INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#61 Post by Dave B » June 9th, 2016, 5:31 am

Latest post of the previous page:

So, one of the more principled Tories once again sticks to her principles! Would that other politicians, of any colour, showed as much integrity.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#62 Post by animist » June 9th, 2016, 10:02 am

https://fullfact.org/europe/do-half-uks ... go-europe/

This looks to be a usefully unbiased attempt to present some of the facts which the electorate is always demanding about this referendum. The UK still sends almost half its exports to the rest of the EU, though the figure used to be higher. There is little mention among all the Brexit speechifying of how this vital market would be protected in case we leave

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#63 Post by Alan H » June 9th, 2016, 3:04 pm

Dave B wrote:
So, one of the more principled Tories once again sticks to her principles! Would that other politicians, of any colour, showed as much integrity.
I still think the media have a lot for answer for on this: they jump at any opportunity to 'create' a story whenever any politician wavers ever so slightly - no wonder they rarely seem to change their minds.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#64 Post by Dave B » June 9th, 2016, 3:23 pm

I fully agree with you on the media, being more of an "entertainment" than an "educational" industry they grab for the most garish items - even if some pose them in terms they feel look intelligent.

I am still waiting for the BBC to decide whether this £350m/week we woukd not be giving to Europe if we got out could or would (and there is a large difference) be spent on the NHS or domestic fuel bills or whatever, they swap between the two casually in news broadcasts.

Of course, I take every word any politician offers with an ocean load of salt... But the BBC should have a strict language policy for duch as this to save them adding to the confusion and obfuscation. If it takes bland, neutral language that is better than sloppiness.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#65 Post by Alan H » June 9th, 2016, 3:29 pm

Dave B wrote:I fully agree with you on the media, being more of an "entertainment" than an "educational" industry they grab for the most garish items - even if some pose them in terms they feel look intelligent.

I am still waiting for the BBC to decide whether this £350m/week we woukd not be giving to Europe if we got out could or would (and there is a large difference) be spent on the NHS or domestic fuel bills or whatever, they swap between the two casually in news broadcasts.

Of course, I take every word any politician offers with an ocean load of salt... But the BBC should have a strict language policy for duch as this to save them adding to the confusion and obfuscation. If it takes bland, neutral language that is better than sloppiness.
Tories 5.png
Tories 5.png (561.06 KiB) Viewed 3863 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#66 Post by Dave B » June 9th, 2016, 6:40 pm

Just listened to "Vote Leave"'s propaganda on R4.

Obviously carefully chosen language (paraphrased I admit):

"Vote Leave to stop the UK payiing for failed countries like Greece."
Er, "stop" could sound like we are bailing them out at the moment - "Prevent any future possibility that we might have to bail out . . ." is honest.

"Vote Leave to stop corrupt expenses such as the chauffer service for MEPs"
Well, there is the chance that there has been abuse of this official (therefore not exactly "corrupt") service but this is mis-representation at least. That the service is fair to the rest of us is another matter.

There were others.

But then, misrepresentation is part of Politics 101 is it not?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#67 Post by Dave B » June 15th, 2016, 3:36 pm

Usual good stuff from Tim Hartford today, this time on how much of UK law is determined in Brussels.

By % seems it could be a lot but even the HoC Library researchers could not agree on the figure. Might be over 50% though! Tut, tut . . .

But, when looked at, many of the laws and regulations have no bearing, or no significant bearing, on the UK at all - we don't grow much baccy here, same goes for olives. Some are so tiny or insignificant that they have no effect on everyday life.

Betcha some of them are actually protective of us ordinary peoples, things some parties might like to chuck out.

So, more "misrepresentations", eh?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#68 Post by Alan H » June 16th, 2016, 9:46 am

In the Sunday Times:
Brexit: AA Gill argues for ‘In’. We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of that most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia

AA Gill
June 12 2016, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times

It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”

It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”

Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.

We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.

The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.

And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.

All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.

There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.

The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.

Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty
We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.

Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”

When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”

Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.

You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.

Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.

The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.

There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.

The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.

Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?

I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#69 Post by Alan H » June 17th, 2016, 11:26 pm

By Jack of Kent: The problems with referendums in general, and the Brexit one in particular
There are two problems with the current EU referendum.

Why this referendum was a bad idea

The first problem comes from there never having been a need – in an objective sense – for this EU referendum.

By “objective” I mean that there was no external reason – such as a new EU treaty or similar proposal – for a referendum to take place in June 2016.

As such, it can be described an objectively pointless referendum.

(The practical reason for this objective was, of course, political: it was a quick fix by the prime minister to a political problem caused by his own party and the (then) rise of UKIP. And in launching this needless and divisive referendum campaign as a quick political fix, David Cameron showed all the political judgement of Cersei Lannister.)

This referendum is also not legally binding. It is advisory. There is no legal obligation on the government to do anything in response. The all-important notification under Article 50 is in the gift of the government, and the government can make that notification at a time of its choosing, or never at all.

It is therefore an objectively pointless referendum with no direct legal consequences. Twice as pointless, in a way, if a thing can logically be as twice as pointless.

And so, as the referendum was about no proposal in particular, the campaigns became about everything and nothing. There was never any real focus. And without focus, the campaigns became strident and unpleasant.

This leads us, like Prufrock, to an overwhelming question.

This is a referendum without any objective reason or focus, such as a new EU treaty or other proposal.

It is not legally binding.

So: why?


Why referendums are generally a bad idea

The second problem is about referendums in general.

When you have a parliamentary system, you either take the parliamentary system seriously or you don’t.

And having referendums means you are not taking a parliamentary system seriously.

And if the supposed reason for the referendum is to protect parliamentary democracy, this does not even make any sense. You cannot sensibly protect parliamentary democracy by the extra-parliamentary means of a referendum. It is an absurdity, if you think about it.

Referendums are rare in UK political history. Before 1975, there had been none at all.

Issues as fundamental as making war and peace, decolonisation, the welfare state, the abolition of capital punishment, the legalization of homosexuality – huge issues, time after time – were all dealt with without a referendum.

Even fundamental constitutional issues before 1975 were dealt with without referendums – such as royal abdications, measures limiting the powers of the Crown and the Lords, and all the extensions of the franchise.

There is, of course, one good counter-argument: see Scotland and devolution, and the Good Friday Agreement. The referendums on these certainly dealt with fundamental constitutional issues – but, unlike this EU referendum – there were concrete, discrete proposals put before the voters to vote on.

Not again?

Let’s not have a referendum again, on anything, unless (a) it is a fundamental constitutional issue and (b) there is an actual proposal for fundamental change for people to consider and to vote on.

Ongoing UK membership after 40-odd years of one international organization when there is not any proposed significant change in the offing does not meet these criteria. (A vote on the Maastricht or Lisbon treaties may have done, but certainly not this June 2016 one.)

A referendum should never be a casual fix to a party political problem.

So here’s a radical suggestion: let’s return to being a parliamentary democracy.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#70 Post by Alan H » June 19th, 2016, 11:47 pm

EU referendum: Baroness Sayeeda Warsi defects from Leave to Remain
Her decision came after she saw Nigel Farage's controversial 'breaking point' poster, which was widely criticised for being xenophobic -- Chancellor George Osborne said it had echoes of 1930s propaganda.

Ms Warsi told The Times the poster was "the breaking point to say 'I can't go on supporting this'".

“Are we prepared to tell lies, to spread hate and xenophobia just to win a campaign? For me that’s a step too far.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#71 Post by Dave B » June 20th, 2016, 5:29 am

Not sure how to put this the way I feel it . . . Let's just say someone needs to look seriously at their motivation.

But then, with her record . . .
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#72 Post by Dave B » June 20th, 2016, 12:04 pm

The leave campaign say they were not even aware Warsi supported them. She says she could no longer be associated with them.

Er, discontinuity there somewhere, tempted to believe the Leavers.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#73 Post by Gottard » June 20th, 2016, 12:40 pm

The worst thing that might happen to my British friends is to score a 50% in and out, or very close to that. Such a result would pose very serious problems, both internally and toward the EU.
Rather that that, an out win would be less bruising and way more manageable politically, at least internally to the UK.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#74 Post by Dave B » June 20th, 2016, 3:40 pm

Interesting bit on tbe radio was that most Europeans want Britain to stay in. But another large group felt unhappy about the way the EU is run.

Tried to find a link but Internet swamped with sites on the referundum itself.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#75 Post by jaywhat » June 20th, 2016, 3:55 pm

I have the feeling that the 'in' is growing stronger.
I wish there was more discussion about what can happen in the end as regards the power of the government in power to not go with the referendum - especially if there is not a major majority - - but even if there is!!

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#76 Post by Gottard » June 20th, 2016, 4:57 pm

This site Anand Menon <UKandEU@kcl.ac.uk> covers it all. http://www.UKandEU@kcl.ac.uk
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#77 Post by Nick » June 20th, 2016, 7:37 pm

Dave B wrote:Interesting bit on tbe radio was that most Europeans want Britain to stay in.
Not altogether surprising. The UK contributes billions to the EU budget, which if lost would mean either higher contributions or cuts for everyone else. And Brits living on the Continent tend to be beneficial to the economy, bringing money with them, rather than being perceived as job-snatchers. And, frankly, most people would not want to eject most other countries. For example, why would anyone in the UK want, say, Sweden, Austria or Luxembourg to leave? If they've given it any thought at all.
But another large group felt unhappy about the way the EU is run.
Including France. Allegedly more Eurosceptic than the UK, despite CAP and other measures. For France to leave really would be terminal. From what I can tell, it seems to be pretty strongly correlated with net contributions to the EU budget. The exception, of course, is Germany, which is still atoning for its history.

This BBC site has some interesting figures and graphs.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#78 Post by Nick » June 20th, 2016, 7:49 pm

jaywhat wrote:I have the feeling that the 'in' is growing stronger.
I wish there was more discussion about what can happen in the end as regards the power of the government in power to not go with the referendum - especially if there is not a major majority - - but even if there is!!
If the Brexiters win the referendum, there could well be a problem actually getting "Leave" through the House of Commons. There is a significant proportion of Tories who would be unwilling to vote leave, and Labour and the SNP would not pass up such a golden opportunity to kick the Tories.

There is also much speculation (going both ways) about what will actually follow the referendum. Some ( the politicians, that is, rather than the population), want to teach those bolshie Anglo-Saxons a lesson, and, if we vote to stay in, clobber us with "more Europe" . OTOH, I think quite a lot of the EU are rather rattled by the UK's referendum, and don't want to encourage anyone else to press for a referendum. And in a parallel with Scotland, the UK is quite likely to send a large number of UKIP MEPs to Brussels. The EU is still in danger of unravelling. Especially as the Euro, its greatest disaster, is still going to cause continued difficulties, starting with Greece, as early as this July.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#79 Post by Dave B » June 20th, 2016, 8:17 pm

Agree there, Nick, and all the politicians and bean counters seem unwilling or unable to fix things.

Perhaps they have screwed it up so much now it is not fixable? The cause and the answer can only be in their hands.

Scrap the bloody Commission for a start?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#80 Post by Nick » June 20th, 2016, 11:29 pm

Dave B wrote:Agree there, Nick, and all the politicians and bean counters seem unwilling or unable to fix things.

Perhaps they have screwed it up so much now it is not fixable?
I fear you may be right. We don't need or want more Europe; what we need (and I want!) is a different Europe. And I don't think that can be achieved without a major shock to the system.

The cause and the answer can only be in their hands.
...unless the ball is dislodged from their grasp.
Scrap the bloody Commission for a start?
It'd be a start!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#81 Post by Alan H » June 20th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Dave B wrote:Scrap the bloody Commission for a start?
I'm not sure I understand why. Can you elaborate?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply