building houses and health centres etc. takes time, but it shouldn't be taking years and years to do so (with the one obvious exception of actually training doctors - you're correct that that process necessarily takes some years).

Shouldn't do but, trust me on this, large housing schemes can take 15 years or more in putting together planning strategies, raising finance, dealing with NIMBYs, inquiries and appeals and appeals of the appeals, changes in law and policy, and with one or two recessions in the meantime hitting reset on the business cases and the financing.

The diggers only appear at the very last stages which gives many people a misleading impression of what is involved.

You're right that strategic planning has been poor. This is a combination of:

(a) not being brave enough to take the bold steps needed (such as green belt encroachment) because if done properly they would stem the rise in house prices;

(b) putting collective heads in the sand about immigration figures and imagining they are a short term blip;

(c) not having adequate division of responsibility between central and local government allowing each to blame and frustrate the plans of the other.

 

[furnessvale]

You do realise that this research is normally 'given away'? Sharing results with others is usually the point of the research. And researchers normally have some form of international collaboration anyway.

Anyway, if anything, the USA is ahead of us on this...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf




What typically happens at the moment is that the authors of an article pay a fee to the journal so that they will make the article available for free. There's obviously a disincentive to paying the fee, but making it compulsory will at least level the playing field. It's still early days, so nobody really knows yet how this will work long-term.

Fair enough. So the EU will be doing what an independent UK could do anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why do you keep assuming you know my political opinions, and why are you so sure I'm hypocritical?

If the best argument you have is "you'd do the same in my position" with no evidence, then that isn't much of an argument at all. Especially when you have nothing to back it up.

The last sentence of your post 1711 certainly gives the impression that you are happy with the EU restraining the actions of our UK government because, at the moment, we happen to have a right wing UK government and a (comparatively) left wing EU.

If that is not the case for you, then my comments are certainly valid for the huge numbers of people voting to remain for that reason.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can vote the EU parliament out every 5 years too.

We can vote for 1/28th(ish) of the EU parliament. The rest is decided by others who may, or may not, have views far to the right or left of those held by UK voters.

 

[NSEFAN]

We can vote for 1/28th(ish) of the EU parliament. The rest is decided by others who may, or may not, have views far to the right or left of those held by UK voters.

And the residents in my local consituency can only vote for 1/650 of the commons, the others being voted in by all sorts of other constituencies with completely different concerns (and sometimes different languages!) to mine. How is that any different?

 

[EM2]

We can vote for 1/28th(ish) of the EU parliament. The rest is decided by others who may, or may not, have views far to the right or left of those held by UK voters.

We can vote for 1/650th of the UK House Of Commons. The rest is decided by others who may, or may not, have views far to the right or left of those held by you or me as individual voters.

 

[miami]

The U.K. Votes for about 1/10th of the eu parliament. I have more in common with computer professionals in Munich and Amsterdam than I do with farmers in Wales or fishermen in Cornwall. A fisherman in Cornwall has more in common with a fisherman in Spain than a banker in London or a pilot in Glasgow.

There is this falacy on the leave side of an "us", an implication that what is good for Cumbria and what is good for Clacton are the same.

 

[tony_mac]

Fair enough. So the EU will be doing what an independent UK could do anyway.

Of course any country could do it anyway, but making the research open access costs money, so very few would do this unilaterally.
If every country agrees to do it, then it makes complete sense, and everyone benefits. Otherwise any single country would be better off by not paying and letting everyone else contribute.

Sometimes cooperation will result in a much better solution than everyone just looking after their own interests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_anarchy

 

[Barn]

Of course any country could do it anyway, but making the research open access costs money, so very few would do this unilaterally.

Yes but why doesn't the same argument apply when considering Europe versus the rest of the world? The old-fashioned thinking is that Europe will be fine because it's Europe and people should be proud and grateful to base themselves here. It is no longer true. The clinical trials directive has massively reduced medical trials taking place in Europe (and especially the UK) versus the rest of the world.

 

[Gutfright]

You can vote the EU parliament out every 5 years too

You can vote out the EU parliament, sure. But it's the (completely unelected) European Commission who make the rules. The EU parliament can propose laws to the commission, but the commission can just dismiss the proposals out of hand if it is so minded.

The U.K. Parliamentary system leaves a lot to be desired, but at least it's our elected representatives making the rules that affect us, not an unelected body like the EU commission.

 

[miami]

You can vote out the EU parliament, sure. But it's the (completely unelected) European Commission who make the rules. The EU parliament can propose laws to the commission, but the commission can just dismiss the proposals out of hand if it is so minded.

The U.K. Parliamentary system leaves a lot to be desired, but at least it's our elected representatives making the rules that affect us, not an unelected body like the EU commission.

The eu commission which is selected by our government (Lord Hill at the moment is our contribution)

That commission won't et very far unless the parliament actually approve those rules though. Unlike the uk government, the commission does not control parliament

 

[Gutfright]

The eu commission which is selected by our government (Lord Hill at the moment is our contribution)

That commission won't et very far unless the parliament actually approve those rules though. Unlike the uk government, the commission does not control parliament

I just think it's a bit off that we have a situation where 100% of the population could vote for Green MEPs (for example) who theoretically wouldn't be able to pass any Green laws even with a mandate from the entire population of Europe.

Doesn't sound overly democratic to me, and that's before we even get to the ridiculously unfair allocation of MEPs which effectively means the vote of someone in a small EU country is worth nearly eleven times as much as the vote of someone in the UK. It makes our current constituency boundaries look positively egalitarian in comparison!

 

[Senex]

The U.K. Parliamentary system leaves a lot to be desired, but at least it's our elected representatives making the rules that affect us, not an unelected body like the EU commission.

I don't that that Britain with its manifestly disfunctional first-past-the-post system for the lower house and its totally undemocratic upper house can mount the democracy high horse any more -- pretty well every other country in Europe has a more representative democracy than we do.

Certainly there are EU structures, including the Commission, that need reform, but we should have been trying to do this from within over the years rather than shouting from the sidelines about how different we are and how we dislike it all.