European Union in or out

Firecracker try reading world news. Germany has over 1 million refugees as well as several million East german germans in 1990. German wage earners are still paying monthly for the Reunification.

Hyperbole again Firecracker.
The problems that you list are not to do with the EU; you are scaremongering to suggest they are.

How can you suggest that Germany is not experiencing the negative effects of mass migration, compared to the UK?
You do know about all the refugees and asylum seekers they have there at the moment, don't you?

"MargeretX obviously you are bias living in Germany." How very rude. Surely the chances are that, living in Germany, MargaretX will be more knowledgeable than someone who doesn't have her first hand knowledge Firecracker, including you and the rest of us who are not there.

As for "The ordinary British person" I am one so please don't feel you can talk for me. What you post is your opinion only; that makes it valid as your opinion but you really take a lot on your shoulders believing you know what everyone else thinks - you obviously don't.

Obviously this is my opinion as I am living with the effects of EU migration from EU countries, I am not talking about Syrians or asylum seekers.

Firecracker123. Trevor Phillips ( former boss of the equalities watchdog) understands what you mean. He stated yesterday that there is now a 'smoking gun' in relation to the rate of immigration.

I am not an economist. I am not a business woman, but this article "OUR DEMOCRACY IS NOT FOR SALE TO THE EU" regarding how many trade deals really work, is worth reading. I also really wonder why people who want a fairer society seem to be backing Remain, when corporate greed is behind staying in too. It doesn't make sense. The EU is worryingly unaccountable.

"The reality is both of these ‘trade deals’ are nothing more than the sacrifice of democracy to the greed of large corporations."

"Democracy is in great peril, and it is something we must defend with all our might. We must not, and cannot, fall for the idea that democracy can be sacrificed in the pursuit of a “Greater Good” which is only interested in the increased profits of corporations."

FULL ARTICLE BY RYAN FISKE HERE:

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) once again dominates the news with the 13th round of negotiations having taken place at the end of April. If it were just a free trade agreement everyone would support it. But it goes far beyond the realms of free trade.

There are also increasing calls to halt it from European leaders -- most recently from French President François Hollande, revealing the increasing hostility towards the deal. However, we should not assume this growing belief in TTIP’s impending failure is assured, and we certainly shouldn’t be relying on Hollande to safeguard British interests.

Traditionally, many of us on the Eurosceptic Right do not particularly see TTIP -- or its Canadian brother CETA -- as an issue of much concern. We have long believed the European Commission’s inadequacies in negotiating trade deals would result in a flawed, but still acceptable, trade deal.

This is an incredibly naïve view of TTIP and CETA. The reality is they both present very serious threats to democratic and accountable governance.

The secrecy in which the negotiations are conducted, in addition to the provisions of the Investor-States Disputes Settlements (ISDS) mechanism, will damage the public’s belief in democracy and free markets.

We have already seen the electoral consequences of such developments in the US with the rise of Donald Trump. European politicians should be very wary before they dismiss this as an American-only phenomenon. The flames of political ideology are already spreading across the western world and deals like TTIP and CETA are providing further fuel to the fire.

The reality is both of these ‘trade deals’ are nothing more than the sacrifice of democracy to the greed of large corporations.

Understandably, there are concerns over the secrecy in which these deals -- TTIP especially -- have been negotiated. Stuart Agnew -- UKIP MEP for the East of England -- recently revealed he was forced to sign a document swearing not to reveal their contents, with the threat of severe financial and criminal proceedings if he did.

He was then led into a windowless room, after being stripped of all electronic and writing equipment, before being shown the most recent drafts of the agricultural sections of the TTIP deal. Accountability and transparency is impossible in these conditions, when our elected representatives are unable to share the details of the trade deal with their constituents.

How can they possibly be expected to discuss their views on the matter and represent the voters effectively, when they can’t even tell us about it or ask for our opinions?

It is clear the major beneficiaries of this secrecy are the multinational companies who stand to make huge gains from the terms of two deals. It’s true we often defend businesses as the drivers of the economy, however we also believe the interests of business cannot and should not override the need for true democratic accountability.

When people see their vote having little effect on the world around them in a time of austerity, but still see big business getting preferential treatment, they lose faith in democracy. The potential breakdown of the democratic system is far too high a price to pay for increased profits for those who are already wealthy.

The ISDS mechanism is highly problematic and could be very destructive to our domestic companies, including those in a public sector organisation like the NHS, which could be forced to open up all their services to privatisation.

If a dispute occurs, corporations would be allowed to sue governments if they believe government actions damage their profits. For example, if our government introduces an environmental tax on fracking which subsequently affects the profit of an American mining company, they could sue us for loss of profits. Things like this should be decided by our own government, not forced on us by TTIP and the EU.

Conservative politicians often fail to understand the problems. They argue private companies should have the right to sue governments if what they do causes them loss of profits. Even if this were a valid argument, in reality not every company would be able to do so.

Only the richest and biggest corporations would have access to the legal expertise and the resources to successfully take governments to court. The only thing which would happen would be a further distortion of free markets, where large multinational corporations exploit this mechanism to rig the market in their favour to the disadvantage of the small and medium-sized companies, which, after all, are over 99 percent of British businesses.

The long-running concerns over the future of the NHS were brought sharply into focus this week, exposing just how real these fears are. A draft of the TTIP agreement was leaked to Greenpeace and it makes for very worrying reading.

It seems the NHS has been a major subject of discussion. Privatisation of the NHS is not something the British people want, but the European Commission sees fit to ignore this and is trying to hand it over to American health companies.

The leaked document shows they are prepared to concede the right for the British government to reverse existing partial privatisations -- currently 6.1 percent of the NHS -- with the American companies involved being able to sue our government. This means it would be impossible to reverse any privatisation into public hands -- now or in the future -- without extreme difficulty.

It is simply not acceptable for our government and our people to be stripped of control of our own health service and any attempt to do so would massively turn people against free market and capitalism. This is something we must avoid at all costs.

If you are a supporter of free markets, you cannot support a trade deal which involves the kind of heavy handed mechanisms we also see in NAFTA. This has only benefited the largest American corporations and has done nothing for smaller companies.

Many NAFTA rulings have been highly controversial, with Canada being repeatedly fined for banning neurotoxic chemicals -- such as MMT and PCB waste -- on public health grounds. The fines levied for these “offences” total more than $200 million, and they are being sued for $1.75 billion more.

This has nothing to do with companies being treated fairly, and everything to do with corporate greed triumphing over democracy. While ensuring governments treat companies fairly may look appealing, in reality, what seems to be happening, is a transfer of power away from democratically elected governments to large multinational corporations for their financial gain.

Democracy is in great peril, and it is something we must defend with all our might. We must not, and cannot, fall for the idea that democracy can be sacrificed in the pursuit of a “Greater Good” which is only interested in the increased profits of corporations.

The European Union is an organisation which thrives on secrecy and a complete lack of democratic accountability. This has now extended to its trade deals in the form of CETA and TTIP. These trade deals contain more to make big companies happy than to protect the way democratic governments act to look after people.

This makes TTIP and CETA together an unacceptable attack on the democratic foundations of our society and amounts to nothing more than a corporate power grab.

Hopefully TTIP and CETA will fail because of the bureaucratic nightmare of the EU, but let us not leave this to chance. We must ensure we are not trapped into a trade deal which only benefits large corporations. To do this we must Get Britain Out of the EU.

Except that the Tory government would have signed up to TTIP if it had its way.
It will do so if we are out of the EU.

My MEPs are against TTIP. We only know what is happening because of Labour MEPs telling us.

But DJ, can't you see the worry is about lack of transparency of the EU and the fact that large companies are backing these deals because they stand to make a lot of money?

IF Cameron, or any other PM wanted something like this - and that's YOUR speculation - it would, if we were out of the EU, be debated and the MPs with understanding and knowledge of trading and such deals would be able to spell out what is going on to the British public, because at least we would retain OUR democracy. I am not sure if the power of public protest works, but knowledge does provide some power.

I bet very few people right now are aware that remaining in the EU really does pose a threat to the way power is shifting and the way our democracy, our way of life is in the balance.

Multinationals seem to be pulling lots of strings in EU quarters and smaller business concerns are going to have to dance to their tune. Some socialists seem to be wearing selective blinkers regarding continued membership of the EU. What's going on is flying in the face of everything we hold dear it seems. I want a fairer society, but trying to bring that about within the EU is drifting further and further away from us. We have to take control and stand for the things we value. Transparency and fairness come near the top of my list but are these also principles guiding EU decision makers? It seems not.

There hasn't been one convincing argument yet to persuade me that remaining in the EU would be good for us.

With sweeping claims being made on both sides of the divide, I've found the BBC Reality Check service really useful. I thought others might too.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

Thanks for the link Maggiemaybe, I was going to do a search for that later.

Yes, Day6 I think it is the vast bureaucracy and lack of information coming out of the EU - in fact one could say it is an enigma to most people - that is worrying.

Obviously this is my opinion as I am living with the effects of EU migration from EU countries, I am not talking about Syrians or asylum seekers
Firecracker may have more experience of the effects of a huge influx of people into her area than some of us have. Some of us may only have felt the benefits of EU migration with a smaller number of migrants living locally, who clean our cars, serve in restaurants etc.
That being said, I don't think we have a huge influx of migrants in our area and we have to wait 4+ weeks for a non-urgent doctor's appointment.

Maggiemaybe, the BBC has been accused of pro EU bias.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/653836/BBC-biased-Brexit-EU-referendum-Newsnight-Question-Time

"The BBC, which is funded by the license fee payer, is required by its Charter to offer impartial coverage.

However, the analysis of 25 feature items about the EU referendum on its flagship news program has revealed that it has given twice as much space to pro-EU supporters.

In an astonishing finding News-watch has observed that in one-one interviews on the referendum there have been 12 supporters of Remain compared to only six who were in favour of leaving the EU. ""

And :

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12168329/The-BBC-thinks-all-Eurosceptics-are-frothing-extremists.-How-can-we-trust-it-to-be-neutral.html

"Rarely, too, do you hear a chief executive of a FTSE 100 company being asked (during BBC interviews) if he is supporting Remain not from a deeply held love of international cooperation, but simply because his annual bonus is dependent upon company profits which are boosted by a large supply of cheap foreign labour that keeps wages down.

And while the Leave campaign is routinely portrayed as full of right-wing Little Englanders, this ignores the fact that many on the supposedly progressive Left, including the rail unions Aslef and the RMT, take a staunch Eurosceptic stance in the name of protecting wages.

The bias in the BBC’s coverage is all very subtle and much of it is totally unconscious, but it is nevertheless real, and it will have an effect on how the BBC’s many millions of listeners and viewers perceive the two competing camps and their campaigns."

Day6, if I were looking for unbiased views on anything, including the BBC, I wouldn't be looking at either the Express or the Telegraph. Each to their own, of course.

I wouldn't be looking at the Guardian for an unbiased view, either!

The best unbiased information I can find.

fullfact.org/europe/reciprocal-benefits/

It's okay saying the EU isn't transparent, but this government isn't either.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/05/10/secret-transparency-coming-our-way-on-thursday/

Neither would I, Ana. It's my newspaper of choice, but I'd never pretend it was unbiased. I'm not quite sure why you've said that though? Day6 linked to the Express and the Telegraph, not the Guardian.

www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/leave-eu-alone-brexit-campaign-fined-for-sending-spam-texts

I enjoyed reading this.

Sadly all newspapers are biased. I loathe the Daily Mail and it's left wing twin sibling the Guardian, both stuck in the mire of bias, although I do much prefer the Grauniad's comment sections. I am not a Telegraph or Express reader either, but will use online articles. I think the Telegraph article was interesting and summed up the view the BBC has of those wanting out of the EU. It's often useful to read around and see things from all sides I find.

Maggiemaybe I believe the Guardian also had a piece about the BBC and EU bias. It's out there somewhere. I haven't read it but I expect it will exonerate the BBC of all charges. #handinglove

It's up to us all to take the various views and opinions on board, with generous sprinklings of salt where appropriate, and try to make our own sense of it. Personally I'd prefer it if our elected Government dealt with important issues like this - I don't feel informed enough or best qualified to decide on it, though I will be putting my cross on that bit of paper on the day, of course.

For those who are scared that Turkey will join the EU.

theconversation.com/never-mind-brexit-scaremongering-turkey-is-a-long-way-from-joining-the-eu-58958

The Guardian the twin sibling of the DM?
Falling about laughing at that.
You all want unbiased advice, then say that nothing is unbiased.
What do you want?
Where do you think you will get unbiased advice?
If you can't read papers or watch TV programmes because they are all biased, are you going to rely on information coming through your doors?
Believe it or not, it's biased.
It seems to me that some people just want an opportunity to complain.

The Guardian the twin sibling of the DM?

I am not sure why you find that amusing. It's the left wing equivalent of the DM. You know what you will get with the Daily Mail, and the Guardian is just as predictable, in it's uber left-wing way.

Your post is patronising durhamjen.

I understand that Johnson a leader of Brexit is keen that we retain high immigration into the UK whatever the result and particularly if the vote is leave. This little faux pas must have brought some dismay to other Brexiteers as one of the arguments, if not the strongest in their opinion is that the high level of immigration will drop drastically once we leave the EU. Johnson's remarks are in sharp contrast to Duncan Smiths claim that high immigration will lead to an explosion of "have nots" - actually I think he has done very well achieving that all on his own!

Is it selfish, or wrong even to want to retain a way of life familiar to us? I don't think it is.

Interesting that you say "scared" with regard to Turkey joining the EU. I think most people are pretty disgusted that the idea has even been mooted, given Turkey's history of barbarity and human rights abuses.

The country is mainly Muslim, and we've had quite a few examples of Islamic 'justice' over the years.

Turkish 'democracy' and our understanding of it are very different. Did anyone else see the free-for all punch-up durings Turkish parliamentary debate? Human rights are routinely abused. Journalists are jailed for opinions which don't suit, so independent thought and free speech isn't valued. Amnesty International’s annual report is filled with accounts of torture, free speech violations, denial of minority rights, unfair trials, failure to protect women.

Can you imagine freedom to move over Europe granted to people not familiar with more enlightened Western philosophy? Turkey is not a European country. 97% of its territory lies in Asia. "Europe" would extend it's borders to Syria, Iran and Iraq. European 'neighbours. It's bad enough when OUR government tinkers with internal county borders for political and administrative reasons.

Extending the European border - for free movement - towards regions embroiled in ISIS conflict/terrorism is just unthinkable. We have to get out of this European state, which is set to expand.

I don't want to be part of a body that would even CONSIDER Turkish membership. It's deplorable that it's been considered in my opinion, and it smacks of creating a European STATE, a power block. We do not want to be swallowed up in a Europe that is already resembling a melting pot of all sorts of ideologies, rules and obligations that we would HAVE to take on board in the name of 'oneness' and political correctness. Some things are just wrong, and we have to stand against having alien values foisted upon us. The way the EU is run, with so much room for politicians to hide and lack accountability is one example of what we have to put up with.

We have to get OUT.

Thank you Day6 for all your very informative and interesting posts. For me you have certainly clarified a lot of queries and eloquently put a powerful argument to counterbalance the reasons to remain. I also would prefer the elected government to make these sort of decisions for us, as let's face the majority of the general public cannot possibly know much about the intricacies of the workings of the EU, certainly not enough to be able to make an informed decision!, particularly as belief in politicians whoever they are is at an all time low!!!!