Business for New Europe framing the debate.

[Ultimatum]

http://www.businessforneweurope.org...hat_would_leaving_the_eu_really_look_likelike

And, thus, the debate framing has begun. The BNE has published an idiotic blog post that presents 3 exit scenarios were Britain to leave the EU. As they have done this, the post wasn't even worth reading any further.

Unfortunately, this is what the opposition will do over the next two and a half years--totally and utterly bend the possibilities and facts! And this is also why I think the fickle public will vote to stay in...

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Cameron is back-tracking on comments he made suggesting ministers would have to resign if they wanted to support an 'out' vote. Everything seems to be pointing towards one grand campaign of fear and deception. Fear that leaving the EU would destroy us, and deception that Cameron had re-negotiated anything significant.

The grand referendum stitch-up is fast approaching, and when their socially engineered desired result inevitably arrives, it will be proclaimed by the government triumphantly as settling the question for good, or at least "for a generation".

Perhaps the only choice we have now is a sigh of defeat. The establishment doesn't lose.

 

[Altfish]

The daft thing is that this issue needs to be put to bed for at least a generation. If it is felt that it was a 'stitch up' then UKIP and the Tory anti brigade will carry on moaning and demanding another referendum on their terms.
We will never get neutral/fair information on this issue from either side, so it will be down to the man on the Clapham omnibus to vote as his newspaper tells him to.

 

[philbo]

After the way the arguments went in the AV referendum, then the Scottish referendum, it was painfully obvious from before the EU referendum was even called that the "debate" is going to be lies and distortions from both sides, each trying to outdo the other's ever more extreme exaggerations.

From now on, we're going to see precious little that is factual or objective from either side, and the British electorate, once more afloat on a sea of misinformation, will probably go with whichever spectre they fear the least.

 

[Ultimatum]

If it is felt that it was a 'stitch up'

And, thus, the removal of "purdah" arises...

From now on, we're going to see precious little that is factual or objective from either side, and the British electorate, once more afloat on a sea of misinformation, will probably go with whichever spectre they fear the least.

Out of interest: are you both pro-EU?

 

[Altfish]

Out of interest: are you both pro-EU?

I'm undecided, I want to stay in but requiring some changes. But that's always the case. There is much wrong with the UK governance but I'm not planning on leaving that.
I feel we are better pushing for change from within than sitting on the side lines. After all, if we leave, we will still have to comply with most EU laws if we wish to trade with the member countries.

 

[oldbadger]

.......................................
And this is also why I think the fickle public will vote to stay in...

Well........ looks like it's time for you to give up, then.......... before the referendum has even got ready to start.

I will come back in a bit...... my wife has ordered me........

 

[oldbadger]

r

..............................
Unfortunately, this is what the opposition will do over the next two and a half years--totally and utterly bend the possibilities and facts! And this is also why I think the fickle public will vote to stay in...

It's no good to moan about 'idiot-ideas' and proposals made by various groups......... if you want to win us out of the EU then you and yours have to communicate to the public, win over the public with short and simple messages which make sense to it. And I don't mean 'patronise' the public, either....... I mean that easy, simple, sensible suggestions get fixated into the minds of many whereas complex and convoluted gobbledegook such as BforNE dishes out won't get to the masses. Don't fight BforNE ideas! Give the public your ideas!
Use a 'We don't knock them, they need to knock us' approach.

It's a 'masses' referendum and it needs simple messages! How much can we increase and develop our business with, say, China? India? Rest of World? etc? Loads!
Will we lose trade with Europe if we are effective, efficient and competitive? No!
Do we want a load of EU legal waffle? No!
Do we want our own National Identities? Yes!

........ etc. And we need to get it to press, the media..... out to voters.
It ain't Big Business and Big Club that's voting.......... it's Joe Bloggs and Freda Smith.

 

[Altfish]

r

It's no good to moan about 'idiot-ideas' and proposals made by various groups......... if you want to win us out of the EU then you and yours have to communicate to the public, win over the public with short and simple messages which make sense to it. And I don't mean 'patronise' the public, either....... I mean that easy, simple, sensible suggestions get fixated into the minds of many whereas complex and convoluted gobbledegook such as BforNE dishes out won't get to the masses. Don't fight BforNE ideas! Give the public your ideas!
Use a 'We don't knock them, they need to knock us' approach.

It's a 'masses' referendum and it needs simple messages! How much can we increase and develop our business with, say, China? India? Rest of World? etc? Loads!
Will we lose trade with Europe if we are effective, efficient and competitive? No!
Do we want a load of EU legal waffle? No!
Do we want our own National Identities? Yes!

........ etc. And we need to get it to press, the media..... out to voters.
It ain't Big Business and Big Club that's voting.......... it's Joe Bloggs and Freda Smith. D:

Spot on.
It is interesting that Ultimatum says that pro-EU will "totally and utterly bend the possibilities and facts!". Expect the pro-EU lobby of accusing the antis of exactly the same and of 'playing the fear card'

 

[philbo]

Out of interest: are you both pro-EU?

On balance, IMO we're probably better off in than out, though anybody who says they *know* either way is either deluded or lying. There are way too many imponderables: e.g. it is very likely there will be a higher cost of business for multinationals who want to deal with Europe, though whether this would be enough for those who are threatening to move actually to move in the event of us leaving is hard to say.

If the UK electorate showed more interest in the people they vote for, and voted with their heads rather than, well, whichever part of their anatomy seems to be choosing which candidates they support, then there might be an argument for the freedom to make our own laws unfettered.. but as things stand, overall I'd have to say I like the laws that come out of Europe more than those which parliament passes. I have no great love for the EU, but even less for our elected representatives here.

 

[Ultimatum]

I'm undecided, I want to stay in but requiring some changes. But that's always the case.

What changes?

There is much wrong with the UK governance but I'm not planning on leaving that.

Moving the goalposts.

I feel we are better pushing for change from within than sitting on the side lines.

What is this important "change" that you're talking about?

After all, if we leave, we will still have to comply with most EU laws if we wish to trade with the member countries.

Actually Norway has a veto and exercises that power regularly. Also, Norway can adapt and exempt clauses in new EU law by contesting through a separate court. Their argument for pushing these adaptations and exemptions? That only directives and regulations that apply to the single market are to be implemented. Also, a lot of these "EU Laws" actually establish themselves at forums and organisations (as I have said before) like the WTO, UNECE, and NAFO--of which Norway represents ITSELF and actually has more of an "influence" on the establishment and shaping of this legislation (and, may I remind you, the EU thinks it fine to represent its dozens of member states at many of these bodies).
I believe, and we had this problem in the "number of laws made in Brussels" argument, that by you saying "we will still have to comply with most EU laws" is utterly dishonest. 9-75 percent of EU law is adopted by Norway--therefore, we cannot make any claims.

........ etc. And we need to get it to press, the media.....

And... the post falls apart here.

It ain't Big Business and Big Club that's voting

No, but they'll decide for themselves who will win.

it is very likely there will be a higher cost of business for multinationals who want to deal with Europe,

No, we would still be a part of the single market. I'm not advocating leaving the single market, like Ukip is, but leaving the political union.

though whether this would be enough for those who are threatening to move actually to move in the event of us leaving is hard to say.

Who?

I'd have to say I like the laws that come out of Europe more than those which parliament passes.

Like what?

 

[Altfish]

Ultimatum, I don't do multi quoting as I invariably mess it up, so I'll answer you points one by one...

"What changes?"
e.g. Eligibility for benefits needs looking at and reviewing to reflect benefits available in country of origin.
e.g. The expenses system that operates for MEPs.

"Moving the goalposts."
Not really, just pointing out that our governance has problems that need fixing, but I don't want to leave the UK - how about changes to the voting system that gave your party one seat?

"What is this important "change" that you're talking about?"
See first answer for an examples

"Actually Norway has a veto and exercises that power regularly......"
I think you misunderstand my comment.
What I mean is, as a daft example, the EU passes a law that says, "From now on all plugs used in the EU must have Jean-Claude Juncker's picture on them".
Now if UK firms want to sell plugs to the EU they must meet that requirement. If we were still in the EU we at least have the opportunity to say "this is a bad law" and maybe get it changed.

 

[philbo]

No, we would still be a part of the single market. I'm not advocating leaving the single market, like Ukip is, but leaving the political union.

There's an assumption here which I'm not sure is valid: that we unilaterally get to pick and choose exactly what our status is.

Who?

Really? Even if one ignores the noisiest one, HSBC (as they may well be flouncing, anyway), Deutsche Bank & Airbus are the ones that've been on the radio in the last couple of news broadcasts; Toyota have said they'd rethink their UK plans, as have many other large companies who use the UK as their entry point into the EU market.
This is one of those major imponderables, though: neither of us know whether the UK leaving the EU will cause any of these companies to relocate, or avoid future investment, how these decisions will impact the UK economy. The only thing that is certain is the uncertainty.

Like what?

Comparing, say, the ECHR with Gove's education reforms (and thinking what he might manage to come up with a replacement Human Rights Act); the Working Time Directive vs Lansley's NHS reforms - offhand, I'm trying to think of a bit of legislation passed by the UK parliament in the last 20 years which has been intended to improve the lot of the average person and has actually fulfilled that intention.

..on the converse side, there's the techonologically-illiterate cookie ruling, where they've got hold of the wrong end of the stick completely, misunderstood the problem and passed possibly the most just plain stupid law, ever.

 

[oldbadger]

And... the post falls apart here.

...yes.
The attitude of the OP is not appealing to the people in a progressive and positive way. It seems to snarl, rebuke, shout and put down in a negative and backwards way.
If you don't see this ..... that's ok, but you would be as politically dead as a door-nail if you hoped to win with it.

No, but they'll decide for themselves who will win.

No they won't, Big Business and Money does have clout, but through communication to voters via media.
If you get a good, positive and easy message figured out..........and put it to the people, then I reckon that the UK could vote to leave the EU.

Throwing muck at the opposition will not work.

 

[Ultimatum]

Eligibility for benefits needs looking at and reviewing to reflect benefits available in country of origin.
The expenses system that operates for MEPs.

So no proper constitutional change? You enjoy the idea of ever closer union?

"Moving the goalposts."

Not really, just pointing out that our governance has problems that need fixing, but I don't want to leave the UK - how about changes to the voting system that gave your party one seat?

You're comparing something that we can pull out of totally to something that we cannot possibly pull out of at all.

"What is this important "change" that you're talking about?"

See first answer for an examples

So no constitutional change? And how would both of the first points even apply to us if we pulled out, anyways?

What I mean is, as a daft example, the EU passes a law that says, "From now on all plugs used in the EU must have Jean-Claude Juncker's picture on them".
Now if UK firms want to sell plugs to the EU they must meet that requirement.

No, because this would never happen. Give me a more believable law or, EVEN BETTER, an actual EU regulation so that we can dissect where its origins lie and if, actually, its a useful regulation to abide by anyways.

There's an assumption here which I'm not sure is valid: that we unilaterally get to pick and choose exactly what our status is.

This is totally valid.
EU = Political Union.
EEA = Single Market.

HSBC

That had nothing to do with EU membership, but with the increased bank levy. HSBC were blackmailing the Treasury.
As far as I'm concerned: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!". Utterly dishonest.

Even if we left, their trading environment wouldn't change, as financial regulation is a global business. Financial Stability Board ---> United Kingdom.

Deutsche Bank

I remember that Deutsche Bank had to pay a $2.5 billion fine to settle the investigations into the Libor rigging scandals. They should probably spend their time and efforts into properly managing their own business before not actually giving reasons as to why we should stay in the EU.

Airbus

[the EU market.

EU market? Hahaha...
What you meant to say was the "EEA market". After all, the EEA is the single market.

 

[Altfish]

"No, because this would never happen. Give me a more believable law or, EVEN BETTER, an actual EU regulation so that we can dissect where its origins lie and if, actually, its a useful regulation to abide by anyways."

How believable the law is is irrelevant, it is the fact that the UK has no input into making the law.

I can't give you an 'actual' law because that doesn't apply because the UK would have had the opportunity to input into the drafting of the law and influence the outcome. That's my point.

 

[Ultimatum]

How believable the law is is irrelevant

False. It's awfully important that you give me some realistic examples. Hypothesizing will get us nowhere in regards to this subject.

it is the fact that the UK has no input into making the law.

Do you not listen? We are in the midst of a Cambrian Explosion of globalization!

I can't give you an 'actual' law because that doesn't apply because the UK would have had the opportunity to input into the drafting of the law and influence the outcome. That's my point.

See above. Most environmental regulation, for example, isn't "made" by the EU--but has influence from outside organizations...

 

[Altfish]

I think it is you who are not listening.
My argument is that one of the reasons we should stay in Europe is because we can at least be involved with and influence laws that are made by the EU.

I'm totally confused with what you are saying. Are you saying that the EU doesn't make laws? I thought that was UKIP's main complaint that the UK no longer has control over UK law making,

 

[Ultimatum]

My argument is that one of the reasons we should stay in Europe is because we can at least be involved with and influence laws that are made by the EU.

Let me put it in an easier way for you to understand, Altfish.

The EU institutions, collectively, employ fewer people than the BBC--do you honestly think that this amount of people could churn out the 10s of thousands of pieces of legislation by themselves?
My point is that Norway takes a totally representative seat for itself at organizations like WP.29, WTO, UNECE, NAFO, Codex, etc.--which is where most EU law originates anyways, whereas we are represented ON BEHALF of a supranational organization; this, simply, means that we have no INDEPENDENT power of veto UNLIKE Norway.

Now, would you stop using this influence meme?

 

[Altfish]

Let me put it in an easier way for you to understand, Altfish.

The EU institutions, collectively, employ fewer people than the BBC--do you honestly think that this amount of people could churn out the 10s of thousands of pieces of legislation by themselves?
My point is that Norway takes a totally representative seat for itself at organizations like WP.29, WTO, UNECE, NAFO, Codex, etc.--which is where most EU law originates anyways, whereas we are represented ON BEHALF of a supranational organization; this, simply, means that we have no INDEPENDENT power of veto UNLIKE Norway.

Now, would you stop using this influence meme?

Let me put it in an easier way for you to understand, Ultimatum.

I know that, I realise that the EU do not make the laws in isolation. However, if we are out of the EU we play no part in that law making process. But many of the laws to do with trade will still apply to us if we want to continue to trade with the EU