Ed Miliband

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by g jones

It would be a good debate I believe and bring out more truths than the Express/Mail hysteria. I thought the AV referendum was a good debate.

Bailouts: We would have to bail out countries. Ireland for example whether we are in or out. The Germans may complain about the 1000Euro cost to each german paid to Greece but you have to consider the dangers. In Germany's case the Deutschmark would ruin Germany such would be it's high value. World trade means we are all interdependent to a greater or lesser degree.

My EU concerns are based on localism v Globalisation and EU waste/subsidies.

I forgot to add previously as to why the pro EU will win any referendum is the support of business, CBI, FSB backing Cam,Clegg,Mili. They will have a very powerful jobs and growth argument and fund the pro EU campaign. The anti EU campaign has no leaders and no money.

Graham, there's nothing wrong with E. U. if it was used for the purpose it was first brought to fruition, trading between member countries, I fully supported that proses, but when they started talk of a single currency (and look where that's got them) and making laws that overrule Westminster its time to draw a line under it and call it a day

[Wynonie Harris]

Hmmmm...you seem very confident in your prediction of an EU referendum outcome, Graham. Maybe I should consult you for my scores in the Stanley prediction league!

Although I would agree that the sight of Nigel Farage (who always seems like some sort of variety club comedian to me) or, even worse, Nick Griffin arguing the anti-EU case would put much of the ordinary public off, I think in some ways you have misjudged the mood of the British electorate.

Firstly, they have the case of the stricken Euro unfolding before their eyes. When it was first mooted that we should join the Euro, large parts of the establishment including golden boy, Tony Blair threw their weight behind the pro camp and the antis were dismissed as loonies and fanatics. As the public have seen, the loonies were proved right.

Secondly, I think you may underestimate the dangerously cynical state of mind of the British electorate at the moment. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband would support the pro-EU lobby? So what? No one likes Cameron, Clegg is dismissed with contempt and Miliband has certainly not inspired the public at large. People are more disillusioned with mainstream political parties than I've ever known in my lifetime and any pro-EU arguments they put forward will be regarded with the utmost scepticism.

Then you say business and industry would have pro-EU views. Again, so what? There is an equally resentful attitude to the movers and shakers of big business and finance who, rightly or wrongly, are blamed for helping to get us into this mess in the first place through a combination of greed and ineptitude. The lingering suspicion will be, the EU might be good for them, but is it so good for us ordinary folk?

Don't forget that this anti-EU mood can only grow with unfolding events. A prime example is the threat of the remote mandarins in Brussels to sue this country because we won't start paying a full range of benefits to EU immigrants who simply arrive in the UK, having made no contribution to the country whatsoever. You don't have to be a xenophobe, a little Englander or part of the "send 'em all back" brigade to see that this is outrageously unfair on the ordinary, hardworking people of this country, including immigrants who have come here in the past and worked diligently to build a life for themselves.

Finally, Graham, it would appear that those at the top in all mainstream political parties don't share your confidence. That's why they'll go through all sorts of contortions to avoid giving us that referendum!

[Benipete]

Originally Posted by Tex

Were things better before we joined the EU? Well things seem to have gone T**s up with other countries since we did. All i know is we seem to bailing out countries who joined the EU on a low valuation knowing they could get a bail-out. Who will be next after Greece? Spain, Italy.????

I think you will find that the bottom line Is. We are being asked to bail out the banks that were stupid enough to be conned into lending these countries billions of Euro's that could never be paid back.

It's called fraud but politicians of all persuasions get away with It at the Tax Payers expense.Or so It seems.

[g jones]

My personal view is mixed and a lot of my reasons can be traced back to the old left and now the green agenda.

However I have a clear opinion on the outcome which will be to stay in. I just believe one side has everything going for it and the other hasn't. Whilst it is a vociferous debate now between those interested there are a huge number of people who are ambivalent, who don't buy the 'it's obvious' argument from either side and whose vote will need to be won. Like AV most people will start from the position of 'I don't know a lot about it'.

If you could bet i would wager 54-57 in 43-46 out on the spreads. That's a lot of people wanting us out, just short of a majority. I could be wrong but it is 49-51 now and I can o my see it going one way.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by g jones

My personal view is mixed and a lot of my reasons can be traced back to the old left and now the green agenda.

However I have a clear opinion on the outcome which will be to stay in. I just believe one side has everything going for it and the other hasn't. Whilst it is a vociferous debate now between those interested there are a huge number of people who are ambivalent, who don't buy the 'it's obvious' argument from either side and whose vote will need to be won. Like AV most people will start from the position of 'I don't know a lot about it'.

If you could bet i would wager 54-57 in 43-46 out on the spreads. That's a lot of people wanting us out, just short of a majority. I could be wrong but it is 49-51 now and I can o my see it going one way.

To my mind Graham if there was a referendum, it would be a massive yes to withdraw, that's why no party leader will go for one

[Margaret Pilkington]

I can't see there ever being a referendum with such a clear cut aim......they might give us all a referendum, but it will be so full of waffle that few people will understand it.

The EU needs a radical change, but what chance is there of that while there is so much work to do to sort out the tangled financial situation....it is going to take the patience of a saint and the wisdom of Job....now tell me can you see any of the leaders, in or out of the EU, which fit that description, because I can't.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by g jones

My personal view is mixed and a lot of my reasons can be traced back to the old left and now the green agenda.

However I have a clear opinion on the outcome which will be to stay in. I just believe one side has everything going for it and the other hasn't. Whilst it is a vociferous debate now between those interested there are a huge number of people who are ambivalent, who don't buy the 'it's obvious' argument from either side and whose vote will need to be won. Like AV most people will start from the position of 'I don't know a lot about it'.

If you could bet i would wager 54-57 in 43-46 out on the spreads. That's a lot of people wanting us out, just short of a majority. I could be wrong but it is 49-51 now and I can o my see it going one way.

I can see where you're coming from. You think that if an imminent referendum triggered the debate in earnest, established political figures would weigh in with a pro-EU approach and the middle-of-the-road British voter would fall into line.

A few years ago that theory might have held good, but we live in interesting times now. People have been lied to, deceived, patronised and taken for granted by all mainstream political parties once too often and we don't believe any of them anymore. So why should we believe them on the merits of the EU?

There won't be a referendum because the politicians are frightened of the possible result, but if there was, I would bet you a pre-match pint in the Oak Lea that the "out" vote would win it!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by g jones

Current opinion polls are 51-49

I know this is just a small cross-section of people, and not done scientifically, but that does not reflect the results of two Accy Web polls, carried out in 2004, and 2009.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...rope-4433.html

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...oll-49152.html

You must admit the E.U. is a totally different entity from the Common Market/European Economic Community, the name of a trade alliance, the last time people were allowed their say on the matter in 1975.

Do you think there should be a referendum on E.U. membership, Graham?

Will you be actively lobbying for one?

Overwhelmingly it seems the majority of members on this forum demand their say in one.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

I can see where you're coming from. You think that if an imminent referendum triggered the debate in earnest, established political figures would weigh in with a pro-EU approach and the middle-of-the-road British voter would fall into line.

A few years ago that theory might have held good, but we live in interesting times now. People have been lied to, deceived, patronised and taken for granted by all mainstream political parties once too often and we don't believe any of them anymore. So why should we believe them on the merits of the EU?

There won't be a referendum because the politicians are frightened of the possible result, but if there was, I would bet you a pre-match pint in the Oak Lea that the "out" vote would win it!

I would be careful before you bet good beer. There are several things to consider. The vote would not be a fair one. Those in power can mobilize that power to promote their cause. They speak as "authority". They can claim they have a mandate, one given to them by the electorate in the last general election, to run the country in the best interests of Britain. They can also claim, with justification, that Britain does not have a history of plebicitary (yes, it is a word; got it from a great book by Sir Ian Kershaw) democracy. It just isn't part of the democratic tradition. What is most important is that they will attempt to frame the question without consulting the "antis".

From what I read on here; and from what I read in the press, it is my humble colonial opinion that those who are opposed to membership in the EU could perhaps base their position not on the economics of membership in the EU, but on things that are more intangible, more fundamental, more profound .... perhaps more visceral: the fact that Britain is a distinct society, and that this is what is under attack. Britain's uniqueness. There is a Canadian example. The Province of Quebec has held two votes on whether or not to remain in the Canadian Confederation. The votes were close, very close. And the point was not whether or not Quebec would be better off economically, it was about whether or not Quebec heritage and culture and language would be swallowed up in an "English" North America (ok, we'll forget about Mexico). Even though the votes went against the separatistes, they did win major concessions: French only signs for everything in Quebec; education in the French language; Quebec recognized as a "distinct society within Confederation" by the Federal govt. and the other nine provinces; control of immigration into the province ... and lots of other good stuff.

I think the point I'm trying to make in as little space as possible is that it is not just economics at stake. And government must be made to listen to that, and make it part of the question.

As an afterthought to this ramble: The People's Charter of 1838 (I think that's the right date; Sam Wignall beat it into my head just so that I wouldn't have to Google it) had six points ... only No. 6 was never adopted. Maybe it's time; then govts. would have to listen.

[Margaret Pilkington]

In my post number 81, I cited the fact that the question would not be a simple 'in or out'....it would be framed in such a way as to bamboozle the majority of those who would cast a vote....and you are right about the politicians mobilising the powers to skew the vote by their perceived 'authority'.
As for the plebiscite.......well isn't that just another posh word for a referendum ( from the latin plebis - being ordinary people, and scitum - decree........law of the common man).

I think that many people can see the EU's creeping political ambition. Trying to influence and take over areas of our lives that we feel we should have sovereignty over.

If we are going to allow Brussels to make the law, then why bother having a Parliament at all?

What worries me most, is the fact that whatever these faceless bureaucrats do, we have no right of redress...they are unelected. So they are, in effect, a law unto themselves.
They cannot be ousted no matter what they do.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eric

I would be careful before you bet good beer. There are several things to consider. The vote would not be a fair one. Those in power can mobilize that power to promote their cause. They speak as "authority". They can claim they have a mandate, one given to them by the electorate in the last general election, to run the country in the best interests of Britain. They can also claim, with justification, that Britain does not have a history of plebicitary (yes, it is a word; got it from a great book by Sir Ian Kershaw) democracy. It just isn't part of the democratic tradition. What is most important is that they will attempt to frame the question without consulting the "antis".

From what I read on here; and from what I read in the press, it is my humble colonial opinion that those who are opposed to membership in the EU could perhaps base their position not on the economics of membership in the EU, but on things that are more intangible, more fundamental, more profound .... perhaps more visceral: the fact that Britain is a distinct society, and that this is what is under attack. Britain's uniqueness. There is a Canadian example. The Province of Quebec has held two votes on whether or not to remain in the Canadian Confederation. The votes were close, very close. And the point was not whether or not Quebec would be better off economically, it was about whether or not Quebec heritage and culture and language would be swallowed up in an "English" North America (ok, we'll forget about Mexico). Even though the votes went against the separatistes, they did win major concessions: French only signs for everything in Quebec; education in the French language; Quebec recognized as a "distinct society within Confederation" by the Federal govt. and the other nine provinces; control of immigration into the province ... and lots of other good stuff.

I think the point I'm trying to make in as little space as possible is that it is not just economics at stake. And government must be made to listen to that, and make it part of the question.

As an afterthought to this ramble: The People's Charter of 1838 (I think that's the right date; Sam Wignall beat it into my head just so that I wouldn't have to Google it) had six points ... only No. 6 was never adopted. Maybe it's time; then govts. would have to listen.

Rather than those in power in government, i.e. politicans, most of the press seems to be anti the E.U. as it stands. Which will probably hold more sway with the public, than those who have a vested interest in staying in.

I'm not a betting man, but I do pride myself on being a good judge of public opinion, and predict there would be two thirds voting 'No' to continuing E.U. membership, given a free...and fair referendum.

I was right about A.V. being rejected, when I said so on here. Unlike some politicans, who posted it would be accepted after the vote last May.

The people demand a say, over something totally different to what it was as a concept in the seventies, a trade alliance.

Not one British person has voted that laws that affect this country are decided in, and issued by Brussels.

We deserve that vote.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

In my post number 81, I cited the fact that the question would not be a simple 'in or out'....it would be framed in such a way as to bamboozle the majority of those who would cast a vote....and you are right about the politicians mobilising the powers to skew the vote by their perceived 'authority'.
As for the plebiscite.......well isn't that just another posh word for a referendum ( from the latin plebis - being ordinary people, and scitum - decree........law of the common man).

I think that many people can see the EU's creeping political ambition. Trying to influence and take over areas of our lives that we feel we should have sovereignty over.

If we are going to allow Brussels to make the law, then why bother having a Parliament at all?

What worries me most, is the fact that whatever these faceless bureaucrats do, we have no right of redress...they are unelected. So they are, in effect, a law unto themselves.
They cannot be ousted no matter what they do.

There's been a major shift in public opinon, ever since the expenses scandal.

We now know politicans aren't our 'betters', and necessarily working for the people they represents' best interests.

Much, if not all of the trust, has gone.

On such an important an issue, arrived at by stealth, the people should be allowed to trust their own judgement, and decide their own fate.

[Margaret Pilkington]

yes, there has been a major shift in how the public see politicians.....but I think if a referendum is held(and I am not sure that it will be....mainly because it is the MP's who will vote to decide whether we should have a chance to have our say.....and there seems not much political will to vote against the EU by the MP's) the question may be put in such a convoluted manner that it will not be easy to see through the smokescreen.
Anyway even if the MP's decide we should have a say, their recommendation will not be legally binding on the government.....so I feel very pssimistic about it...powerless too!

[g jones]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

I can see where you're coming from. You think that if an imminent referendum triggered the debate in earnest, established political figures would weigh in with a pro-EU approach and the middle-of-the-road British voter would fall into line.

A few years ago that theory might have held good, but we live in interesting times now. People have been lied to, deceived, patronised and taken for granted by all mainstream political parties once too often and we don't believe any of them anymore. So why should we believe them on the merits of the EU?

There won't be a referendum because the politicians are frightened of the possible result, but if there was, I would bet you a pre-match pint in the Oak Lea that the "out" vote would win it!

The out vote would win amongst traditional and socialist Labour voters (good reasons), right wing little englanders (daft reasons) and Mail and Express (daft reasons) readers outside the south east in my view. Interstinlgly as with AV, Scotland and N Ireland will vote significantly to stay in. I still remain of the opinion that a snap referendum would result in a close finish/out, a long referenda (which it will be) will see a shift to pro-EU. If the starting position was 60-40 than I think the EU out will win, but if it is 51-49, they have lost.

I do lots of SME companies and I get the same message, domestic demand has slipped and if it wasn't for Europe/Non EU (but mainly EU) we would have closed the business and XXXXX employee's would have gone on the dole.

These companies, silent to their employee's now because there isn't a refernedum will a) panic at the referendum b) support the pro EU c) ensure their employee's 'get the significance of the message' i.e. you could lose your job. Not friends of the Labour Party nor friends of ordinary workers, The CBI and FSB have made their members views well known. I do not believe the anti-EU will beat that powerful argument AND furthermore they will fall in to the foolish trap of discussing the HRA (and other trivialities to economic ones) which does not 'put bread on the table' of the ordinary person.

Just my view but the pro-Eu will win a long campaign, may lose a short campaign if the nation is at 51-49 now.

[garinda]

Odd how we managed to be a major economic player on the world stage for nearly a millenia, prior to 1973.

Without any major trade alliances with mainland Europe.

Nor were binding laws that we must abide by, issued from there.

Can't remember any of our great industrialists being reliant on European hand outs either.