Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

It's not so much a case of what Cameron asks for or not now, it's the realistic chance of him getting an agreement as far as the out people are concerned.

the entrenched are not going to change their minds ..... it's the 20% or so that are undecided who will swing the decision


eu migrants
there's no way that a block can be put on free movement, for pretty obvious reasons
however, if you limit their benefits of various kinds, then it will certainly deter some - eg it will make the uk system less enticing

it should also be borne in mind that the uk economy is thriving, especially in comparison to the rest of europe ....... i also suspect that those at the lower end of the wage scale get paid more than their counterparts in many other places in europe

United Kingdom Industrial Production 1969-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar
Industrial Production in the United Kingdom decreased 0.40 percent year-on-year in December of 2015, following a downwardly revised 0.7 percent increase in the previous month. It is the first contraction in 28 months, mainly due to a 1.7 percent decrease in manufacturing output. For full 2015, industrial output went up 1 percent while factory activity edged down 0.2 percent. Industrial Production in the United Kingdom averaged 0.81 percent from 1969 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 22.60 percent in February of 1973 and a record low of -11.90 percent in December of 1980. Industrial Production in the United Kingdom is reported by the Office for National Statistcs.

Alf,

The "benefit cheats" line is way over done and is only a small proportion.

As we know people who employ others here on the whole want the free movement of labour to stay "mainly" because the people coming in are cheaper wages and conditions wise to employ. So generally want to remain.

Also less training your workforce in most cases as they come already trained.. but don't buy the lies about them being highly motivated being the "main" reason for employing EU immigrants.

Whilst generally of course they are highly motivated, unfortunately we now live in an increasingly "low wage poorer conditions" UK, whilst they come from an even lower base Country wages and conditions wise.. so of course they are motivated.

Further more if we are out employers would still have to except the free movement rules or look for new markets outside the EU which employers would be loath to do.

Most sensible post that I can remember from you Stanley. Gold star.

Where did you get this from Stan?



"Further more if we are out employers would still have to except the free movement rules or look for new markets outside the EU which employers would be loath to do."

Can't remember where I've heard Max but think it to be the case, maybe do some of your own research to confirm and if I'm wrong I will apologise and restate.

stan - i didn't say "benefit cheats"; i observed that our current benefits system is very generous ...... i also commented on the low wage-earner eu migrants

perhaps you didn't read rather as i don't read fred's stuff :-)

If the UK is chucked out of the EU, many of the treaties and "contracts" will have to be rewritten, as will the employment "rules" and immigration and emigration arrangements.

EU property and tax rules will have to be rewritten

It will be a chaos, but the solicitors and "bankers" will make a bomb.

I wonder what the Pound/Euro rate will be?
-==-==

Cameron's idea to calm his split party was barmy from the begging.

Dreamt up on the back of a fag packet, by an arrogant barrow boy trying to be slick !


I can see why Scotland may opt for another devolution referendum for devolution.

Certainly, Norway which is not in the EU but has a trade agreement with it, has to accept free movement of people. It is a requirement of a similar deal. The hope of the leave group that we will get a better deal. Don't hold your breath.

No I didn't mean that you meant "benefit cheats" Alf, what was in my mind was that that is the line trotted out more often then not by the Right.

don't hear much from or even about comrade corbyn on eu, even from fred ...... that says a lot in itself

I have to say, how much I do like ex-Chancellor Nigel Lawson's take on EU membership.

"Most of the world is not in the European Union – and most of the world is doing better than the European Union"

As a reminder, he is actually Chairman of the OUT group called 'VOTE LEAVE'. Here's what he has to say:

Britain outside the EU would stand tall as a free and prosperous nation
The Prime Minister has clearly failed to achieve his objectives, and the time has come for us to leave

By leaving the EU, we would become once again a self-governing democracy, with a genuinely global rather than a little European perspective

By Nigel Lawson

10:01PM GMT 17 Feb 2016 Daily Telegraph

Comments as I type: 2698 - More, and also the original article at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12162009/Britain-outside-the-EU-would-stand-tall-as-a-free-and-prosperous-nation.html

In four months’ time the British people are likely to be asked to take the most important decision for the future of our country in their lifetimes.

It is not about Europe as such. It is about whether we should remain within a deeply misguided and troubled institution known as the European Union. No one could have been clearer about the problem than David Cameron, in his Bloomberg speech three years ago, when he committed himself to securing a “fundamental, far-reaching reform” of the EU. He has conspicuously failed to do so.

"As Chancellor, I became increasingly aware that, in economic terms, membership of the EU did us more harm than good"

He committed himself to ending the notorious ratchet, and ensuring that “power would flow back to the member states, not just away from them”. He has conspicuously failed on this front, too: not a single power is to be returned to the United Kingdom; and the doctrine of the so-called acquis communautaire, which holds that powers once transferred to the European Union cannot be taken away, remains firmly in place.

He also promised that whatever he did achieve in his negotiations would involve “proper, full-on, Treaty change”, without which they could not be legally binding. No Treaty change has been secured.

The Prime Minister cannot be blamed for the abject failure to achieve his objectives. The European Union is adamant against any change other than further integration. What is unacceptable is presenting the so-called concessions he does appear to have secured, which range from the wholly inadequate to the completely meaningless, as constituting success.

Let us have a look at them. He claims that he has secured a “red card” system to prevent new EU legislation that is damaging to the UK. Some red card! The draft agreement states that this will only come into play if and when more than 55 per cent of the EU wants it to – a highly unlikely state of affairs in the first place – and, even if it does, all that follows is that the presidency will put it on the agenda for “a comprehensive discussion”.

He claims to have addressed the serious problem of uncontrolled and uncontrollable levels of immigration by securing what he likes to call “an emergency brake”. Some brake! All that is provisionally agreed is an offer by the EU to allow us to bring in a temporary reduction in the level of some benefits (which no one who has studied immigration into the UK believes would make any significant difference, anyway). This is an offer which the EU would be free to withdraw at any future date – such as after a vote by the UK to remain within the EU.

And as for the City of London, and our ability to flourish outside the dysfunctional eurozone, we are sternly told that we must “refrain from measures which [in their opinion] could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the economic and monetary union” and that “the existing powers of the Union institutions to take action that [in their opinion] is necessary to respond to threats of financial stability” remains untrammelled. We have been warned.

So what was presented as a drive for fundamental reform has turned into an exercise in damage limitation: how to limit the damage that EU membership inflicts on us. And even that has scarcely been achieved. The only way to end the damage is to leave.

As Chancellor, I became increasingly aware that, in economic terms, membership of the EU did us more harm than good. And that was before the arrival of European monetary union, which occurred after I had left office, and which has had such a disastrous economic effect on the EU.

But it is unsurprising that it brings no economic benefit, for the European Union has never been an economic project. It is has always been a political project, with a political objective which we in the UK do not share. That is the fundamental reason, above all others, why we must vote to leave.

That objective is the creation of a full-blooded political union, a United States of Europe.

That is what “ever closer union” is all about. As the 1983 Solemn Declaration on European Union makes explicit, this is not simply a union of the peoples of Europe but a full-blooded political union of the member states.

That is what monetary union is all about. The father of European monetary union was Jacques Delors, the former President of the European Commission. I knew him very well, since before he became President of the Commission he was France’s finance minister and my opposite number. He fully understood that you cannot have a workable monetary union without a fiscal union, and you cannot have a fiscal union without a political union. That was the object of the whole exercise.

"Most of the world is not in the European Union – and most of the world is doing better than the European Union"

Hence the proposal, in the European Commission’s so-called “Five Presidents’ Report” of June last year, for a single eurozone Finance Ministry and a single eurozone Finance Minister by 2025.

This is clearly not right for us, and we must leave. Otherwise, although we have a notional “opt-out” from the political union, we will still be obliged to accept EU laws framed with this object in mind.

I have been asked “what, then, is your alternative to being in the European Union?” A more foolish question is hard to imagine. The alternative to being in the European Union is not being in the European Union. Most of the world is not in the European Union – and most of the world is doing better than the European Union.

So far as the detail is concerned, we would repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which establishes the primacy of EU law over our own UK law. The morass of EU regulation, much of which is costly, unnecessary and undesirable, would become UK regulation, which we would then be free to accept, repeal or amend as our national interest requires. And we would continue to trade with the EU, as the rest of the world does today, almost certainly assisted by a bilateral free trade agreement, which they need far more than we do.

Above all, we would become once again a self-governing democracy, with a genuinely global rather than a little European perspective. We would prosper, we would be free, and we would stand tall. That is what this referendum is all about.

Cornyn wants out of the EU but has agreed to support the stay in side.

My copy of 'Comrade Corbyn' has arrived. I am expecting an amusing read.

H/S knows because he went around to Jezzer's address knocked on the door and asked for a glass of water.. just in the hope that he might be able to meet his hero.

Haystack

I think you are an 'IN' believer. Yes? Anyhow, you do seem to keep reminding us quite a lot of how the 'In polls' are leading the race.

Got a comment on Lawson's take on things above?

both sides have good arguments, but at the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind which carries the more weight

good bit of tub thumping by nigel lawson, but i feel he rather spoils his argument by getting carried away in his enthusiasm

I will probably vote out. But not for any of the obvious reasons.

My reasons include some of Lawson's.