Voting to remain

[LondonMix]

Louisa-- my in-laws are from the Devon coast so I know more about the area than most. Please explain what about the policies in your view have destroyed the fishing industry rather than just saying they have.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you are a young person growing up in one of

> these isolated communities, you have no future.

> All the traditional industries you relied upon

> have now gone thanks to EU regulation, something

> we cannot control. Imagine growing up in one of

> these places with no future and no job prospects?

> Oh but it's ok because the EU is funding a

> regeneration project which involves rebuilding the

> town square, great.

>

> Louisa.

[root]

Rook Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

...

> 1) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy ? Recurring

> cost: ?4.7bn a year

> 2) The CRD IV package ? Recurring cost: ?4.6bn a

> year

> 3) The Working Time Directive ? Recurring cost:

> ?4.2bn a year

> 4) The EU Climate and Energy Package ? Recurring

> cost: ?3.4bn a year

> 5) The Temporary Agency Workers Directive ?

> Recurring cost: ?2.1bn a year

...

Which of these in particular are you having an issue with?

[Louisa]

No LM I am blaming the EU for allowing isolated communities to fall by the wayside by making internationalist decisions based on environmental and scientific findings, with absolutely nothing to repair or transform those communities to look for alternative replacement industries. Can you blame these people for feeling a bit upset? They're getting all this EU funding, shouldn't they be grateful for that?

Louisa.

[Louisa]

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6092/the_eu_s_betrayal_of_britain_s_fishing_industry

This article gives a good summary of the facts. Some countries, France for example, are incredibly protectionist of their treasured wine and cheese industries. We here in the UK have through the CFP (which ironically only came into force ONCE the UK joined the EU, wonder why?), have seen our treasured fishing industry allowed to be directly regulated by the EU. The decline has been dramatic, you only have to go to Whitby Bay or the various smaller ports across the UK coast to see the direct impact these policies have had. Anyone can come into our waters and fish to a certain quota for fish that once only our fishermen had access to. It's created unnecessary competition on our doorstep, and contributed to stock levels collapsing.

Louisa.

[LondonMix]

Sorry, what decision has the EU made that you believe, if it hadn't made would mean that the South West would have a prosperous fishing industry now? From your post, I think that's is what you are claiming.

[LondonMix]

Sorry cross posted with you Louisa. The collapse of the fishing stock was not a result of the EU (based on published scientific findings). The fishing stock due to deep sea trawling was in long decline of more than 100 years due to over fishing. The caps that are now in place are to prevent the total collapse of the fishing stock in Europe.

What is a fairer point to make is that before 1970, Britain had those waters to themselves. Opening that waters up to international fishing would have been a hit for the local industry.

[titch juicy]

For FACTS around EU Law and the UK's influence on it, please read this.

It's an independent factchecking charity.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

[Louisa]

If we leave the EU, we will once again be in charge of those waters, so we can regulate from our own parliament on who can fish them and to what quota levels. Personally, I think we should whack tariffs on other EU states fishing our waters for unique fish/crustations not found elsewhere in the EU. Some of the smallest family owned businesses have literally gone under due to over fishing from big Spanish/Portugese/French trawlers coming into our waters. They simply cannot compete.

Louisa.

[Rook]

Root I dont have an issue with the concept of renewable energy or better working rights but I do have an issue of paying for these directives on an ongoing basis when they are a net drag on the UK economy (especially when soem of them were on proviso for things that didnt even materialise). My whole argument is not to cancel everything and sit there draped in a Union Jack - my argument is that there is a better way to operate with our European friends...that doesnt mean screwing everyone else, or beign racist etc(!) it means beign at the forefront of alot of this (we were anyway) and being sensible about the key issues and how we control and tackle them directly.

I dont think there is a price for freedom and democracy (so much chat around trade deal tariffs) but Im just showing that you should see both sides of the economic argument - even more so when you dont even know if we can agree new trade deals which I personally am very sure we can. What we do know now is that the EU experiment is not working. Look at the respective economies and unrest. Everyone conveniently overlooks those facts which again I think is because it seems alot of those who want to remain are voting on Idealogy as opposed to reality (or fear of unknown). You wouldnt vote to Join the EU in its present state surely?

[Davis]

The EU referendum is all baloney! Voting is not going to change the direction of this ideological freight train, rather all it will do is consolidate power so in a few years when people complain about EU legislation they will be told 'stop complaining you voted to stay in'.

[root]

Rook Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

...

> opposed to reality (or fear of unknown). You

> wouldnt vote to Join the EU in its present state

> surely?

If you're asking whether the UK should join the EU today if it weren't a member you're making two big assumptions:

1) that the UK outside the EU would have been today what the UK is having been one of the most crucial players within the EU for pretty much ever

2) that the EU would be what it is today without the UK having been one of its most crucial players within for pretty much ever.

In any case would love to see some other countries join the EU eventually. Above all Serbia's place is inside the European Union and hope to eventually see Montenegro, Georgia and and one day Moldova and Ukraine too.

[Rook]

Exactly. Its served us very well as globalisation has taken hold but its not fit for purpose anymore. The reality of this is there to see.

Your opinion is clearly that it is however so fair enough

[LondonMix]

Louisa, I personally have issues with the CFP. For one, through constant political bartering, caps are not set low enough in Europe. This is the fault of member nations (including the UK) who are constantly fighting for over-fishing rather than setting the caps at their intended appropriate conservation levels. If anything, I think the decision on cap levels should be made entirely by scientists and removed from political influence.

With that said, I also think the UK lost more than it gained initially in the 1970s when joining the CFP as it controlled more valuable fishing water than other member nations. However, by then the fishing industry was already in terminal decline. Over fishing for almost a hundred years had already significantly decimated the fishing population.

Leaving the EU will not and cannot restore fishing to its former importance in those parts of the country. In fact, without EU subsidies, fishing is no longer a viable industry within Europe generally as most fleets run at a loss (and that's with the caps set too high!).

I think this is 100% an area for reform regarding better conservation efforts but the economic value of fishing for the UK doesn't warrant a Leave vote at all. Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry combined only account for 0.07% of UK GDP. That is hundredths of a percent!

[LondonMix]

If its about sovereignty then fair enough but if its about specific bits of legislation that should be reformed then surely it makes more sense to stay and reform it rather than give up all the benefits the EU confers economically.

The trade agreements that you believe the UK can very easily replace are not just with the EU but with 50 other countries via the EU. Without the temptation of a 500 person trading block, it is totally unreasonable to think the UK will get as good trade terms with those other 50 countries as it currently enjoys. It certainly won't get a better trade deal than it currently has with the EU (there is nothing better than total free trade). To think so requires a total suspension of reason and experience in favor of a belief in an extraordinary level of British exceptionalism.

Is there any institution (including the UK parliament, UN the US government, the BBC, the Met police etc) that is not subject to criticism and is in need of specific reforms? Of course not. Does that mean all of those institutions should be scrapped entirely? Of course not.

The question shouldn't be is EU perfect but does the UK get more benefits from membership than not. The answer economically is 100% yes.

Again, the sovereignty issue is something else-- if you want sovereignty and you are willing to pay the price for it, then fair play.

Rook Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly. Its served us very well as globalisation

> has taken hold but its not fit for purpose

> anymore. The reality of this is there to see.

> Your opinion is clearly that it is however so fair

> enough

[root]

An open letter to UK voters from leaders of 96 British universities

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-an-open-letter-to-uk-voters-from-leaders-of-96-british-universities-a7092511.html

[rendelharris]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Louisa, I personally have issues with the CFP.

> For one, through constant political bartering,

> caps are not set low enough in Europe. This is

> the fault of member nations (including the UK) who

> are constantly fighting for over-fishing rather

> than setting the caps at their intended

> appropriate conservation levels. If anything, I

> think the decision on cap levels should be made

> entirely by scientists and removed from political

> influence.

>

>

> With that said, I also think the UK lost more than

> it gained initially in the 1970s when joining the

> CFP as it controlled more valuable fishing water

> than other member nations. However, by then the

> fishing industry was already in terminal decline.

> Over fishing for almost a hundred years had

> already significantly decimated the fishing

> population.

>

> Leaving the EU will not and cannot restore fishing

> to its former importance in those parts of the

> country. In fact, without EU subsidies, fishing

> is no longer a viable industry within Europe

> generally as most fleets run at a loss (and that's

> with the caps set too high!).

>

> I think this is 100% an area for reform regarding

> better conservation efforts but the economic value

> of fishing for the UK doesn't warrant a Leave vote

> at all. Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry combined

> only account for 0.07% of UK GDP. That is

> hundredths of a percent!

I agree with all of this - I would just add that the deleterious effect on small fishing communities has been exacerbated by the use of massive factory trawlers which have centralised fishing to a handful of ports. This is something the UK government could have addressed through licensing and grants, the EU wouldn't have interfered - once they've given the UK our quota it's up to us who's licensed to catch it. One of those many areas where superficially the EU seems to be to blame but on closer examination it's national government incompetence and/or willingness to please big business over the needs of the small producers.

[Blah Blah]

LondonM is right on fishing and agriculture. I grew up on a farm and know lots of farmers, so that is something I personally know a lot about.

But I also take issue with Louisa's general view that it is the EU who are responsible for the UK's general decline in industry. Manufacturing and raw materials were already well into decline before we joined the EU. Shipbuilding is a perfect example of that. We went from being one of the worlds largest ship builders to being one of its smallest, simply because of the rise of other nations - nothing to do with the EU at all It was always going to be that other nations could provide coal cheaper, or steel. The EU actually has tried to protect those markets for its member states.

The harsh reality is that we can not compete on production costs with countris that have lower costs of living for their labour. And that, if anything, is what is responsible for our decline in manufacturing. You can not have cheap goods and high wages at the same time. But this is what we seem to want.

[LondonMix]

Louisa-- here is the scientific research I mentioned before: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n2/full/ncomms1013.html

Due to bottom trawl catching, the fish stocks went into terminal decline after World War II.

[aerie]

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> An open letter to UK voters from leaders of 96

> British universities

>

> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-r

> eferendum-an-open-letter-to-uk-voters-from-leaders

> -of-96-british-universities-a7092511.html

Thank you for this link - however, they are truly preaching to the converted are they not?

The obviousness of this situation will alas be wasted on yer average DM reader, or anyone else believing Universities are for toffs.

The article is headed by a pic of someone striding across the quad, captioned by 'students on the Cam'

[Lordship 516]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

>

> > Given that EU law would prevent the

> > re-nationalisation of the railways, which,

> given

> > the finite nature of fossil fuels and the

> > congestion on the roads, (not to mention the

> > pollution generated which the EU fine us for

> every

> > year,) is the only sensible way forward in

> > transportation- then EU law is a stupid ass and

> we

> > should get out now.

>

> That's simply not true, I'm afraid, much as Farage

> loves to say it. EU law requires non-restrictive

> competitive access to freight routes, it in no way

> proscribes nationalisation of railways. The First

> EU rail directive states: "Member States may

> exclude from the scope of this Directive railway

> undertakings whose activity is limited to the

> provision of solely urban, suburban or regional

> services." It's not the EU that stands in the way

> of railway renationalisation, it's the interests

> of private capital (I'm looking at you, Branson)

> and the conservative economic policies of

> successive governments. Look up the SNCF, with

> government backing (and it must be admitted a

> certain amount of cunning Gallic footwork worthy

> of Serge Blanco) they've retained predominant

> government control over the French rail network.

> It's a lack of UK government will and supine

> bowing to private capital that have landed our

> railways in the mess they're in today, not EU

> regulation.

We have the good Lady Thatcher to thank for all this privatization, driven by ideologues such as Hayek, his arch monetarist acolyte Milton Friedman & the poor boy made good Sir Alan Walters. This was good for business and remedied the economy in the short term but the UK has been suffering the harsh medicine of this narrow philosophy since then & Norman Tebbit ensured that the employment laws were put in place that allows employers free rein to hire & fire almost at will and only pay as little as they can get away with - examples the Amazon sweatshop & Sports Direct zero hours contracts. The EU provided some protection against to worst excesses of their policies and we ought to celebrate that. The one good thing they did was prevent Nigel Lawson pushing the UK into the Euro but that doesn't mean that the Pound is wonderful - it is weak & volatile & is manipulated by the large financial blocks that even the Government cannot control. Boris Johnson appears to hark back to the Churchill era [even appears to emulate the great man] where the Empire was dominant - these people are regressive little Britaneers who only understand control & don't really understand co-operation & inclusiveness. Lets vote remain and lead within Europe by example & press for reform that will be in the greater good for Europe as a whole. Don't forget - China & India are in the wings & flexing all kinds of muscles - the UK on its own will get eaten alive; within the EU the UK can harness our experience gained over hundreds of years to influence & participate in a huge economic block of over 500 million people.

[Jules-and-Boo]

"Lets vote remain and lead within Europe by example & press for reform that will be in the greater good for Europe as a whole".

yes - well, unfortunately, there is a large sway of other countries to influence and win over, if we were to push for reform. They would all have to want that to happen. Our views, ideals, values etc. are all diverse.

In some areas, we are struggling to influence - look at transportation of live animals. Other countries in EU frankly do not care and this reform fails. We have more power to influence our OWN reform and thereby influence Europe.

[Louisa]

Vote leave, and others will follow. Don't think of the short term, think of the long term. This is a decision which will galvanise one EU state after another to end this political experiment and democracy will re-establish itself across this continent once more.

Louisa.

[root]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Vote leave, and others will follow. Don't think of

> the short term, think of the long term. This is a

> decision which will galvanise one EU state after

> another to end this political experiment and

> democracy will re-establish itself across this

> continent once more.

>

> Louisa.

So what you really want Louisa is to rewind the clocks of Europe back to the 1950s. In the face of global superstates like India, China, the US, etc, reduce Europe to a bunch of loose dinky insignificant democracies.

[The Dulwich Raider]

Should probably have posted this link in here instead of starting a new Lounge thread, but I'm an idiot:

21 Reasons to Vote Leave

http://deserter.co.uk/2016/06/eu-referendump-20-reasons-to-vote-leave/

(some swearing)

TDR

[Louisa]

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> So what you really want Louisa is to rewind the

> clocks of Europe back to the 1950s. In the face

> of global superstates like India, China, the US,

> etc, reduce Europe to a bunch of loose dinky

> insignificant democracies.

Absolutely not root. What I want is for Europe to return to democracy, one in which Greece isn't threatened with economic sanctions and caught up in mass unemployment. A Europe in which Democracy is once again returned to the local rather than centralised, where decisions can be made for the interests of the many and not the few. No-one says if the EU collapses we can't still trade with each other. Everyone is talking about this market of 500 million people, what about the other market of 6 billion customers (eg the rest of the world?). Calling us loose insignificant democracies is missing the point entirely.

Louisa.