BLUEMOMENT

Surely we are better in than out.
It amazes me that Michael Gove feels qualified to suggest an exit. His devastating impact on the Education system offers clear guidance that the slimy wee fekker should be shot with the blunt end of a ragmans trumpet.
And that twart Boris.

Calm down dear, it's only Westminster. Anyone else have the feeling of déjà vu as last year's "better together" twats are now recycling the Nationalist arguments to justify leaving the EU?

If it all gets too much for you, have a look at this - and come away with a smile at least!

https://vimeo.com/135166094?ref=fb-share&1

claymore wrote:Surely we are better in than out.
It amazes me that Michael Gove feels qualified to suggest an exit. His devastating impact on the Education system offers clear guidance that the slimy wee fekker should be shot with the blunt end of a ragmans trumpet.
And that twart Boris.

You were doing well up to 'clear guidance' and then your argument collapsed.

If one believes that the world is slowly but surely normalising, then it would be an 'In' vote, if one thinks that individualism is how things are to be then 'Out'.

BlowingOldBoots wrote:

claymore wrote:Surely we are better in than out.
It amazes me that Michael Gove feels qualified to suggest an exit. His devastating impact on the Education system offers clear guidance that the slimy wee fekker should be shot with the blunt end of a ragmans trumpet.
And that twart Boris.

You were doing well up to 'clear guidance' and then your argument collapsed.

If one believes that the world is slowly but surely normalising, then it would be an 'In' vote, if one thinks that individualism is how things are to be then 'Out'.

well, I think I did better than you !
The out merchants in the tory party seem bonded by a common thread - they tend to be the very last ones we can trust.
Strange to find Corbyn and Cameron as allies.....

claymore wrote:Strange to find Corbyn and Cameron as allies.....

Even odder to find them both opposed to Galloway. Reminds me of the Indy ref when Galloway and Sheridan were on opposite sides. What's an unreconstructed yacht owning 80s leftie to make of it all?
Derek

Too much identity politics, not enough engagement with actual issues.

Mavanier wrote:Too much identity politics, not enough engagement with actual issues.

This is the issue. I also suspect that no one can say what an 'Out' vote will look like for the UK. Apparently if a member state of the EU wants to leave then they formally notify the EU and then over a few years the EU and UK would negotiate what the new relationship would look like. I think there are two possibilities: -

1. Full access to the EU market, which requires the EU to pay a fee and allow EU citizens free movement - Norway / Switzland relationship.
2. Apply to access certain markets and have a tarrif applied to all goods sold into the approved markets. - China / America relationship.

Questions like fishing quotas, CAP, UK yachts in Europe implications just can not be answered until an exit negotiation takes place.

In my opinion the UK is failing, it has to borrow massively to pay its way, we are up to our gunwales in debt, how is this going to change 'in' or 'out'? So far there is no explanation on how this situation will change if we are out of the EU. Where will we raise the money to run the country from, what markets will we have to trade in, what do we have to do to access them and how will we get our share of the markets to sell our goods and services to? If we can't do it now inside the EU, a marketplace on our doorstep, a protected marketplace from outsiders, how the heck are we going to do it outside the EU market? If we all believe that our politicians are all more or less 'slimy wee fekkers' then is it a high probability that we are done for if it is an 'out' vote?

Your in consternation,

Alastair

BlowingOldBoots wrote:

Mavanier wrote:Too much identity politics, not enough engagement with actual issues.

This is the issue. I also suspect that no one can say what an 'Out' vote will look like for the UK. Apparently if a member state of the EU wants to leave then they formally notify the EU and then over a few years the EU and UK would negotiate what the new relationship would look like. I think there are two possibilities: -

1. Full access to the EU market, which requires the EU to pay a fee and allow EU citizens free movement - Norway / Switzland relationship.
2. Apply to access certain markets and have a tarrif applied to all goods sold into the approved markets. - China / America relationship.

Questions like fishing quotas, CAP, UK yachts in Europe implications just can not be answered until an exit negotiation takes place.

In my opinion the UK is failing, it has to borrow massively to pay its way, we are up to our gunwales in debt, how is this going to change 'in' or 'out'? So far there is no explanation on how this situation will change if we are out of the EU. Where will we raise the money to run the country from, what markets will we have to trade in, what do we have to do to access them and how will we get our share of the markets to sell our goods and services to? If we can't do it now inside the EU, a marketplace on our doorstep, a protected marketplace from outsiders, how the heck are we going to do it outside the EU market? If we all believe that our politicians are all more or less 'slimy wee fekkers' then is it a high probability that we are done for if it is an 'out' vote?

Your in consternation,

Alastair

I am not honestly sure what to make of the pros & cons. If we don't like the way things are run in the EU, we have no real chance to change anything if we are outside. Norway rejected EU membership the last time again, but still has to adhere to many EU standards to be able to trade with their nearest neighbours. I doubt we would find it any different. On another point, I have cousins in Germany and Spain so in some ways find it easier to go with the "remain" brigade.

Opinions of politicians are at an all time low - almost anybody I talk to feels that "our politicians are all more or less 'slimy wee fekkers' " just about hits the nail. So many of them appear to be on the "make" it is depressing.

I know that I spend about the equivalent of a day a week (20%) of my time dealing with the introduction of various forms of control or legislation that arrives from the EU. It costs money to deal with it, and it costs money forever to continue compliance.
But some of that we would do anyway, but there's a tendency in the UK to take an EU directive and gold plate it before local implementation. (Each EU directive gets written into UK law for UK implementation).

Just now for example there's the proposal to ban the use of Chromates. We use this in passivation of galvanized steel. We've tried many alternatives and no joy. We're not the only industry affected, there's those involved in all forms of electroplating, and other metals industries producing cars, planes, and many household goods. An EU wide industry consortium has raised money (>1m Euro) to apply for an exemption for certain controlled industrial uses where it can be shown that alternatives don't work and that the use is necessary. Over 100 people are working full time on this. A company of Brussels lawyers are doing quite nicely out of it; EU bureaucrats are making this occupy their time, and airlines do nicely out flying people to meetings. The consumer pays for all this somehow, indirectly.
And that's only one of over 100 elements and 1 of several thousand substances that the EU are working their way through assessing risk and putting measures in place to control that risk.
Stated as I did ("...working their way through assessing risk and putting measures in place to control that risk") it sounds a good idea. We should assess risk. We should control it. We'll kill fewer people by reducing risk (like was done with lead based paints for example, many infants lives saved by not chewing on it).
But the cost is high.

Recently the manufacture of constructional steelwork came under the CE marking regime, another EU invention. This had a good and apparently noble intent. To allow free trade between EU countries, we should have common standards to apply, so that goods were equivalent. Any country wanting to sell into the EU (which includes UK sales as we're a member) must CE mark their goods. To do so, they must make to a standard, and it must be verifiable that it was. The cost for a typical small steel fabricator of say 5 employees including the owner, was about £20,000. That's the cost to implement the administration required, and get certified. On-going cost perhaps £10k/year. On top of everything else. But the steelwork isn't any different. He (or she) still makes the same steel balcony say, and sells to the same house builder, but it now costs more as a result of this extra administrative burden. Now the principle was to control cross border sales - to harmonise the standards to which it was made. But this type of stuff isn't typically exported. No-one buys a garden gate made in France, or Spain. Its made in Oban, where you live (Or Auchtermucty or wherever). So we've added a whole layer of cost for no benefit. (though a new industry has sprung up helping companies get qualified to CE mark their goods).

So what if we left?
If we wanted to sell goods to the EU, we'd have to be complying with these two bits of bureaucracy still. We might not have to comply for local sales within UK, but we'd have to CE mark goods exported. (As do countries such as China now, in selling to EU). In good UK fashion then, we'd not have double standards, we'd do the same. So, we'd continue to be bound by their rules even if we didn't want them, and were not helping write them.
That doesn't mean that we should lie down and be walked over.
For me the bigger issue is the unspoken UE nation. The move toward one government EU total control, and that while its corrupt.

The EU government accounts have failed their audit for 20 years in a row. (A company in the UK would be struck off for that)
The Brussels machine is a gravy train. What started as a means to free up trade between countries has turned into a movement to merge those countries in every way.
Leaving won't help change that. Staying in and doing nothing wont change that either. Cameron made an attempt to change a little, but got beaten off by the size of the machine, worn down to his last shirt! And so he came back with pitiful changes to some of the things that are least important. (immigration in my opinion isn't the issue - though I speak as an immigrant- our company would not have survived the early 2000s if we had not recruited and brought over 15 people from Poland). Cameron's efforts show how hard change is to bring about. And how costly.
The question is a hard one to answer. In or Out. Just like "Yes or No" was hard. People will pick a small part of the argument, not bother to research the rest of it, and vote on that bit they can understand. I remember an older friend saying she'd voted Yes, "because I hate Thatcher". Maybe I'll vote "Leave" because I'm sick of dealing with Cromium Trioxide.

mm5aho wrote:
...... The EU government accounts have failed their audit for 20 years in a row. (A company in the UK would be struck off for that).

Well, according to The Mail and the Torygraph, anyway. A conservative pro-EU thinktank 'British Influence' offers the following:
'The fact is that, contrary to the convincing assertions by some UK media, the EU accounts have been passed by the independent auditors every year since 2007 as accurate, legal, regular and reliable. Furthermore, the EU has no debt or borrowings and the books are always balanced every year. (From 1994 to 2004, the EU budget was subject to cash-based accounting. Improved accruals-based accounting was introduced in 2005. The European Court of Auditors gave qualified approval to accounts until 2006, and unqualified approval - 'clean' opinion - since 2007.)'

One of the tests I have found useful in decision making about politics is to look at who is for / against it. Thus with the excrable Brian Souter urging a yes vote in the indyref that provided a strong steer towards a no vote. If Nigel Farage and Gorgeous George G are both for Brexit it can't possibly be a good idea, can it?

"Excrable"?

marisca wrote:"Excrable"?

I think he means TWAT, I don't know why as an Englishman I'm translating for two Jocks though.

I just look at motives, I listen to the message and decide what's in it for them, then think if it matches my aspirations.

If it doesn'y involve destruction of the SE and independence of anything north of Notingham it's probably not something I would go with.

marisca wrote:"Excrable"?

Damn you and your pedantry. Clearly a missing letter completely undermines my carefully thought out position. You were a yesser too, weren't you? I rest my case

Two web sites that might be useful when trying to gather factual information to help make a decision: -

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk
https://fullfact.org

The Full Facts sight responds quite quickly to Daily Mail and Question Time claims. I find their newsletter, while not interesting, at least informative.

Hope this helps.