Britain's EU Referendum

[handymanshandle]

On 6/3/2016 at 4:38 PM, Castdeath97 said:

Pretty sure the pound isn't the worlds strongest currency, it's either the Kuwaiti Dinar/Bahraini Dinar/Omani Dinar.

Well I sort of thought the Pound was one the strongest against the US Dollar. But the Kuwaiti Dinar and Bahraini Dinar are pretty much tied in terms of value (though it sounds like the Bahraini Dinar is more valuable than the Kuwaiti Dinar usually).

 

[handymanshandle]

2 hours ago, Schlomo Shekelstein said:

OY VEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

 

if you are voting leave - you are an anti-semite. shame on you, fascist!!!!!!!!!!!!!

only fascists like nigel farage want to leave the EU!!!!!! g_d!!!!!!

 

if you decide to stay in the EU, you will get these great options

1. more money

2. more immigrants for your country (more job, etc, )

3. no fascists. we'll ban them

Well that's one of looking at it.

For them well at least from what I can tell from their PM and their general view on immigrants they'd rather less of them, good going America now your anti-immigrant ways have spread to the UK and some of Europe I hope you're happy with yourselves just because there's one or two bad immigrants shouldn't mean that the rest are bad. Just do more extensive background checks to ensure that they're not one of those bad immigrants. 

 

I wouldn't say it's only him. David Cameron is the one who is mostly involved with this Brexit thing.

[Brennan Price]

To be quite honest, Leaving the EU would be a shambles. I think that because us British wouldn't be able to travel freely throughout Europe, people from Europe wouldn't be able to get into Britain as easily (Not completely bad) and our government will go completely to shit. Look at Britain before the European Union, It was a mess and the government felt like they could do whatever the hell they wanted to us. People were losing their jobs and Britain was generally worse off. Finally, whats this thing with America saying Britain would be at the back of the pile for trade if we left the EU? That is the whole point of the European Union, so trade was free/free'er than what it would be. America isn't even part of the EU so why should they be telling us this. If anything, Britain should be saying it to America because of their stupidly high custom charges.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong on some of this. I am only a teenager that is interested in politics.

[Mug]

3 hours ago, Brennan_Price said:

Look at Britain before the European Union, It was a mess and the government felt like they could do whatever the hell they wanted to us

Not entirely true, it's much the same in that regard just that the government often recieves directives (telling the government to do something about a problem) and physical legislation from the EU, there wouldn't be a massive difference in this regard.

What really crippled the UK before joining the EU was the war debt and fallout from colonial times. Britain is still dealing with these issues today in some respect.

 

3 hours ago, Brennan_Price said:

Finally, whats this thing with America saying Britain would be at the back of the pile for trade if we left the EU? That is the whole point of the European Union, so trade was free/free'er than what it would be. America isn't even part of the EU so why should they be telling us this.

One of the main arguments for the 'Brexiters' is that it will be easy for Britain to renegotiate their trade deals that they had before the single market. Obama basically said that this argument will not stand true because the UK will have just as much priority as the rest of the world when it comes to making trade deals.Obama basically said that the UK wasn't very important in the grand scheme of things which meant that loads of brexiters got really angry because many see our country as more imprtant than it is.

[Quinnbeast]

1 hour ago, Mug said:

One of the main arguments for the 'Brexiters' is that it will be easy for Britain to renegotiate their trade deals that they had before the single market. 

 

Yeah, and they're probably correct in many regards i.e. trade deals would be easier to negotiate without interference from other EU states. The problem being, 'easier' is not likely to also mean 'better for the public'. The argument quickly falls down with the assumption that renewed trade deals outside of EU jurisdiction are automatically a good thing. For example, Brexit seems to be a likely avenue for the UK government to renegotiate more in line with their privatisation agendas, and it certainly wouldn't hinder the move towards selling various public utilities to the highest bidder. Ultimately (and where it gets a bit worrying) is that it could allow many of the regulatory functions that are currently part of the public sector, to be moved into the hands of the service-providers who are primarily hoping to turn a profit. Ultimately, the EU currently offers greater protection (due to the ease at which deals can be vetoed) against harmful trade deals than may well turn out to be considerably worse at the point-of-service, or "consumer" end. Meanwhile, we'll still be paying the same or greater amounts of tax with increasingly less to show for it.

 

Still, while many people are banging on about the massive red-herring that is immigration, perhaps they won't even notice that their health services (among other things) are quietly being sold out from under them for the sake of a few quid for those that stand to benefit (more than a few members of the House of Lords, I'm sure).

[Mug]

42 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

 

Yeah, and they're probably correct in many regards i.e. trade deals would be easier to negotiate without interference from other EU states. The problem being, 'easier' is not likely to also mean 'better for the public'. The argument quickly falls down with the assumption that renewed trade deals outside of EU jurisdiction are automatically a good thing. For example, Brexit seems to be a likely avenue for the UK government to renegotiate more in line with their privatisation agendas, and it certainly wouldn't hinder the move towards selling various public utilities to the highest bidder. Ultimately (and where it gets a bit worrying) is that it could allow many of the regulatory functions that are currently part of the public sector, to be moved into the hands of the service-providers who are primarily hoping to turn a profit. Ultimately, the EU currently offers greater protection (due to the ease at which deals can be vetoed) against harmful trade deals than may well turn out to be a considerably worse at the point-of-service, or "consumer" end. Meanwhile, we'll still be paying the same or greater amounts of tax with increasingly less to show for it.

 

Still, while many people are banging on about the massive red-herring that is immigration, perhaps they won't even notice that their health services (among other things) are quietly being sold out from under them for the sake of a few quid for those that stand to benefit (more than a few members of the House of Lords, I'm sure).

Just a couple of points that i want to pick:

• Utilities in the UK are already privatised (ie: electricity, water, gas, phone lines)
• The EU is more pro-privatisation than you think, they've been going on at the Greek government to privatise utilities to save money. The EU's competition laws them mean that it's difficult to re-nationalise comanies when the country has enough money.
• The health service isn't being sold off, the extent of privatisation in the service at the moment is that some services are being contracted out to companies (like cleaning and catering). However, the government doesn't decide which parts are going to be privatised, the apolitical board of managers that controls the NHS does. Therefore, they'll only contract out (ie privatise) a service if they think that they can realistically save money on it. Idealogically, I'm against it but I do se the merit in saving money especially when it can be taken out of cleaning (and the cleaners be made more efficient) and into saving lives. The health service also has many deals which go under the name PFI. These are basically loans to the health service that helped it fund new hospitals and infrastructure. The trouble with them is that trusts were allowed to borrow too much money and as a result, many trusts are in huge amounts of debt and have spiralling deficits as a result of crippling interest rates. What should have happened is the health service should have been given money by the government that it borrowed because it can borrow at lower rates than trusts. The only advantage of PFI deals is that they meant that the debt wasn't on the government's books so it could claim to be more financially responsible than it was. imo though, this 'backdoor privatisation' thing is all scaremongering, every government's been privatising the NHS since Thatcher. Hardly backdoor is it?

Believe me though, none of these things will be helped by staying in the EU.

[mikat]

On 2-6-2016 at 3:44 PM, laminutederire said:

If the UK leave it probably won't ever come back to the EU. EU countries don't want the UK in it to be honest.

The Union is a dream of collaboration, and we've seen enough of the British money-driven bullshit to know that the UK doesn't want to have a future based on friendships and help.

(Sorry for the language)

 

Edit: Besides, it isn't like the UK is really in the EU, you have neither Euro currency or the will to be in the Schengen space. Both are symbols of European values UK doesn't share.

I went on holiday with school to scotland, with almost no problems with passports n stuff, EU = fine, when i went to the US, i had to wait very long and it was a very annoying process

[Mug]

1 minute ago, mikat said:

holiday to scotland

God, I feel sorry for you now

 

 

[mikat]

2 minutes ago, Mug said:

God, I feel sorry for you now

 

 

lol sometimes i couldn't understand what the people and mcdonalds were saying, they had to repeat themselves 4 times

and it was with school, and i could pick between all kinds of places, but the only 2 which i hadn't been to/wasn't planning on going to were morocco and scotland, and all my friends were going to schotland

[Mug]

2 minutes ago, mikat said:

lol sometimes i couldn't understand what the people and mcdonalds were saying, they had to repeat themselves 4 times

and it was with school, and i could pick between all kinds of places, but the only 2 which i hadn't been to/wasn't planning on going to were morocco and scotland, and all my friends were going to schotland

haha, try going to Liverpool, the accent there is... Interesting.

[mikat]

1 minute ago, Mug said:

haha, try going to Liverpool, the accent there is... Interesting.

sco'ish accent mate

[TechJ]

I'd like to leave. I might be dreaming a little but look how well Australia do. A strict but fair few of immigration is what we need. The thing that annoys me is the campaigning by the government. I always assumed they were supposed to be neutral, but apparently not. 

[Quinnbeast]

2 hours ago, Mug said:

Just a couple of points that i want to pick:

• Utilities in the UK are already privatised (ie: electricity, water, gas, phone lines)
• The EU is more pro-privatisation than you think, they've been going on at the Greek government to privatise utilities to save money. The EU's competition laws them mean that it's difficult to re-nationalise comanies when the country has enough money.
• The health service isn't being sold off, the extent of privatisation in the service at the moment is that some services are being contracted out to companies (like cleaning and catering). However, the government doesn't decide which parts are going to be privatised, the apolitical board of managers that controls the NHS does. Therefore, they'll only contract out (ie privatise) a service if they think that they can realistically save money on it. Idealogically, I'm against it but I do se the merit in saving money especially when it can be taken out of cleaning (and the cleaners be made more efficient) and into saving lives. The health service also has many deals which go under the name PFI. These are basically loans to the health service that helped it fund new hospitals and infrastructure. The trouble with them is that trusts were allowed to borrow too much money and as a result, many trusts are in huge amounts of debt and have spiralling deficits as a result of crippling interest rates. What should have happened is the health service should have been given money by the government that it borrowed because it can borrow at lower rates than trusts. The only advantage of PFI deals is that they meant that the debt wasn't on the government's books so it could claim to be more financially responsible than it was. imo though, this 'backdoor privatisation' thing is all scaremongering, every government's been privatising the NHS since Thatcher. Hardly backdoor is it?

Believe me though, none of these things will be helped by staying in the EU.

 

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I threw in the word utilities (in lieu of, erm, something else?) while forgetting is was a generic term for the services you've listed above. Brain fart! I'm not under any illusion about the pitfalls of the EU, and my gut feeling doesn't generally stray further than a vote for the lesser of two evils. I didn't suggest staying in the EU would improve the current situation, but as I understand it, there are a far greater number of doctors, nurses, GPs and former chief medical officers that actively campaign to continue as part of the EU - I'd hope that they do so with good reason. And when the Brexiters manage to turn an NHS discussion into BECAUSE IMMIGRATION, it makes me want to run in the other direction.

 

Of course, you're absolutely right about the state of privitization of the NHS - it has been an ongoing process. That isn't to say though that it's made perfectly clear to the average punter; outwardly, it would appear that very little has changed in the last 20 years, since most of the point-of-service end of the equation remains 'free'. Most media outlets favour the reporting of sensationalist bullshit over and above providing useful information. Something about better sales blah blah blah...

[Mug]

1 minute ago, Quinnbeast said:

 

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I threw in the word utilities (in lieu of, erm, something else?) while forgetting is was a generic term for the services you've listed above. Brain fart! I'm not under any illusion about the pitfalls of the EU, and my gut feeling doesn't generally stray further than a vote for the lesser of two evils. I didn't suggest staying in the EU would improve the current situation, but as I understand it, there are a far greater number of doctors, nurses, GPs and former chief medical officers that actively campaign to continue as part of the EU - I'd hope that they do so with good reason. And when the Brexiters manage to turn an NHS discussion into BECAUSE IMMIGRATION, it makes me want to run in the other direction.

 

Of course, you're absolutely right about the state of privitization of the NHS - it has been an ongoing process. That isn't to say though that it's made perfectly clear to the average punter; outwardly, it would appear that very little has changed in the last 20 years, since most of the point-of-service end of the equation remains 'free'. Most media outlets favour the reporting of sensationalist bullshit over and above providing useful information. Something about better sales blah blah blah...

Exactly, I feel like the immigration argument is ridiculous, it plays on people's underlying prejudices which isn't right. It'll get results but it's so immoral.

[Quinnbeast]

4 hours ago, Mug said:

God, I feel sorry for you now

 

Careful. I might go getting all offended and stuff.

[Schlomo Shekelstein]

10 hours ago, wcreek said:

Well that's one of looking at it.

For them well at least from what I can tell from their PM and their general view on immigrants they'd rather less of them, good going America now your anti-immigrant ways have spread to the UK and some of Europe I hope you're happy with yourselves just because there's one or two bad immigrants shouldn't mean that the rest are bad. Just do more extensive background checks to ensure that they're not one of those bad immigrants. 

 

I wouldn't say it's only him. David Cameron is the one who is mostly involved with this Brexit thing.

No! David Cameron is a good goy in my books! He would never vote leave!

[Rekojylekilun]

8 minutes ago, Schlomo Shekelstein said:

No! David Cameron is a good goy in my books! He would never vote leave!

I wouldn't mind getting a taste of Clive Palmer.

[Brennan Price]

21 hours ago, Mug said:

Not entirely true, it's much the same in that regard just that the government often recieves directives (telling the government to do something about a problem) and physical legislation from the EU, there wouldn't be a massive difference in this regard.

What really crippled the UK before joining the EU was the war debt and fallout from colonial times. Britain is still dealing with these issues today in some respect.

 

One of the main arguments for the 'Brexiters' is that it will be easy for Britain to renegotiate their trade deals that they had before the single market. Obama basically said that this argument will not stand true because the UK will have just as much priority as the rest of the world when it comes to making trade deals.Obama basically said that the UK wasn't very important in the grand scheme of things which meant that loads of brexiters got really angry because many see our country as more imprtant than it is.

Now it makes much more sense, Thanks for the reply