Brexit: the referendum

[MikeG]

The summary suggests that the biggest barrier to Africans selling food in Europe is the distance. I am not sure that 'fault' can be laid at the EU's door.

Really? This is for another thread, but you don't think that export subsidies for EU sugar, for instance, make it impossible for African farmers to compete? You don't think that Oxfam know what they're talking about:

Oxfam ranks Europe first according to an index, which measures protectionism by the world's biggest trading powers, followed by the US, Canada and Japan. Oxfam estimated that high tariffs and subsidies cost poor countries 100billion dollars a year, which is twice as much as they receive in aid, the Guardian writes

.

Let's not divert this thread, heh?

 

[SusanB-M1]

It seems to me that many of the comments I've heard )on radio ) are from people who focus on one or two details and do not look at the future or a wider picture; or else they have an idealised, everything will be lovely if only such and such, picture. .

Thank you for comments, Angrysoba, MikeG and Puppyco.

*which

 

[H'ethetheth]

I'll get back to you when I find what Cameron actually said.

He says the following things:

- Britain will be permanently out of "ever closer union", and never be part of a European "superstate"
- Tough new restrictions on acces to the wellfare system for EU migrants. (no more something for nothing)
- Britain will never join the Euro, and we've secured vital protections for our economy.
- Full say over the free trade single market, while remaining outside the Euro

And further summarizing:

We'll be in the parts of Europe that work for us, influencing the decisions that affect us, in the driving seat of the world's biggest market, and with the ability to keep our people safe. And we'll be out of the parts of Europe that don't work for us: Out of the open borders, ut of the bail-outs, out of the Euro, and out of those schemes in which Britain wants no part.

Some of these things are fine and/or already in effect. For instance, the way things are going at the moment, I seriously doubt there wil ever be a European superstate for Britain not to be part of within my lifetime.

What irritates me are the following things:
The tough new restrictions thing, which will affect European citizens in Britain, but Britons in the EU will presumably be able to access the wellfare systems of their countries of residence.
The bail-outs comment tells me that the prevailing opinion is that the Greek economy is a problem created only by the Euro. Firstly, I'm not sure that's an entirely fair description, and secondly it's still a problem to be solved by the EU, of which Britain is a part, and by the common market, the driving seat of which is a thing Cameron feels Britain should be in.

In short, I think icerat's summary was not completely fair, but special treatment (if perhaps not snowflake) is a well deseved description for this bargain. I think the EU pretty much bent over backward to keep Britain in, and I'm not sure they should have.

 

[MikeG]

He says the following things:

- Britain will be permanently out of "ever closer union", and never be part of a European "superstate"
- Tough new restrictions on acces to the wellfare system for EU migrants. (no more something for nothing)
- Britain will never join the Euro, and we've secured vital protections for our economy.
- Full say over the free trade single market, while remaining outside the Euro...........

So, we agree then, he most certainly did not say:

........ Cameron feels the need to announce that he bargained for getting all the advantages of EU membership and none of the costs...........

 

[MikeG]

.......What irritates me are the following things:
The tough new restrictions thing, which will affect European citizens in Britain, but Britons in the EU will presumably be able to access the wellfare systems of their countries of residence..........

If you spent less time being irritated, and more time reading, you might understand that other countries, including Germany, have welfare systems in which you have to have contributed first before you can be a beneficiary of at least some of the payments. Therefore migrants are not eligible to receive some benefits until they have been in the country for a certain length of time. As the UK doesn't have such a bar to immediate benefit payments, it would only be fair, wouldn't you say, if this were recognised in our obligations under EU law? But hey, what are a few pesky little facts when a general irritation with a country is at stake?

 

[H'ethetheth]

So, we agree then, he most certainly did not say:

Yes, we agree that he did not speak those exact words. My assumption about icerat's paraphrase was incorrect, but it was certainly not wildly off the mark either, in my opinion.

 

[Information Analyst]

I should have been more specific. When I said Farming I was referring to Sheep. I have no personal experience in other areas. Unless you include Highland Cows. Ever tried getting a passport for a cow? I kid you not. Suffice to say I developed a hatred for sheep and cows, unless they're on a plate.

Shellfish Protected Areas is merely an example of something that looks good on the paper on which it is penned in Brussels, but in practice is pointless and causes more problems than the imaginary ones it prevents.

A better example could have been the recycling of domestic waste in The UK. In theory a very sound idea that everyone agrees with. In practice a major cock-up because Local Councils have to meet quotas set by The EU or face hefty fines, and that is all some of them do... meet quotas regardless of the consequences. The EU cares not a jot how it's rules affect a local area in a country it knows little about - they see everything in black and white with no concessions. The local council has no choice but to implement idiotic systems that, whilst meeting legal obligations set in Brussels, cause and create more problems than they solve. Ironically some areas would be more 'Green' without The EU imposing silly rules.

People seem very quick to cherry-pick "silly rules from Brussels," but never seem to address whether we would have had the same - or similar - rules even if we'd not been in the EU.

And why claim exceptionalism for "a local area in a country it knows little about," given that if there are such areas in the UK, there are presumably similar ones all across Europe?

 

[Information Analyst]

Get used to it. That is weapon number one for those who have made up their mind to stay in. Weapon number two is to personalise it thus: "X, Y and Z are campaigning to leave. I hate them, therefore I am voting to stay in". It's all very childish. Hopefully, here, we don't need to stoop to those levels.

Luckily, my pre-existing decision to stay in is unaffected by my pre-existing hatred of Boris Johnson.

 

[Information Analyst]

This is causing real problems now. Not imaginary problems. Real ones which are going to get worse because The UK isn't Sweden, Belgium or The Netherlands. We have our own unique problems, infrastructure etc. The EU does not take such things into account when making EU-wide decisions and laws.

Europe is made up of more than Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. If we are not like those three, are we still different from all the rest? I can imagine that we may lag behind those three examples, but are we really worse in this field than Spain or Italy or wherever?

 

[Information Analyst]

Based solely on what I experience, (although I've heard similar from other areas), it is impossible for my local council to meet the quota within budgetary restraints. Or, in old money, they can't afford to do it. So in order for the quota to be met on paper, sacrifices are made within the very services being used in the waste collection system itself. The result is a horrendous mess.

So it's council budget issue, not down to the EU per se. We know that councils are cash-strapped across the board, despite the constantly reminded of how rich a country we are, how strong our economy is, etc.

 

[H'ethetheth]

If you spent less time being irritated, and more time reading, you might understand that other countries, including Germany, have welfare systems in which you have to have contributed first before you can be a beneficiary of at least some of the payments. Therefore migrants are not eligible to receive some benefits until they have been in the country for a certain length of time. As the UK doesn't have such a bar to immediate benefit payments, it would only be fair, wouldn't you say, if this were recognised in our obligations under EU law? But hey, what are a few pesky little facts when a general irritation with a country is at stake?

You might take some of that advice yourself, by the way.
If you stopped being so easily offended by criticism not directed at you personally, you might stop attributing attitudes to me.

I know how this stuff works in Germany. I'm a Dutch immigrant in Germany.
You would have a point if paying in before making use of full unemployment benefits wasn't something Germans themselves also have to do, or if this was mandated by the EU in some way.
If abuse of the British system is a problem, why would one focus on making it difficult for Germans or Romanians to do so, but not for the British themselves?
Is it because the British are (wait for it)

special?

Joking aside, it sounds to me like another instance of the increasingly common* populist implication that foreigners are a problem, which, incidentally, I see as the biggest threat to any kind of European cooperation.



*throughout the civilized world, that is.

 

[Ian Osborne]

If this excruciating video of a former UKIP candidate singing a song about leaving the EU isn't enough to make you want to stay in, I hope you get locked in a darkened room with only Justin Bieber and Nicki Minaj CDs for company.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As the UK doesn't have such a bar to immediate benefit payments,

As far as I know, and having been through the system recently, it definitely does.

I've decided I'm not really that bothered about the EU referendum debate any more. It seems people have already pretty much made up their minds for whatever reason and, to be honest, in the big scheme of things in or out is likely to have only a marginal effect on me personally.

I really have next to no emotional connection to Britain anymore so a lot of the discussion I couldn't care less about. I will vote to stay in and let the dice fall where they may.

 

[MikeG]

.........it sounds to me likeanother instance of the increasingly common* populist implication that foreigners are a problem, which, incidentally, I see as the biggest threat to any kind of European cooperation...........

If that is aimed at me, I'll ask you to withdraw it. That's a pathetic slur.

 

[MikeG]

.........You would have a point if paying in before making use of full unemployment benefits wasn't something Germans themselves also have to do.........

Clearly, you didn't read my post carefully. That is exactly what I said. That is the German system, but it isn't the British system. The German system therefore isn't subject to quite the same level of potential abuse by people who decide to move somewhere just to get higher benefits than they could get at home, which could happen under the British system.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the British should change its entire system to bring it into line with the Germans. Because that sort of thing goes down really well over here.

 

[H'ethetheth]

If that is aimed at me, I'll ask you to withdraw it. That's a pathetic slur.

Without wanting to say too much about this, I do know this was aimed at you quite recently:

If you stopped being so easily offended by criticism not directed at you personally, you might stop attributing attitudes to me.

That said, let me try again:
If what you told me about your wellfare system is true, it appears to me that Cameron has included and emphasised this aspect of the bargain to pander to the demographic that may be swayed by the implication that foreigners are a problem, riding the same wave of xenophobia that Le Pen, Trump, Pegida, AfD, Wilders, Vlaams Blok, PiS, Orbán etc. are riding.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Clearly, you didn't read my post carefully. That is exactly what I said. That is the German system, but it isn't the British system. The German system therefore isn't subject to quite the same level of potential abuse by people who decide to move somewhere just to get higher benefits than they could get at home, which could happen under the British system.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the British should change its entire system to bring it into line with the Germans. Because that sort of thing goes down really well over here.

God, could you put responses to one post in one post please? This is exhausting.

You didn't address my argument at all. My argument was that if abuse of your system is the problem, why not fix it so that it cannot be abused by anyone? Why focus on foreigners? Why not fix it with "tougher restrictions" for British nationals as well. You know: "No more something for nothing."

And the answer to that question is, quite obviously to me, to pander to the xenophobe vote in order to keep Britain in the EU, while simultaneously leveraging that vote to pick the maximum number of raisins from EU membership.

 

[Information Analyst]

Clearly, you didn't read my post carefully. That is exactly what I said. That is the German system, but it isn't the British system. The German system therefore isn't subject to quite the same level of potential abuse by people who decide to move somewhere just to get higher benefits than they could get at home, which could happen under the British system.

People who would, of course, be shocked when they rock up and discover that they get a pittance that barely covers existance in the UK, while being constantly badgered to either get a job, or supply convincing evidence that they're looking for one.

 

[MikeG]

.......You didn't address my argument at all. My argument was that if abuse of your system is the problem, why not fix it so that it cannot be abused by anyone? Why focus on foreigners? Why not fix it with "tougher restrictions" for British nationals as well. You know: "No more something for nothing."

Do you only read one paragraph? I covered this, exactly:

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the British should change its entire system to bring it into line with the Germans. Because that sort of thing goes down really well over here.

 

[catsmate]

I don't know about UK government accounts, but there have been corruption scandals with regard to the EU accounts in the past. The UK is a net contributor, unlike Ireland, <snip>

You really don't know anything about the Eu, do you?