The outcome of a few changes will be near-certainties but the potential outcome of most others is crystal-ball-gazing.
We no more know what will happen if we leave than we know what will happen next week, next month or next year in our own lives. We will be taking a punt if we leave the EU. We may gain or we may lose but it's likely to be a mixture of both. If we stay in we will probably have a few less uncertainties.
Is it better to stick with the Devil-you-know or take the hand of the one you don't? 🙁
The answer to this one is quite simple, deal with what is, not what might be, if you like what is happening in the country now in Europe, then vote to stay, if you are not happy with the way the country is now in Europe, then vote to leave.
[url]From Another Angry Voice blog [/url](he tends to do his research carefully. You may or may not agree with his politics, but his facts will be as correct as anyone could get them.)
I have to say, I'm getting heartily sick of the spectacle of both sides - in the personages of Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Johnson and Farage - claiming that only staying in / getting out will protect the NHS. All five are on record as stating that the NHS should be sold off to private firms. If we stay in, can you really see Cameron and Osborne protecting the NHS against privatisation? If we get out, will Gove or Johnson give up their 'let's sell off the NHS' plans? And Farage? He'd privatise the entire country, if he got his way.
The situation is indeed perplexing...who would have thought that both Cameron and Corbyn would both agree to stay IN the EU? What can be made of this?
On the radio it was announced that the NHS won't be saved if we opt out of the EU i.e. that it was propaganda. We are being saturated with media hype/propaganda and rhetoric. If the matter wasn't so serious it would be farcical. Rather than hearing both sides (with their axe to grind) perhaps what is needed is someone with some political clout/substance who is NOT biased and can present the pros and cons of both sides....is there such a person I wonder?
I don't even understand why it has become an issue now, i.e. why do we suddenly have the choice to stay or leave? What is the motive behind this?
On the radio it was announced that the NHS won't be saved if we opt out of the EU i.e. that it was propaganda. We are being saturated with media hype/propaganda and rhetoric. If the matter wasn't so serious it would be farcical. Rather than hearing both sides (with their axe to grind) perhaps what is needed is someone with some political clout/substance who is NOT biased and can present the pros and cons of both sides....is there such a person I wonder?
I don't even understand why it has become an issue now, i.e. why do we suddenly have the choice to stay or leave? What is the motive behind this?
The motive is that the Tories are scared of the influence that UKIP has in the UK. Promising a referendum (which was part of the UKIP election promises) was an attempt to claw some of their support back.
An unbiased person cannot exist. To begin with, anyone who knows much about it will have opinions. Secondly, they will not be perceived as 'unbiased' by anyone who disagrees with them. [url]The Guardian, in 'Money' today, tried its best.[/url]
Most people know very few 'facts' and will only believe those they already agree with. [url]The Independent has an article on this.[/url]
Another website -[url] Full Fact [/url]- that tries its best to present facts rather than opinion. This link is to the page on UK influence in the EU, but from that page you can get to others; e.g. immigration, cost and benefits, borders etc.
Indeed it is becoming tiresome, the amount of unfounded and unjustified comments coming from both sides.
I saw one bit of "Leave" propaganda the other day trying to say how wonderful it would be to be like Switzerland with a focus on them having higher wages than the UK. It seemed forget to mention that the cost of living there is 4-5x higher, and many people are employees by firms like Nestle and other large corporations. (I have a relative who's just moved to Switzerland with his job - and he's found it's cheaper to buy the furniture for his house over in the UK and pay to get it shipped over there, than to buy it there locally)
And I'm almost sick of this "take back control" slogan. When you consider it, you've currently got our government in direct control of our country, but who have some influence in the EU and who have chosen to abide by EU laws in various areas (not all our laws as some people suggest). Yet if we were to come out of the EU, we're not getting back control for ourselves as people, we're instead choosing to allow control to be given in it's entirety to our own government without any of the protections that the EU laws give us. Sure, the EU also limits us in some ways that we don't find beneficial, but they also protect us in ways that are agreed within the wider EU community. So those who choose to vote to leave (and after all I've heard now I don't think I'll be one of them), appear to be shooting themselves in the foot... not "taking back control" but "giving control" to the very people they're disagreeing with... the Cameron and others who are saying we should stay in.
Another mis-interpret piece of information I saw was from one of those extreme left groups who was saying things like "The boss of JCB has said that you should vote to leave" which is completely incorrect. If you read the letter the JCB boss sent to his staff, he said that he was voting to leave, and that he believed the company would still remain successful out of the EU, but that the staff should look at the facts for themselves and vote for what they felt was right. He didn't tell them (or anybody else) what they should be voting. It's a complete misrepresentation of facts.
I simply can't get into all the arguing and counter claims being thrown backwards and forwards. What I really hope is that everyone will take a moment to reflect how important this decision is and remember that we live in a very troubled, yet interconnected world. Is it better to vote for unity - or fragmentation? For stability - or uncertainty?
I simply can't get into all the arguing and counter claims being thrown backwards and forwards. What I really hope is that everyone will take a moment to reflect how important this decision is and remember that we live in a very troubled, yet interconnected world. Is it better to vote for unity - or fragmentation? For stability - or uncertainty?
That's the whole point! If only we knew! It is far from being as clear cut as this. Trying to work out which bits are hype/propaganda and which might be the truth. It is compounded by not knowing what leaving the EU will truly entail since it is somewhat unchartered territory, i.e. not the same as when we were separated.
That Cameron and Corbyn both want to stay in the EU is very revealing since they are normally at odds....
I don't think that anyone can really say what all the advantages or disadvantages are concerning the EU. It is really too complex.
It hasn't helped that it has been left to the politicians to plead the case as very few people now seem to trust a politician.
It may have been better if non political experts from the financial, scientific, academic, social workers, health industry, education fields etc had had more of an input. Even so it is really up to the individual to decide which way to go. My main concern is immigration. Chiefly because we are not a large land mass, and are finding it hard to absorb all the different cultures. Unlimited immigration is really putting a strain on all our services.
I will probably vote to leave, but I do not think that we will be allowed to leave. I hope that the powers that be will clobber some sort relief policy together to either allow a more controlled limited social movement access across the EU or couch up a finance package to cover the extra load that our services are under.
I don't think that anyone can really say what all the advantages or disadvantages are concerning the EU. It is really too complex.
It hasn't helped that it has been left to the politicians to plead the case as very few people now seem to trust a politician.
It may have been better if non political experts from the financial, scientific, academic, social workers, health industry, education fields etc had had more of an input. Even so it is really up to the individual to decide which way to go. My main concern is immigration. Chiefly because we are not a large land mass, and are finding it hard to absorb all the different cultures. Unlimited immigration is really putting a strain on all our services.
I will probably vote to leave, but I do not think that we will be allowed to leave. I hope that the powers that be will clobber some sort relief policy together to either allow a more controlled limited social movement access across the EU or couch up a finance package to cover the extra load that our services are under.
There have been plenty of non-politicians speaking and writing about it. - certainly financial, scientific and environmental. Almost all say stay in. I wonder how you have missed this.
We don't have 'unlimited immigration'. Any immigration from beyond the EU will not be affected. Immigration from within the EU is more or less balanced by our emigration to the EU. Besides, we need immigration. Most immigrants are waged and pay tax - this helps our services.
I find it interesting that you say, " ...hard to absorb all the different cultures" rather than the numbers of people. So it's those who are not "British" that you object to? Although EU immigrants are, by definition, European and not that different culturally. Is it hard to absorb? The part of the UK with the most diversity - London - seems very happy with its diverse population. The most fear comes from areas that have little recent immigration. And bear in mind - just about everyone in England is a descendant of immigrants.
[url]Here's a link to a Guardian article[/url]. In case you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, here's a highlight:
George Eustice, the Brexit-supporting farming minister, [url]told the Guardian[/url] that the directives protecting our birds and habitats would go, describing them as spirit crushing. Last week, the former minister for environment, food and rural affairs Owen Paterson [url]announced in a speech[/url] his intention to water down the precautionary principle upon exit, so as to allow the reauthorisation of bee-harming pesticides.
There have been plenty of non-politicians speaking and writing about it. - certainly financial, scientific and environmental. Almost all say stay in. I wonder how you have missed this.
Any immigration from beyond the EU will not be affected.
I find it interesting that you say, " ...hard to absorb all the different cultures" rather than the numbers of people.There is a Pakistani teacher, been here for the last five years with his family who has just been sent an E Mail telling him that he is to be sent back to Pakistan. This was due to his tax return being incorrect. The error actually lay with the tax office. He had to get a Solicitor to fight his case.
There is an Indian teacher again here for the last five years told to get out because he didn't have the required £2000 in his bank account. He did, but it took a letter from his bank manager to get his deportation set aside. This Government is using every dirty trick it can to massage the immigration figures to fool the public that the numbers are coming down.
There are reports of schools that have to hire interpreters because of the non English speaking pupils.
A dentist recently asked his boss for a rise. He was told no as the dental manager could employ a Polish dentist at a far cheaper cost than an English one.
I want to stay in but irrespective of your views there are employment problems and this country cannot sustain an open door policy. And effectively it is an open door policy, irrespective of the limited refusal options claimed by immigration.
Curious how a "former" minister for the environment would have any ability to apply such an intention. Though if it's in any way true, then that is worrying.