EU - In or Out + Poll.

[Prem51]

I voted to stay out when we had the first referendum in 1975, but I will be voting to stay in this time. I don't like the xenophobic 'Little Englander' tone of the pro-Brexit campaigners.
And I don't buy the argument that we don't have democratic control of our affairs. We do elect MEPs, our Government and PM who is on the 27 member Head of State council, and the PM nominates our EU Commissioners. I think Big Business and multi-national companies influence Government decisions more than ordinary voters anyway, and as an individual country we have less chance of regulating multi-nationals than we would as part of the EU.

 

[Prem51]

their reasoning was "immigrants, saving the NHS (even though the NHS is largely run on immigrants but hey ho!!)

It is strange that pro-Brexit Tory and UKIP politicians who were all for NHS cuts and privatisation are now concerned about 'saving the NHS'.

 

[Lindy1706]

I have long thought with politics that you change your mind like the wind and support whatever you think will give you popularity at the time, people with principles that stick to them never seem to do well it seems.




Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum mobile app

 

[Pinkorchid]

I think the Tories have already decided what we will do...stay in...and I think that is how the majority of the public votes will go. People do not know enough about how it will affect us if we come out and it is the unknown they worry about so I think it will be more a case of... better the devil we know

 

[tim2000s]

If you look at all the "Quantitative data" out there, it is based mostly on hypothesis, supposition and speculation. If you read through the websites for both Stay and Leave campaigns it rapidly becomes apparent that it is not really being fought on a quantitative basis. Both websites are written to produce an emotional response.

Based on the information that is available, the reality is that most people will vote on a gut feel as there isn't any real data out there with regard to what happens next, other than, if we remain, nothing will really change. If we leave, we open Pandora's box, not just for the UK, but for Europe too. But of course, most people in the UK are not looking at that one...

 

[serenity648]

 

[RoseofSharon]

I think the thing that perhaps bothers me most about this whole topic, regardless of the political persuasion of posters, are those posts that talk about smaller poorer countries and their populations that shouldn't be given handouts or help by the UK through the EU. As though giving them our money to assist in catching up is something abhorrent and we should be keeping it to ourselves.

That giving them the opportunity to catch up with Western Europe and helping them do so is somehow wrong. The majority were under Soviet rule for a vast period of time and had no choice as to how they ran themselves and yet they don't deserve assistance in any form when we are in a position to do so. We'd rather shut the doors, kick hard working people out and not help these countries come up to our level of living?

What kind of approach to humanity is that? Yes we are a rich country. Shouldn't we be using that wealth to help poorer countries and isn't closest to home the place to start?

If this kind of attitude, this "Little Englander" is what swings the referendum, then it's not a part of England or Britain that I want to be involved with. Under those terms I am not at all happy to be English.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a difference between helping them to improve and catch up, and allowing ourselves to be a part of a wider community that would bankrupt our country! Any and all charity must be tempered with fiscal responsibility. Remaining in the EU requires poor fiscal resposibility due the extra costs involved.

 

[Catlady19]

I think the thing that perhaps bothers me most about this whole topic, regardless of the political persuasion of posters, are those posts that talk about smaller poorer countries and their populations that shouldn't be given handouts or help by the UK through the EU. As though giving them our money to assist in catching up is something abhorrent and we should be keeping it to ourselves.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally, have no objection to helping other countries (there for the Grace of God, etc) but it should be under our own control and not with an 'open door' policy.

 

[Catlady19]

sadly due to the blinkered uninformed views I overheard yesterday I think we are doomed to exit.

Hmm, our poll is still pretty much 50/50!

 

[RoseofSharon]

I voted to stay out when we had the first referendum in 1975, but I will be voting to stay in this time. I don't like the xenophobic 'Little Englander' tone of the pro-Brexit campaigners.
And I don't buy the argument that we don't have democratic control of our affairs. We do elect MEPs, our Government and PM who is on the 27 member Head of State council, and the PM nominates our EU Commissioners. I think Big Business and multi-national companies influence Government decisions more than ordinary voters anyway, and as an individual country we have less chance of regulating multi-nationals than we would as part of the EU.

The thing is that the MEPs are not the law makers in Europe. The European parliament actually does very little. It is the non-elected commissioners, which make the majority of European Law.

 

[tim2000s]

Remaining in the EU requires poor fiscal resposibility due the extra costs involved.

The European Union has rules on fiscal responsibility – known as the growth and stability pact. The EU fiscal rules are defined as:

• A budget deficit less than 3 % of GDP.
• Public debt less than 60 % of GDP. (or if greater than 60% decreasing by 5 % per year on average over three years). (EU growth and stability pact)

Just to put this into perspective, since World War II, these rules of fiscal responsibility have very rarely been met by the UK.

Likewise, the UK has failed to meet its self imposed rules on Fiscal Responsibility (since it has had them, which stems officially only from the 2010-2015 government), such as budget surplus and debt percentage of GDP. And whether or not we pay money to the EU wouldn't really affect either the UK or EU versions.

So while the leave campaign might like to talk about this as an aspect of leaving, it really doesn't make any difference.

 

[tim2000s]

The thing is that the MEPs are not the law makers in Europe. The European parliament actually does very little. It is the non-elected commissioners, which make the majority of European Law.

Again, more misinformation from the "Leave" campaign. In fact, European laws are drafted by the Commission. That much is true. Once drafted they don't nicely drop into European Country law. Far from it. The draft documentation is then circulated to the Parliament and the Council (or the elected representatives of people from the member countries plus the governmental representatives of the member countries) where they provide feedback and checks and balances against what is written.

The laws are then redrafted and have to be approved by both the Council and Parliament before they can be passed into National Law in the member countries. (I've dealt a lot with this over the past couple of years in my line of business and it's a long and arduous process but results in laws being appropriately changed).

If you compare this to the UK, laws are generally announced by a bill from the Government and then have to be Approved by Parliament, before entering into statute. The processes are broadly similar.

 

[RoseofSharon]

Again, more misinformation from the "Leave" campaign. In fact, European laws are drafted by the Commission. That much is true. Once drafted they don't nicely drop into European Country law. Far from it. The draft documentation is then circulated to the Parliament and the Council (or the elected representatives of people from the member countries plus the governmental representatives of the member countries) where they provide feedback and checks and balances against what is written.

The laws are then redrafted and have to be approved by both the Council and Parliament before they can be passed into National Law in the member countries. (I've dealt a lot with this over the past couple of years in my line of business and it's a long and arduous process but results in laws being appropriately changed).

If you compare this to the UK, laws are generally announced by a bill from the Government and then have to be Approved by Parliament, before entering into statute. The processes are broadly similar.

Funny then how I was taught that in A level law.... I would have thought the lawyers would know where the laws are made!

 

[tim2000s]

Funny then how I was taught that in A level law.... I would have thought the lawyers would know where the laws are made!

Interesting isn't it! Believe me, working in an industry where European laws are heavily in abundance and seeing the insides of the workings of it, the drafts from the Commission (or it's bodies) definitely don't get into UK law unsullied or unapproved. On the latest thing I've been working on, the EU Parliament warned the commission that if it didn't make changes, then they would slap the legislation out of the park because it didn't meet what they wanted to see. The EU council also demanded modifications if it was to be approved.

 

[chris lowe]

I'm not sure that's correct regarding the EU accounts 'not being signed off'. I understand that they've been signed off each year for the past decade or so.

According to Telegraph auditors have refused to sign off accounts again for 18th year running


Sent from my iPhone using DCUK Forum mobile app

 

[KevinPotts]

Chris, that is correct ,not just media hype. The inconsistencies which they refuse to sign off now total in aggregate something approaching €1 trillion of cumulative unapproved accounts.


Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum mobile app

 

[azure]

According to Telegraph auditors have refused to sign off accounts again for 18th year running


Sent from my iPhone using DCUK Forum mobile app

Unfortunately, it's one of those oft-repeated myths. It's untrue because the European Court of Auditors have signed off the accounts as reliable according to international standards since 2007. The Auditors have a website where this can be verified.

 

[azure]

Chris, that is correct ,not just media hype. The inconsistencies which they refuse to sign off now total in aggregate something approaching €1 trillion of cumulative unapproved accounts.


Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum mobile app

I think you're talking about the percentage of fraud and material error? Yes, the auditors noted inconsistencies but they signed off the accounts.

The figures vary from year to year, but the estimated level of actual fraud is around 0.2%. There's something like 4% of 'errors' but these errors can be due to misunderstanding or misapplications for funds.

It's also worth remembering that many of these errors are made by the member states themselves (the UK included). It's also informative to compare the level of error with the level of error in UK institutions like the DWP, etc.

 

[KevinPotts]

I think you're talking about the percentage of fraud and material error? Yes, the auditors noted inconsistencies but they signed off the accounts.

The figures vary from year to year, but the estimated level of actual fraud is around 0.2%. There's something like 4% of 'errors' but these errors can be due to misunderstanding or misapplications for funds.

It's also worth remembering that many of these errors are made by the member states themselves (the UK included). It's also informative to compare the level of error with the level of error in UK institutions like the DWP, etc.

Thanks Azure. That's very helpful


Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum mobile app

 

[tim2000s]

This is a really interesting site for people seeking to understand the "now". https://fullfact.org/ Well worth looking through. Seems to be unbiased.