Are we In or Out?

[MoilyX]

5 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I was never asked for impassioned argument and irrefutable reasoning. That's the problem with the EU - making things much more complicated than they need to be.:)

Very true. Reasoned debate does seem to be beyond the capabilities of the 'out' campaign.

They've done the £350m per week and now the £50m per day so we just need to wait for them to find a bus long enough to fit "£34,722.22222222222 per minute" on it.

[Mardy]

Stopping buy-to-let would be a huge step forward. I kind of accept we're not going to get a mass programme of council house bulding again, but private landlords really are a parasitic blight on society

[bunfight]

43 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

We can only afford the welfare state if we're prepared to pay for it. Don't blame the tories, blame your fellow man.

Western politics found a post war consensus  around centre left (say Wilson, JFK) and centre right (Heath, Nixon....) and that included an assumption that people were prepared to pay for public services. Thatcher and Reagan tore that rule book up and used their friends in the mainstream media to condition workers to believe that they should have as much money left in their pay packets each week as they could get. In the meantime of course the 'trickle up' effects were that the very wealthy kept even more still. Thatcher and Reagan played the biggest con trick ever on their citizens and both (though particularly the UK) have never recovered from it. And as for Housing - the right to buy council houses, also a Thatcher initiative is about 90% to blame for that: so in the 2015 manifesto the Tories extended it to include other social housing providers- Housng Associations.  So there will be even fewer affordable houses to rent. And the people affected will blame immigration. As I said, it has been a con trick of epic proportions and the country has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.   Vote In. 

Edited May 30, 2016 by bunfight

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

I dont understand why the In Campaign havnt spent any time shedding light on the good things that happen because of EU funding etc... I dont have to venture far from my home or work to see the tell tail signs of an EU funded project, be that street works, my office, research projects, transport interchanges etc.. 

 

Sure the EU has some crazy ideas but by the same token it does a lot of good and by and large protects us as individuals. 

 

It's  real shame the referendum is taking place amongst the migration crisis as this is clouding people's judgement.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Stopping buy-to-let would be a huge step forward. I kind of accept we're not going to get a mass programme of council house bulding again, but private landlords really are a parasitic blight on society

I don't disagree, tho the problem isn't so much the attractiveness of houses as an investment, it's because the gain from other investments has become so shite, which has caused people to move their money into about the only thing with a decent return.

The tories have actually done a fair amount to make BTL less financially attractive - to small buyers, anyway. They've kept the attractiveness for corporate buyers.

The problem tho is 40+ years of insufficient house building, which is inevitable if it's only-market-driven and where it's the government who control house prices via the amount of land they release for housing via the planning process ... and that ends up with the attitudes of normal people driving it, including people like 'the Greens' (tho more in the past than more-recently) who've objected to what would be more housing.

Like all these things, the problem is much more squarely rooted in the attitudes of 'the people' of all political leanings than it is <pick random group of hate figures>, and that problem is getting worse and not better. Even 'the left' (self proclaimed, mostly me-me-me thru and thru) is now utterly utterly filled with the self-absorbed and self-centred.

Edited May 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, bunfight said:

Western politics found a post war consensus  around centre left (say Wilson, JFK) and centre right (Heath, Nixon....) and that included an assumption that people were prepared to pay for public services. Thatcher and Reagan tore that rule book up and used their friends in the mainstream media to condition workers to believe that they should have as much money left in their pay packets each week as they could get. In the meantime of course the 'trickle up' effects were that the very wealthy kept even more still. Thatcher and Reagan played the biggest con trick ever on their citizens and both (though particularly the UK) have never recovered from it. And as for Housing - the right to buy council houses, also a Thatcher initiative is about 90% to blame for that: so in the 2015 manifesto the Tories extended it to include other social housing providers- Housng Associations.  So there will be even fewer affordable houses to rent. And the people affected will blame immigration. As I said, it has been a con trick of epic proportions and the country has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.   Vote In. 

Sadly, nope.

Thatcher and Reagan used public feelings to implement what they did. Neither were a dictatorship.

Stop with the hating them over there, and look around you. It's the same thing.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

I'm actually due to complete on my first home around referendum results day, so the house price stuff does worry me a little but I'm buying a place to live not an investment.

The problems started when property became investments and assets rather than homes.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I dont understand why the In Campaign havnt spent any time shedding light on the good things that happen because of EU funding etc.

Because it's not "EU funding"?

Too many people are being suckered by the sorts of plagues that get put up on some public buildings, "built with EU funds" ,etc.

Firstly, we pay in more than we pay back, so they're not "EU funds" they're UK funds.

Secondly, such funds still only include a small proportion of EU money. In almost all cases, the EU funds are only available if the major part of the money is made up from within the UK.

And thirdly, the granting of these funds is now done by the EU and not the member govt to stop member govts giving underhand financial support to things not allowed via EU rules.

It takes brains to be properly engaged to understand how the system works, and most people won't and don't engage their brains about it, and either see it as "EU money" or say the UK govt should be in control of these things.

 

6 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

.. I dont have to venture far from my home or work to see the tell tail signs of an EU funded project, be that street works, my office, research projects, transport interchanges etc.. 

 

Sure the EU has some crazy ideas but by the same token it does a lot of good and by and large protects us as individuals. 

 

It's  real shame the referendum is taking place amongst the migration crisis as this is clouding people's judgement.

See above, and learn more about how the EU does things and why it does things in that way.

You've got it absolutely wrong, but it's a line that nutty nats love no matter what colour shirt they wear as it enables them to sell their vision with lies.

 

[bunfight]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Sadly, nope.

Thatcher and Reagan used public feelings to implement what they did. Neither were a dictatorship.

Thatcher and Reagan were both driven by the same distrust of collectivism. Full employment was 'bad' because it meant people wouldn't be prepared to work hard; rights to housing and welfare were likely to prevent people taking responsibility for their own situation. People weren't clamouring for fewer jobs, high unemployment, housing shortages etc. but Thatcher made us accept them as a consequence of us all being able to consume more with the extra few bob in our pockets. And the demonising of those affected is still happening to this day. Ask anyone who remembers pre Thatcher days: if you were unable to work, either through a lack of jobs, illness, whatever, you were treated with sympathy and respect. Now you are seen as a criminal. That was designed into our social narrative by Thatcher, Keith Joseph etc and Osborne, Gove, Johnson (though not Cameron as much, strangely) have been happy to run with the baton since.

[Festival Liam]

12 hours ago, Titters said:

 

My main bug bear with the whole campaign has been the negative approach and scaremongering from both sides, with neither really putting forward solutions. For example, Remain could take the immigration issue head on - and make it a positive thing (like additional NI contributions made by employers employing foreign nationals...) or highlighting what changes they are going to try to secure within the EU council. 

 

This has been a massive frustration of mine, both campaigns have been terrible. Nice summary.

Voting in, of course. But not with as much conviction as I probably would have 5 years ago. 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I'm actually due to complete on my first home around referendum results day, so the house price stuff does worry me a little but I'm buying a place to live not an investment.

The problems started when property became investments and assets rather than homes.

Nope, the problems start as soon as someone like you buys a house.

While you say you're buying it as a home and not an investment - I don't disbelieve you, btw, just to make that clear - you're going to be pissed as hell if your mortgage is (say) £100k but your house is suddenly only worth £80k. You'll be paying £20k extra for no extra benefit at all. Someone somewhere will have walked away with the £20k extra you needn't have paid. Walked away with YOUR £20k.

As few of us know anyone who happily gives away £20k, the fact that you might lose £20k is going to factor in to your thinking from here.

Edited May 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Because it's not "EU funding"?

Too many people are being suckered by the sorts of plagues that get put up on some public buildings, "built with EU funds" ,etc.

Firstly, we pay in more than we pay back, so they're not "EU funds" they're UK funds.

Secondly, such funds still only include a small proportion of EU money. In almost all cases, the EU funds are only available if the major part of the money is made up from within the UK.

And thirdly, the granting of these funds is now done by the EU and not the member govt to stop member govts giving underhand financial support to things not allowed via EU rules.

It takes brains to be properly engaged to understand how the system works, and most people won't and don't engage their brains about it, and either see it as "EU money" or say the UK govt should be in control of these things.

 

See above, and learn more about how the EU does things and why it does things in that way.

You've got it absolutely wrong, but it's a line that nutty nats love no matter what colour shirt they wear as it enables them to sell their vision with lies.

It might well be pounds that are spent on it but it's spent in places it would never be spent if it didn't go through the process set out by the EU for bidding for such pots of money. 

I'm fully aware we pay in more than we get out but we are (and lov to tell everyone) were richer than they are. I see it as a sign of a civilised society to help those less well off than yourself. 

 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, the problems start as soon as someone like you buys a house.

While you say you're buying it as a home and not an investment - I don't disbelieve you, btw, just to make that clear - you're going to be pissed as hell if your mortgage is (say) £100k but your house is suddenly only worth £80k. You'll be paying £20k extra for no extra benefit at all. Someone somewhere will have walked away with the £20k extra you needn't have paid. Walked away with YOUR £20k.

As few of us know anyone who happily gives away £20k, the fact that you might lose £20k is going to factor in to your thinking from here.

I fully understand the risk of losing money on my house. Of course I'd be annoyed but not as annoyed as I am by how much I've spent on rent since I left home at 18 and have nothing to show for it. Even if I lose money over the 23 year term I have something at the end of it. Plus 23 years (if I stayed there) is a bloody long time. 

I can't wait forever to buy a home we are already having to look past your historical typical first time ebuyer house because there all rental properties and because of the stage of our lives (30) things like a family become a consideration. 

[ourkid1984]

Most of my decent jobs that has been for good causes have been funded by the eu. Now I know that that is essentially money the UK has put into it I am of the belief that if we wasn't in that money would not be spent on the good causes it is currently being spent on, especially with our current government.

Obviously that is just speculation but I'd rather be in a situation where these good things definitely happen than a situation where they might not.

[ourkid1984]

4 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Trouble is loads I see on efests is "I'm voting in, but most of my mates/colleagues are voting out." So that still says more out than in to me. 

I know more people voting out than in at least that's what it feels like but not sure (and hope) that it's just because people voting out are more vocal. 

 

[Mardy]

More sense and better argument on here than I've seen in the rest of the media put together. Nice one.

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

It might well be pounds that are spent on it but it's spent in places it would never be spent if it didn't go through the process set out by the EU for bidding for such pots of money. 

That's utter bullshit.

1. the EU system replaced the UK system of funding these things.

2. the EU doesn't order the UK govt to give the rest of the money to top up the small amount the EU gives, the UK tops it up because it's something the UK would have funded itself in the days before the EU.

Really, stop mugging yourself. The *ONLY* difference is the fucking sign on the wall!!

 

35 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I'm fully aware we pay in more than we get out but we are (and lov to tell everyone) were richer than they are. I see it as a sign of a civilised society to help those less well off than yourself. 

which funnily enough happened before there was ever an EU.

I'm fully in favour of the EU, but your idea of the EU showering the UK with grants it wouldn't have otherwise is utterly and totally factually wrong.

 

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Trouble is loads I see on efests is "I'm voting in, but most of my mates/colleagues are voting out." So that still says more out than in to me. 

the thing you've missed with that analysis is that the unhappy are always very loud about their unhappiness - which is why people know who the outers are.

[Festival Liam]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's utter bullshit.

1. the EU system replaced the UK system of funding these things.

2. the EU doesn't order the UK govt to give the rest of the money to top up the small amount the EU gives, the UK tops it up because it's something the UK would have funded itself in the days before the EU.

Really, stop mugging yourself. The *ONLY* difference is the fucking sign on the wall!!

 

So you're saying the EU and the UK Government will spend the ££ on exactly the same things? Speaking simply of course. 

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, ourkid1984 said:

Most of my decent jobs that has been for good causes have been funded by the eu. Now I know that that is essentially money the UK has put into it I am of the belief that if we wasn't in that money would not be spent on the good causes it is currently being spent on, especially with our current government.

Obviously that is just speculation but I'd rather be in a situation where these good things definitely happen than a situation where they might not.

The UK didn't ever grant money to charities & good causes before the EU?

FFS, I despair.

We might have shit govt, but if they're really as shit as you're imaging and want everyone but the rich to die, do you think they'd be happy members of a club that did these sorts of things that helped the poor to live?

If the UK govt didn't support the projects that "the EU funds", do you know how they'd stop the EU funding them? It would be by refusing to make up the rest of the money, which then makes the project ineligible for any EU money. It's a breeze for the UK to stop - and save money from - if the UK wants to stop them.

 

[clarkete]

Scientist for eu factsheet is here,  which talks a little about the benefits of membership. 

http://scientistsforeu.uk/resources/factsheet/

[Alanhathaway]

As chuck d said, Don't believe the hype! Out, out & out.

This referendum has been an absolute disgrace with poor representation on both sides who are only interested in what's in it for them- but to say that a vote for out will bring on the economic collapse of this country, third world war etc is complete sh*te. If this was the case why did neither Cameron or Osborne happen to mention all of this a year ago....? Sadly the spotlight for Brexit is led by Johnson & Farage so a vote for out is seen as a vote for them. 

Fundamentally, people are frightened of change. For me, it comes down to whether you want you want an unelected government where you have only around 10% representation and where billions are wasted on a yearly basis or whether you'd prefer it to be run by an elected government in this country for better or worse. Asl yourself why would a Spanish/French/German MEP be interested in the needs of you? Forget the rest of the white noise as know one really knows for sure.

And lastly, for anyone who doesn't believe the EU wastes considerable amounts of money please read this, it is criminal that it is allowed to occur but the French has the power to veto and amplifies exactly why the EU does not work:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html

  

[musky]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it helps if you actually follow what's happening.

State healthcare provision is specifically excluded in the latest drafts of TTIP. TTIP doesn't undermine any human rights or workers rights either.

 

Not quite. The EU wants to reserve the right to exclude state funded provision of services which isn't quite the same thing. The amendments to the Queens speech which were forced onto the government strengthens that position but ultimately EU law will supersede that of the UK's. 

As for workers' rights, throwing the EU into direct competition with NATA and the lower protection available on the other side of the Atlantic is sure to to have implications for EU workers. And it's still far from clear how the investment court will interpret the right of corporations to challenge legislation that impacts on their profits. 

It doesn't fill me with great hope. 

[Spindles]

44 minutes ago, Festival Liam said:

So you're saying the EU and the UK Government will spend the ££ on exactly the same things? Speaking simply of course. 

Essentially.  Much of the work that the EU does involves much of the bureaucracy that otherwise this country would have to handle for itself, but made more efficient as a shared practice through economies of scale.  If the EU were not paying some of the cost of, say, adult education, we would still require the money to be spent in order to deliver the result that such spending hopes for, therefore we would be faced with a choice of either reducing the provision of the service or increasing our own spend.  This goes for every single aspect of EU spending.

[GlastoSimon]

14 hours ago, grumpyhack said:

If the INs have it by a large majority on here is that saying something about Glastonbury goers or EFesters - or might it represent the wider population?

If eFests polls were indicative of what the general public thought then we wouldn't be having this referendum

Sad but true!