UK Referendum 23 June 2016 - Will it be an EU BREXIT or Not?

originally posted by: eletheiaWhat about the *human rights* of the body parts of the mangled victims? And their grieving relatives?

They are just as important. Not more or less important: JUST AS important. Human rights are human rights.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamiteTerrorists who commit inhuman acts against innocent folk are NOT human beings but mad deranged sick animals that need to expire.

You sound like a terrorist yourself now. No, they are not animals, they are human beings. They may be considered mad in which case they should be treated, if that is not possible, isolated. But still, they are humans.

If we HAVE to take some rights away from them to prevent society in general, this should be done in a civilised way: we should arrest them, inform them of what we think they did wrong, allow them to contact a lawyer, if they do not have the means to pay for one, we will appoint one (and it will be our honour to get him the best one we can find). We will not torture we will not allow he is beaten by others (let alone inmates or guards). He has the right to have a decent trial. We will always try to prevent killings, let alone death penalties. You can't create more good by adding bad. Any liberties we have to take away need to be carefully considered.

You, my friend, seem to think that we have some super humans that can be judge, jury and executioner all in one. Such people do exist: you would label them terrorists.

Don't become what you hate.

The only way to stop the terrorists is to eliminate them before they commit the act! I know what about human rights!
Which way do you want it.

The only proper way: by standing with the principle's, ethics and Laws of a civilised society. If the UK chooses to abandon that path, I will cheer the brexit.

a reply to: nonspecific

I was trying to ask that if you took away the billions of pounds going out and the immigration issue then what would be the benefit for the average member of the UK?

Once again you just glide over the financial burden and immigration as though they're nothing. I can't make them significant for you if you can't see that.

But in any event, your argument is altogether too simplistic. You want me to make predictions of what life will be like for the man in the street if the UK were to leave the EU. Let me turn the question back on you - how does Britain's continued membership benefit the man in the street?

Tricky, isn't it? My view would be to question why my country is a member of an organisation which doesn't appear to benefit the average citizen in any quantifiable way.

If you were to join a health club let's say, with a hefty annual membership fee, you would expect to see results, no? And, failing to see any, you would question the wisdom of continued membership, would you not?

You wouldn't go, "No, I wont quit the club unless someone can demonstrate that my life will improve if I were to leave."

The burden of proof is upon those who advocate continued membership...not with those who want to quit because of the expense and no obvious results.

I can definitely predict that Britain will be several billion pounds a year better off by quitting the EU. Whether that will translate to improvements in the lives of Britons is impossible to say, as there are so many variables. If I'm brutally honest, I wouldn't expect to see any improvement in my lot; but neither would I expect to suffer.

It's pro-EU people who need to explain how Britain can justify pouring billions into a financial black hole every year with nothing to show for it.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: nonspecific

I was trying to ask that if you took away the billions of pounds going out and the immigration issue then what would be the benefit for the average member of the UK?

Once again you just glide over the financial burden and immigration as though they're nothing. I can't make them significant for you if you can't see that.

But in any event, your argument is altogether too simplistic. You want me to make predictions of what life will be like for the man in the street if the UK were to leave the EU. Let me turn the question back on you - how does Britain's continued membership benefit the man in the street?

Tricky, isn't it? My view would be to question why my country is a member of an organisation which doesn't appear to benefit the average citizen in any quantifiable way.

If you were to join a health club let's say, with a hefty annual membership fee, you would expect to see results, no? And, failing to see any, you would question the wisdom of continued membership, would you not?

You wouldn't go, "No, I wont quit the club unless someone can demonstrate that my life will improve if I were to leave."

The burden of proof is upon those who advocate continued membership...not with those who want to quit because of the expense and no obvious results.

I can definitely predict that Britain will be several billion pounds a year better off by quitting the EU. Whether that will translate to improvements in the lives of Britons is impossible to say, as there are so many variables. If I'm brutally honest, I wouldn't expect to see any improvement in my lot; but neither would I expect to suffer.

It's pro-EU people who need to explain how Britain can justify pouring billions into a financial black hole every year with nothing to show for it.

You raise some valid points, as I said earlier I started out anti EU and then gradually became more in favour of it, now that the question can actually be asked I am gradually veering more towards an exit vote but am unsure.

Those several billion pounds will remain in the UK but will they be spent to the benefit of those who assume by voting out their lives will improve?

Will immigration be any different?

It just seems to me that these are the two major factors in an exit voters arsenal yet their is no gaurentee that things will change, just an assumption.

You say yourself that you do not expect to see any benefits to you so why leave if their is no benefit?

Are you not gambling with no return on your stake?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: eletheiaWhat about the *human rights* of the body parts of the mangled victims? And their grieving relatives?

They are just as important. Not more or less important: JUST AS important. Human rights are human rights.

Unfortunately the dead are not going to get theirs.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Those several billion pounds will remain in the UK but will they be spent to the benefit of those who assume by voting out their lives will improve?
Will immigration be any different?
It just seems to me that these are the two major factors in an exit voters arsenal yet their is no gaurentee that things will change, just an assumption.

Well now that we the people know that there are all those billions floating
around,The government will no longer be in a position of claiming *austerity*

If lives in general don't improve, we can show our *power* and vote 'them out'
or have a revolution?....something we are unable to do with the EU bureaucrats.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: nonspecific

I was trying to ask that if you took away the billions of pounds going out and the immigration issue then what would be the benefit for the average member of the UK?

Once again you just glide over the financial burden and immigration as though they're nothing. I can't make them significant for you if you can't see that.

But in any event, your argument is altogether too simplistic. You want me to make predictions of what life will be like for the man in the street if the UK were to leave the EU. Let me turn the question back on you - how does Britain's continued membership benefit the man in the street?

Tricky, isn't it? My view would be to question why my country is a member of an organisation which doesn't appear to benefit the average citizen in any quantifiable way.

If you were to join a health club let's say, with a hefty annual membership fee, you would expect to see results, no? And, failing to see any, you would question the wisdom of continued membership, would you not?

You wouldn't go, "No, I wont quit the club unless someone can demonstrate that my life will improve if I were to leave."

The burden of proof is upon those who advocate continued membership...not with those who want to quit because of the expense and no obvious results.

I can definitely predict that Britain will be several billion pounds a year better off by quitting the EU. Whether that will translate to improvements in the lives of Britons is impossible to say, as there are so many variables. If I'm brutally honest, I wouldn't expect to see any improvement in my lot; but neither would I expect to suffer.

It's pro-EU people who need to explain how Britain can justify pouring billions into a financial black hole every year with nothing to show for it.

You raise some valid points, as I said earlier I started out anti EU and then gradually became more in favour of it, now that the question can actually be asked I am gradually veering more towards an exit vote but am unsure.

Those several billion pounds will remain in the UK but will they be spent to the benefit of those who assume by voting out their lives will improve?

Will immigration be any different?

It just seems to me that these are the two major factors in an exit voters arsenal yet their is no gaurentee that things will change, just an assumption.

You say yourself that you do not expect to see any benefits to you so why leave if their is no benefit?

Are you not gambling with no return on your stake?

Non EU immigration will not change one Iota! EU imigration might fall, however, since the vast majority of the East European immigration (which is what keeps getting brought up) is about cheap labour for employers then where will those employers get their labour from afterwards? If a firm can move manufacturing to a cheap labour country (like Dyson did) then it will do so. It it can't then it will raise its wages so that UK born will work for them and the consequence of that is a higher cost of goods. Remember the cockle pickers in Morcambe bay? They weren't legal EU immigrants they were illegal far east immigrants. I wonder if more of that would occur....DUH! of course it would.

How come the people bitching and whining about immigration never bitch and whine about the rich people driving Mercs avoiding tax etc who own firms that employ cheap EU labour ?

The Brexit folks keep harking on about two things :
1. We will continue trade with Europe with new trade agreements.
2. We will be free to improve our trade with the rest of of the world, sometimes appended with, we used to have high trade with commonwealth countries.

I would love to know how the economy would instantly grow in such a way that 1 is maintained and 2 increases !!!!
I would love to know how the likes of New Zealand , Australia, Canada etc would suddenly start selling us more of their produce since we have actually replaced it with European sourced goods (over the last 40 years) and we intend to maintain trade with Europe...weird economic logic there.
I would love to know what EU rules prevent us from trading with countries outside the EU anyway.
I would love to know why our trade with the commonwealth fell in preference to Europe over the last 40 years if the EU is such a rules driven nightmare.
The brexit folks cherry pick their tales. They never highlight that non EU countries still have to abide by EU regulations when selling goods into the EU.

Human rights has nothing to do with EU. Look at the countries that have signed up to the European Human Rights legislation, 47 of them which includes all 28 EU members. Some will never be in the EU. Do folks not realise there is a UN human rights charter as well. The European one is more convenient and faster to use.

One last whine here : The EU commission that is appointed......but includes one member from each country (preventing large countries dominating proceedings) and the commission is approved by MEP's who we vote for. By comparison the cabinet is appointed, hired and fired at the whim of the Prime Minister, one man. The cabinet is never approved by anyone except one man. But apparently that's OK but the commision is undemocratic.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: nonspecific
Those several billion pounds will remain in the UK but will they be spent to the benefit of those who assume by voting out their lives will improve?
Will immigration be any different?
It just seems to me that these are the two major factors in an exit voters arsenal yet their is no gaurentee that things will change, just an assumption.

Well now that we the people know that there are all those billions floating
around,The government will no longer be in a position of claiming *austerity*

If lives in general don't improve, we can show our *power* and vote 'them out'
or have a revolution?....something we are unable to do with the EU bureaucrats.

It is £8.5 billion out of a yearly budget of £759.5 billion, it is hardly going to save the nation in one swift move is it?

It's a bit like cancelling the window cleaner and expecting to buy a new car with the additional funds.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

I completely agree with you.

Let's not focus on Immigration, but cutting down tax loopholes so that no one can avoid paying tax who employs or makes money in the UK. The tories don't seem to be focusing in on that rather than strapping the cash off people who are struggling due to high living costs in the first place!



The EU is not stopping us from having a living wage.
The EU is not stopping us from closing loophole in tax legislation
The EU is not stopping us from creating a job market full of qualified people through education and in work learning programs so that employers don't need to go outside of the UK to fill gaps in their workforce.
The EU didn't stop our manufacturing industry
The EU has nothing to do with the price of commodities on the global market (China and India)

a reply to: grainofsand

Here's a thought I just had that you might have some insight into given your past life.

How many people are currently employed in the civil service and beyond dealing with all the paperwork involved with the EU?

I don't care about MEP's being out of work but I imagine there will be a fair few redundancies if we Brexit?

I am sure they will find other work and it should also free up additional funds.

a reply to: nonspecific

I've no experience outside of the UK, but there are of course hundreds of civil servants in permanent positions employed by the European Commission, and yes, they are facing an uncertain future if the UK left the EU.
People are made redundant every day somewhere, such is life.
EU commission staff will be educated people though so their skills would presumably be more easily transferable to other employment.

I feel more sorry for people such as in Redcar who lost their employment in an industry which pretty much offers no alternative now.
Hundreds of steel workers and truck drivers etc, all chasing the same jobs in an region which has little opportunities to choose from.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: nonspecific

I've no experience outside of the UK, but there are of course hundreds of civil servants in permanent positions employed by the European Commission, and yes, they are facing an uncertain future if the UK left the EU.
People are made redundant every day somewhere, such is life.
EU commission staff will be educated people though so their skills would presumably be more easily transferable to other employment.

I feel more sorry for people such as in Redcar who lost their employment in an industry which pretty much offers no alternative now.
Hundreds of steel workers and truck drivers etc, all chasing the same jobs in an region which has little opportunities to choose from.

I do not feel sorry for them as such, as you say they will be educated and if not reassigned given a healthy payout.

I just wondered how many we were talking about and the resources it would free up.

Knowing what the civil service is like and red tape I would not be surprised if was in the thousands.

Just another angle I suppose.

originally posted by: nonspecific
I just wondered how many we were talking about and the resources it would free up.

Here's an interesting article about it:
politico.eu

The European Commission, which employs 1,000 U.K. nationals across its various departments, according to official figures, has said publicly it has no “Plan B” if an Out vote wins on June 23. “We are staying away from this discussion,” a Commission official said.
That has left British EU staffers scrambling to figure out what contingency plans they might have to make if and when their country is no longer part of the European Union.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: nonspecific
I just wondered how many we were talking about and the resources it would free up.

Here's an interesting article about it:
politico.eu

The European Commission, which employs 1,000 U.K. nationals across its various departments, according to official figures, has said publicly it has no “Plan B” if an Out vote wins on June 23. “We are staying away from this discussion,” a Commission official said.
That has left British EU staffers scrambling to figure out what contingency plans they might have to make if and when their country is no longer part of the European Union.

No time to read in full now but cheers.

I would imagine plan B would initially invole using them to administrate the changover and there would be a fair few years of work there and then allow them to move onwards steadily as the workload subsides.

a reply to: nonspecific

I would imagine a great many would be absorbed into other departments in their new dealings with the EU as an independent nation.
They would be perfect as they would already have excellent networking links and fully understand how the place really works behind the scenes.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamiteTerrorists who commit inhuman acts against innocent folk are NOT human beings but mad deranged sick animals that need to expire.

You sound like a terrorist yourself now. No, they are not animals, they are human beings. They may be considered mad in which case they should be treated, if that is not possible, isolated. But still, they are humans.

If we HAVE to take some rights away from them to prevent society in general, this should be done in a civilised way: we should arrest them, inform them of what we think they did wrong, allow them to contact a lawyer, if they do not have the means to pay for one, we will appoint one (and it will be our honour to get him the best one we can find). We will not torture we will not allow he is beaten by others (let alone inmates or guards). He has the right to have a decent trial. We will always try to prevent killings, let alone death penalties. You can't create more good by adding bad. Any liberties we have to take away need to be carefully considered.

You, my friend, seem to think that we have some super humans that can be judge, jury and executioner all in one. Such people do exist: you would label them terrorists.

Don't become what you hate.

The only way to stop the terrorists is to eliminate them before they commit the act! I know what about human rights!
Which way do you want it.

The only proper way: by standing with the principle's, ethics and Laws of a civilised society. If the UK chooses to abandon that path, I will cheer the brexit.

Barbaric Animals!

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: nonspecific

I would imagine a great many would be absorbed into other departments in their new dealings with the EU as an independent nation.
They would be perfect as they would already have excellent networking links and fully understand how the place really works behind the scenes.

Agreed.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Still ranting then?

You do realise that your actions could be deemed detrimental to your cause though don't you?

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I'm generally against the death penalty because of the risk of miscarriage of justice and one innocent death is one too many for me.

But then you have clear cut cases such as the killers of Lee Rigby who were happy to be filmed explaining their actions immediately afterwards. Id be drawn towards locking them up in solitary for life, while providing them with an amount of drugs able to overdose themselves on request.
Sanctity of life is not so much of an issue with me for such people, but I'd prefer encouraging them to kill themselves if they don't wish to stay in solitary until they die.
Much more cost effective, and no blood on anyone else's hands but their own.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

This is a silly argument. We could apply the same principle to car accidents and banning motoring.