Europe. In or out?

[jmelanie]

Not quite sure why we are even discussing TTIP because Trump Clinton (and in the unlikely event that Sanders is elected) are all against it and are even talking about dismantling NAFTA. Of course what they do once they are elected is another matter.

[gaza09]

And just to be clear on this - if Johnson and the Brexit campaigners were saying, with absolute clarity, they would NOT implement TTIP (or anything like it), because they don't believe in its core ethos, then I'd vote leave. Plain and simple. But in fact the majority of Brexit campaigners, far from rejecting TTIP and its values, are actually massive supporters of what it stands for. The movie posted earlier in this thread - Brexit the Movie - proves this unequivocally.

Here's someone else on this topic and why Brexit would not stop TTIP: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6853876.html

But we are not voting to elect the brexit campaigners into government. If any government did implement a trade deal like TTIP then we could vote them out, along with any deal we disapprove of. How do we vote out the EU commission if we remain and they bring in ANY deals we disapprove of.

[Hubble]

But we are not voting to elect the brexit campaigners into government. If any government did implement a trade deal like TTIP then we could vote them out, along with any deal we disapprove of. How do we vote out the EU commission if we remain and they bring in ANY deals we disapprove of.

Well, assuming this scenario happened - we leave the EU and the government implements TTIP, or something similar - it may be too late to change it. It is so far reaching, it might require something on the scale of a revolution to change it.

It's an interesting point made in favour of Brexit that 'we' can vote out a government we don't like, whereas we can't vote against the EU. In point of fact, only about 13% of our laws come from the EU. The rest are our own laws, implemented by our own government. Whether we leave or not, we can still vote to change the government, and that government still has overriding control of the future of this country, as opposed to the EU.

A good example is tax. We have very different taxation laws to other EU members. We have a much higher minimum wage than most. Some EU countries, like Denmark, have much higher taxation. Some, like Bulgaria, much lower. Some non-EU countries, like Norway, have much higher taxation and the cost of living is far higher too. People argue Norway is better off out of the EU, but would we want its level of taxation and cost of living?

The way I see it - in a very complex situation - we currently have just about the best of both worlds. We remain part of a powerful trading bloc with all the benefits, yet we retain the large part of our sovereignty, including our currency. Some regulations don't suit us, some do. We do still have a veto, despite what others say. We can prevent a country like Turkey from joining the EU (an unlikely event any time soon anyway, IMO). We can and do influence its laws and regulations. It's a compromise. All relationships are about compromise.

Countries outside the EU with the fastest growing economies also have some of the worst conditions for their workers, the lowest pay, and no welfare state - like India. People in this debate who have said they want to see regulations that benefit workers and workers' rights removed, and argue we would be more competitive, seem okay with what would come with that. Personally, I'm not.

I know my grandfathers, uncles and relatives who fought in both world wars, fought to see a fairer society, with better protection for ordinary people. The EU seems to me to be a continuance of this ethos. Whereas TTIP in any form, including the deregulation argued passionately for by every single person in Brexit the Movie, is absolutely against what they fought for.

Freedom is a word easily used and often bandied about in this debate, but what does it really mean? Few of us are truly free in this society, EU or not. In contrast to natural laws which benefit us all, we are bound by conditions imposed by a ruling elite in this society, the people who own the media and the corporations. Their idea of freedom - to make profit without hindrance - differs to mine. The taxes and system that has been imposed upon us - a corporate system - includes all the daily penalties and charges that we simply pay up. Whether we Brexit or not, this system will remain until there is either a revolution, or people wake up enough, en masse, to change things by exercising their collective power. And if that does happen, it will happen whether the we're in the EU or not, and it could sweep all of it away. I call it democracy 2.0. What makes it possible is the internet. So in a sense, whether we vote to stay in or not is a moot point; the bigger question is will we throw off the shackles of corporate power and the banking cabal, or will we remain like free-range slaves? Perhaps, for many, it doesn't matter. As long as life is okay and there's food on the table and a roof over our heads. That is perhaps all we can ask. But in relation to this debate then, under which scenario is it more likely ordinary people will be better off? I'd say, for the time being, it would be to remain in the EU. But I say that with a heavy heart, because I love the idea of true freedom. It's just that I don't think Brexit will guarantee it. In fact far from it. If I did, I'd vote to leave.

[jmelanie]

Well, assuming this scenario happened - we leave the EU and the government implements TTIP, or something similar - it may be too late to change it. It is so far reaching, it might require something on the scale of a revolution to change it.

It's an interesting point made in favour of Brexit that 'we' can vote out a government we don't like, whereas we can't vote against the EU. In point of fact, only about 13% of our laws come from the EU. The rest are our own laws, implemented by our own government. Whether we leave or not, we can still vote to change the government, and that government still has overriding control of the future of this country, as opposed to the EU.

A good example is tax. We have very different taxation laws to other EU members. We have a much higher minimum wage than most. Some EU countries, like Denmark, have much higher taxation. Some, like Bulgaria, much lower. Some non-EU countries, like Norway, have much higher taxation and the cost of living is far higher too. People argue Norway is better off out of the EU, but would we want its level of taxation and cost of living?

The way I see it - in a very complex situation - we currently have just about the best of both worlds. We remain part of a powerful trading bloc with all the benefits, yet we retain the large part of our sovereignty, including our currency. Some regulations don't suit us, some do. We do still have a veto, despite what others say. We can prevent a country like Turkey from joining the EU (an unlikely event any time soon anyway, IMO). We can and do influence its laws and regulations. It's a compromise. All relationships are about compromise.

Countries outside the EU with the fastest growing economies also have some of the worst conditions for their workers, the lowest pay, and no welfare state - like India. People in this debate who have said they want to see regulations that benefit workers and workers' rights removed, and argue we would be more competitive, seem okay with what would come with that. Personally, I'm not.

I know my grandfathers, uncles and relatives who fought in both world wars, fought to see a fairer society, with better protection for ordinary people. The EU seems to me to be a continuance of this ethos. Whereas TTIP in any form, including the deregulation argued passionately for by every single person in Brexit the Movie, is absolutely against what they fought for.

Freedom is a word easily used and often bandied about in this debate, but what does it really mean? Few of us are truly free in this society, EU or not. In contrast to natural laws which benefit us all, we are bound by conditions imposed by a ruling elite in this society, the people who own the media and the corporations. Their idea of freedom - to make profit without hindrance - differs to mine. The taxes and system that has been imposed upon us - a corporate system - includes all the daily penalties and charges that we simply pay up. Whether we Brexit or not, this system will remain until there is either a revolution, or people wake up enough, en masse, to change things by exercising their collective power. And if that does happen, it will happen whether the we're in the EU or not, and it could sweep all of it away. I call it democracy 2.0. What makes it possible is the internet. So in a sense, whether we vote to stay in or not is a moot point; the bigger question is will we throw off the shackles of corporate power and the banking cabal, or will we remain like free-range slaves? Perhaps, for many, it doesn't matter. As long as life is okay and there's food on the table and a roof over our heads. That is perhaps all we can ask. But in relation to this debate then, under which scenario is it more likely ordinary people will be better off? I'd say, for the time being, it would be to remain in the EU. But I say that with a heavy heart, because I love the idea of true freedom. It's just that I don't think Brexit will guarantee it. In fact far from it. If I did, I'd vote to leave.

The world wars had nothing to do with a fairer society. They were wars against tyrants such as Kaiser Bill and Hitler and although my parents voted for the common market they were horrified at the changes that happened when the EU came into force and wondered if their fight had been in vain.

[Hubble]

The world wars had nothing to do with a fairer society. They were wars against tyrants such as Kaiser Bill and Hitler and although my parents voted for the common market they were horrified at the changes that happened when the EU came into force and wondered if their fight had been in vain.

That is simply not true. The world wars for most working class people became an opportunity to enact massive change in our society, and when they were over, the working class agitated for and got that change. The wars were not just against tyrants, they were against values. Although in the first world war the ordinary working man was often little more than cannon fodder - pawns for the elite - they began to truly understand their collective power during that war and understood that they no longer wanted to be treated in that way. I had many conversations with my grandfather about this very point and he told me the men vowed they would change things after the war to improve the lot of the working people.

[jmelanie]

That is simply not true. The world wars for most working class people became an opportunity to enact massive change in our society, and when they were over, the working class agitated for and got that change. The wars were not just against tyrants, they were against values. Although in the first world war the ordinary working man was often little more than cannon fodder - pawns for the elite - they began to truly understand their collective power during that war and understood that they no longer wanted to be treated in that way. I had many conversations with my grandfather about this very point and he told me the men vowed they would change things after the war to improve the lot of the working people.

Not sure what you mean by "working class". My parents did not consider themselves "working class" nor were they "elite". They certainly did not fight to change things. The Fabian society was founded in 1884 which was way before the wars and the Great Unrest took place between 1910-1914 and the war actually brought an end to this unrest. Even if these wars had not taken place the working class would have got the changes they wanted. You could argue that the wars held up these changes.

[Hubble]

Not sure what you mean by "working class". My parents did not consider themselves "working class" nor were they "elite". They certainly did not fight to change things. The Fabian society was founded in 1884 which was way before the wars and the Great Unrest took place between 1910-1914 and the war actually brought an end to this unrest.

There was huge unrest and agitation after the first WW, including, of course, the general strike of 1926. The war did not bring an end to unrest, it merely sidetracked it for 4 years.

Even if these wars had not taken place the working class would have got the changes they wanted.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

You could argue that the wars held up these changes.

You could argue it, but it's pure speculation.

[Hove Ranger]

The world wars had nothing to do with a fairer society. They were wars against tyrants such as Kaiser Bill and Hitler and although my parents voted for the common market they were horrified at the changes that happened when the EU came into force and wondered if their fight had been in vain.

obviously the term "fairer" is open to perspective but the wars paved the way for the post war socialist movement. The NHS, welfare state etc. all products of post war appeasement.

[gaza09]

Well, assuming this scenario happened - we leave the EU and the government implements TTIP, or something similar - it may be too late to change it. It is so far reaching, it might require something on the scale of a revolution to change it.

It's an interesting point made in favour of Brexit that 'we' can vote out a government we don't like, whereas we can't vote against the EU. In point of fact, only about 13% of our laws come from the EU. The rest are our own laws, implemented by our own government. Whether we leave or not, we can still vote to change the government, and that government still has overriding control of the future of this country, as opposed to the EU.

A good example is tax. We have very different taxation laws to other EU members. We have a much higher minimum wage than most. Some EU countries, like Denmark, have much higher taxation. Some, like Bulgaria, much lower. Some non-EU countries, like Norway, have much higher taxation and the cost of living is far higher too. People argue Norway is better off out of the EU, but would we want its level of taxation and cost of living?

The way I see it - in a very complex situation - we currently have just about the best of both worlds. We remain part of a powerful trading bloc with all the benefits, yet we retain the large part of our sovereignty, including our currency. Some regulations don't suit us, some do. We do still have a veto, despite what others say. We can prevent a country like Turkey from joining the EU (an unlikely event any time soon anyway, IMO). We can and do influence its laws and regulations. It's a compromise. All relationships are about compromise.

Countries outside the EU with the fastest growing economies also have some of the worst conditions for their workers, the lowest pay, and no welfare state - like India. People in this debate who have said they want to see regulations that benefit workers and workers' rights removed, and argue we would be more competitive, seem okay with what would come with that. Personally, I'm not.

I know my grandfathers, uncles and relatives who fought in both world wars, fought to see a fairer society, with better protection for ordinary people. The EU seems to me to be a continuance of this ethos. Whereas TTIP in any form, including the deregulation argued passionately for by every single person in Brexit the Movie, is absolutely against what they fought for.

Freedom is a word easily used and often bandied about in this debate, but what does it really mean? Few of us are truly free in this society, EU or not. In contrast to natural laws which benefit us all, we are bound by conditions imposed by a ruling elite in this society, the people who own the media and the corporations. Their idea of freedom - to make profit without hindrance - differs to mine. The taxes and system that has been imposed upon us - a corporate system - includes all the daily penalties and charges that we simply pay up. Whether we Brexit or not, this system will remain until there is either a revolution, or people wake up enough, en masse, to change things by exercising their collective power. And if that does happen, it will happen whether the we're in the EU or not, and it could sweep all of it away. I call it democracy 2.0. What makes it possible is the internet. So in a sense, whether we vote to stay in or not is a moot point; the bigger question is will we throw off the shackles of corporate power and the banking cabal, or will we remain like free-range slaves? Perhaps, for many, it doesn't matter. As long as life is okay and there's food on the table and a roof over our heads. That is perhaps all we can ask. But in relation to this debate then, under which scenario is it more likely ordinary people will be better off? I'd say, for the time being, it would be to remain in the EU. But I say that with a heavy heart, because I love the idea of true freedom. It's just that I don't think Brexit will guarantee it. In fact far from it. If I did, I'd vote to leave.

TTIP would never get through the House of Commons no matter who was in government, so it's a nonsense argument, if we vote to leave it will end any UK involvement with TTIP.
As for your 13% of laws made by the EU, that's pretty arguable as to what your interpretation of a law is, this web site states the different interpretations better then I can https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-w...influenced-eu/

Although I would argue just 1 law dictated to us by unelected bureaucrats is 1 too many

[Stanley]

TTIP would never get through the House of Commons no matter who was in government, so it's a nonsense argument, if we vote to leave it will end any UK involvement with TTIP.

Exactly.

As for your 13% of laws made by the EU, that's pretty arguable as to what your interpretation of a law is, this web site states the different interpretations better then I can https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-w...influenced-eu/

Although I would argue just 1 law dictated to us by unelected bureaucrats is 1 too many

And furthermore the figure would only rise the longer we stay in, which is one thing I would bet money on.

[Hitman34]

Does anyone honestly believe it will be a fair vote.

With so much money and contracts at stake, surley someone is going to rig the vote.

[Stanley]

Does anyone honestly believe it will be a fair vote.

I doubt it Hits, sadly.

Still agree with dave58 though that as many people should get out and vote as possible.

[jmelanie]

Most of the posters on here have already decided on how they are going to vote. I would be interested in hearing from somebody who is undecided.

[nanocopic]

Most of the posters on here have already decided on how they are going to vote. I would be interested in hearing from somebody who is undecided.

Me, I haven't a clue still. There is clearly not going to be a world war if we vote out but I also don't think we are going to suddenly be calling sausages meat tubes because we vote in. My main concern is human rights if we vote out and my concern for staying is, what use has it been so far. I mean are we actually gaining anything long term from the EU that we couldn't do anyway without being in this trade agreement. Both campaigns a just twisted truths and some just plain lies. Both sides.arguments are really exaggerated and pathetic. I kinda expected better considering we have known this referendum was announced a while back. I am also not sure if Cameron is bluffing as really it would be in some of the Tories interest (especially people such as Stephen Trapp) to not be in the EU. He would love to be able to take away disabled people's benefits even more without Brussels laws looming over him.
I can't argue with the fact migration has got stupid. And these open borders taht allow other EU residents to live here whether they have needed valuable skills or not is a bit dim. Of course we should help refugees, but they are separate from.regular migration.
As a disabled guy with learning difficulties, I struggled my way thru multiple computer science courses and I can't help but feel my ability to get a job in the workplace has suffered greatly due to migration. Many more professionals can do what I do for longer and with more professionalism. (Sadly something I can't control either of.) So rather than companies being willing to take on disabled people due to the need for a workforce, these jobs are filled. I feel under this current situation my employment chances get worse and worse and that is certainly something I wish would change.

[Hubble]

Believe it or not, I'm still not 100% decided - I'm still waiting for someone to persuade me to vote out. I think it's reassurances I'd need and unfortunately the major players in the Brexit campaign concern me too much to vote that way. I think it's a shame a cogent case hasn't been put forward by the left wing. I've put my remain arguments up to see how people respond. No one has convinced me those arguments are wrong yet, but people have certainly made me think hard about it.