EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[chalga]

Cameron got something we didn't have before. He got something that we wouldn't have been offered if Miliband had become Prime Minister. He got concessions that no other European country has got. That's not a bad effort.

 

It isn't enough to make me vote to remain in the EU, but if the vote goes against me I will be happier to be in the EU with the changes than without. Which would make me very happy that Cameron won those concessions.

 

It's not exactly rocket science.

 

Now if folk in the rest of Europe wake up to the fact that they can protest and get conessions it might actually lead to major reform or even the breakup of the EU. Now that would be progress.

 

Still won't alter the fact that there's plenty,especially in the right wing press and politicians,and on this forum for that matter,that think what he's got doesn't mean enough to get envious about,or add up to a hill of beans....but if it's foreigners who are getting envious about it,hey,that's a whole different ball game,and lets trumpet it from the rooftops.

[sutty27]

 

The Brexiters are already talking about the UK being better off in the long-term. If such claims are being made then they need to be substantiated. Or else don't make them.

 

That works both ways, the stay in brigade are making plenty of their own substantiated claims of impending doom if we leave.

[foxy lady]

Still won't alter the fact that there's plenty,especially in the right wing press and politicians,and on this forum for that matter,that think what he's got doesn't mean enough to get envious about,or add up to a hill of beans....but if it's foreigners who are getting envious about it,hey,that's a whole different ball game,and lets trumpet it from the rooftops.

 

On the contrary. I see a load of lefties who are really really choked off that Cameron got a better deal than we had before. It may not be a massive difference, but it is better than nothing, and sustantially better than anything achieved by the previous Labour Government who just signed us up to ever more integration with Europe. They even promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but then abandoned the referendum when it was clear the public would vote against it. I think more than any other reason that is why I'm voting out, because I suspect it is the only time we will ever get the chance.

[chalga]

On the contrary. I see a load of lefties who are really really choked off that Cameron got a better deal than we had before. It may not be a massive difference, but it is better than nothing, and sustantially better than anything achieved by the previous Labour Government who just signed us up to ever more integration with Europe. They even promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but then abandoned the referendum when it was clear the public would vote against it. I think more than any other reason that is why I'm voting out, because I suspect it is the only time we will ever get the chance.

 

But the whole point of Camerons deal,according to Cameron,is to keep us in,not out,so if it's not keeping loads more voting in than out,what is there for foreigners to get envious about?

[dutch]

There will be many who would lose their job if they vote out. If someone wants to vote out but knows their job depends on staying in they would vote for the job.

[foxy lady]

But the whole point of Camerons deal,according to Cameron,is to keep us in,not out,so if it's not keeping loads more voting in than out,what is there for foreigners to get envious about?

 

How do you know its not keeping more voting in than out? The fact that he got concessions will clearly make some vote IN who would have voted out. It's a fact that seems to get right up the nose of some of the lefties who are wondering why their boys didn't get any concessions whatsoever out of the EU after 13 years of government.

[chalga]

How do you know its not keeping more voting in than out? The fact that he got concessions will clearly make some vote IN who would have voted out. It's a fact that seems to get right up the nose of some of the lefties who are wondering why their boys didn't get any concessions whatsoever out of the EU after 13 years of government.

 

Cameron can't even convince his cabinet that he's got a good deal,the Tories are starting to tear themselves apart over Europe again,as usual.I can read this forum and the national press.........the general opinion on here and among the right wing press is that Cameron has not done enough to change minds about leaving........if they are thinking that,why would foreigners be envious about what many are rejecting?

[tinfoilhat]

The European Directives are pretty much all about trade. Through work I've come into contact with a few engineering ones. One I've had particular dealings with is the Pressure Equipment Directive (97/23/EC). This sets agreed standards for the design and construction of pressure systems. It's aim is to ensure that equipment is designed and constructed to an adequate standard to minimize the risk of failure and injury to personnel.

 

Any country could set its own standards, to protect its citizens as it sees fit, but the whole point about a common standard across the EU is to ensure a level trading playing field. This and other directives are created to ensure this level playing field and to prevent individual countries protecting their industry with spurious "standards", or by having low and unsafe standards. Any country could have any (or no) pressure equipment standards it wants, but if it wants to sell its pressure equipment within the EU, then it has to comply with EU Directives.

 

Over the years there have been a series of bathing water directives. In the UK, this resulted in those water companies which had previously dumped sewage out to sea now having to treat it first. This costs money to achieve, so ultimately it costs us all, but we get a better environment.

 

Similarly, the Freshwater Fish Directive resulted in improved standards for what we discharge into rivers. Again, costing us, but helping to create a better environment.

 

Both the bathing water and freshwater fish directives help to create a better environment. But also, they prevent countries from, for example, providing industry on the cheap with little or no environmental consideration (ie a race to the environmental bottom). If a country decided to not treat any of its effluent before dumping it into the sea (or into a river which then flows through other countries - the "blue" Danube comes to mind) it could then undercut all its neighbours when it manufactures anything, as well as polluting the river it sends to them. These neighbours would not be happy.

 

Directives are a way of managing this. You want to trade within the club, then comply with the directives it sets. Anyone can do this. A Brexited UK would still need to comply with the Pressure Equipment Directive if it wanted to sell pressure equipment within the EU. As it is, pressure equipment manufacturers in the UK are able to input into the creation of such a directive, and influence future development. if we were not in the EU, then they wouldn't have this option.

 

I actually think that the EU should go further in insisting on which directives apply to those importing from outside the EU. For example, we can insist that a, say, Chinese company wishing to import pressure equipment into the EU must comply with the Pressure Equipment Directive. However, I don't see how the EU can make sure that the Chinese factory does not pollute its local rivers. Similarly, working time directive only applies to companies within the EU. How do we know what happens in other countries.

 

Once a directive is in place, then each country adjusts its laws and regulations, as necessary, to comply with the directive. Some we barely notice, but some we do. This is when Brussels is blamed, as if it is some entity completely separate from us.

 

Some get publicity - eg reduction in the power consumption of some electrical equipment. Another one (I think, I've not actually checked) are toilet flushes. Years ago, we had syphonic toilet flushes. These had the advantage that they wouldn't leak. I think this was either covered in the water regs, or possibly water bye-laws. Then, along came the continental Europe system of flushing by means of lifting a flap valve. Much simpler and cheaper. This also allowed for large and small flushes, thus potentially saving water. Our regulations were changed, and these are now allowed.

 

As an angler I'm as pleased as anyone about cleaner waterways. But should we have rely on the EU to do it? Short answer I suppose is "yes we do".

[JFKvsNixon]

As an angler I'm as pleased as anyone about cleaner waterways. But should we have rely on the EU to do it? Short answer I suppose is "yes we do".

 

I guess that one of the issues is that in the short term, many of the policies would be unpopular due to the added expenses, so it takes a brave government to initiate them. The EU, doesn't have the same worries in regard to short term political gain, so it's easier for it to look at the big picture.

[tinfoilhat]

I guess that one of the issues is that in the short term, many of the policies would be unpopular due to the added expenses, so it takes a brave government to initiate them. The EU, doesn't have the same worries in regard to short term political gain, so it's easier for it to look at the big picture.

 

But it's also above much in the way accountability. You've trawlers tipping away tonnes of fish every year. I think we should stop that. Every UK MEP could vote to stop it (can they even do that?). But we could have land locked MEPs saying no.