UKH

Today is the last day you can register to vote in the EU Referendum. This is really important for many reasons which will affect us all so please take the trouble to register to vote if you are eligible and haven't already.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Even if you only passively agree with one side or other, even if you've no idea what to vote for I urge you to get registered to vote.

Don't let the political vitriol of the campaign put you off.

Don't let your voice go unheard.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This shouldn't be on UKC!

In reply to Uisdean hawthorn:

Why not ?

In reply to Uisdean hawthorn:


I would've agreed with you when I was your age. This vote is too big mess up though!

Sir John Major talks about how the leave campaign is misrepresenting the facts here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36454732

What effect would leaving the EU have on climbing and hill walking ?

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:

What effect would leaving the EU have on climbing and hill walking ?

No sports routes and maps would be one inch to a mile...

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:


Elevations would go back to feet, resulting in fewer planes smashing into the hills...

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:
A reduction in the number of walking Poles you see on the hills.

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:


I suppose the obvious ones are cheap travel and cheap gear and I can't see either of those being improved by Brexit.

But there are so many other negatives that to concentrate on those seems a bit churlish.

Alan

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

I think both sides are misrepresenting facts. The word 'fact' is also being overly used for things that are not actually matter of fact.

In reply to FactorXXX:

would the OS bring back those nice 1 inch 'tourist maps' of the Lakes, Glencoe & Cairngorm? they always looked nice on a wall. Maybe Brexit wouldn't be all bad

In reply to Uisdean hawthorn:


I agree, I've never seen UKC take such a political stance before. If there was some story on how being in or out of the EU would have some positive or negative effect on climbing then fine report on that, but this is nothing more than propaganda to spread a political view point of presumably some or all of the staff at UKC.

The forums provide plenty of room for individual discussion but I think UKC as a media outlet should remain at least neutral and ideally silent on the issue as its outside its scope.

In reply to FactorXXX:

But on the plus side, mass unemployment would give lots of us more time to enjoy the outdoors

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Why?

It's a privately run business, if those running it agree then there's no reason it shouldn't have an opinion.

You'll be telling us the newspapers are all impartial, next...

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:

Boris would get to be PM and within 20 years the entire population of England will be living in London. They will be building Crossrail 7 and a 5th sewage tunnel under the Thames. A single bedroom flat 5 floors underground will cost £5 million. Nobody will go climbing or hillwalking because they need to work 50 hours a week just to pay the interest on their mortgage and for private health, pensions and education.

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:


The main one I can think of would be a massive increase in delays getting back into the country when climbing/walking in Europe. And anyone planning on going to live and work elsewhere in the EU might have to rethink.

Other than that it would just be climbing-related instances of changes that affect everything else, with prices going up/down/staying the same depending on who you believe.

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:

Beach quality, sea water quality, fresh water quality, air quality, environmental protection, holiday entitlements, maternity/paternity leave, travel, border access..

Regarding businesses speaking out. Why not? I'm surprised more haven't like they did with the Scottish referendum.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Oh, so it's the EU referendum is it? As in European Union?... That all makes sense now. I've been mishearing it as being about the emu referendum, for weeks now, and was genuinely struggling to see the relevance.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Does non-EU Norway not lead the way in nearly every one of these aspects? Equal maternity/paternity pay/leave is one good example off the top of my head.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Re-read the first post, it doesn't take a point of view for or against, it just encourages people to participate. Is that really 'political'?

In reply to Doug:

I assume you haven't read the full article (or viewed the linked content).

In reply to skog:




Agreed re. all your points. I think it's fair enough for Alan to be applying some subtle influence on such a serious matter that he no doubt he feels very strongly about, not least in the way that it may affect his business.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I can't see that any of this would justify inflicting Owen Jones on us though.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Why single out UKC? Many media outlets take a view on political issues, often following the proprietor's own politics. I don't see why the proprietors of UKC shouldn't be allowed to make their opinions known.

In reply to Mr. Lee:


Do you think a non-EU United Kingdom led by Gove, Johnson, or Farage, would seek to emulate the Norwegians?

In reply to Mr. Lee:


That doesn't mean that the UK leaving would improve the situation in those things for the UK though.

I imagine Norway's culture, and therefore politics, pay far more attention and respect to the (for example) environment than ours, and they are therefore better at environmental legislation / protection. Given the attitude that our current government shows towards the environment, leaving the EU would almost certainly lead to reduced environmental protection for the UK.

Not sure about worker's rights, but I imagine the same rules apply - the tories would happily sacrifice it for their obsession with economic growth and rich people getting richer.

In reply to Uisdean hawthorn:


+1

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Excellent!!!

In reply to Clauso:


You must have had your head buried in the sand if you thought it was an emu referendum

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Interestingly I just had a meeting with some Norwegans and it would seem that their environmental regulations are much laxer then those imposed by the EU.

In reply to ebdon:


From what I saw in Romsdal in 2009 and 2013, Norway is one of the most regulated, bureaucratically hidebound countries in Europe when it comes to environmental regulations. They've had tourist projects around Romsdal (a cablecar being one of many) that have been completely stuck for years.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


It's not a general election though. It's a referendum. I want to pull my hair out when I hear people saying what they will vote for based on personalities.

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:



Call me a cynic, but I think a more interesting question might be "what effect would leaving the EU have on RockFax?".

It doesn't take a genius to spot the conflict of interest in the post. It might actually be a genuinely interesting question for Alan to answer!

In reply to Mr. Lee:


I agree in principle, but at least it illustrates the point that just because some things technically MAY be possible after Brexit, that gives very little in the way of confidence that such things WOULD be in any way likely to happen, and of course if something isn't going to happen anyway then it's a wasted vote choosing it.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


I don't think things necessarily improve or worsen. My reply was more in response the the suggestion things automatically become worse.

In reply to Will Hunt:


I would have thought the market for Rockfax is broadly similar to that of many small UK businesses, so hearing Alan's strong conviction on the matter is probably a fair indicator of small businesses in general.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


That might be because, everything above 600m from sealevel is considered a natural park, and all motorized movings there are forbidden (well, without a special permit).

I would imagine, it would be a similar hassle anywhere in UK or in EU, if you were to try to build something in a protected natural park...

In reply to Mr. Lee:
In reply to your "I want to pull my hair out when I hear people saying what they will vote for based on personalities", it is reasonable to consider those people, for two reasons:

1. if you think that the people in support of the "winning" side are likely to find themselves in positions of power following the referendum result - which I think is likely; and

2. if your decision to vote is based in any part on what they say, their credibility and judgment in making those statements is worth checking.

And just to add my 2p, I fully support the right of the owners of UKC to post this - it's entirely their prerogative to show their support either way.

In reply to Doug:

Because it has a massive effect on our generation. This is no short term vote, the outcome will affect our future no matter what, and everyone must have the say.

In reply to john arran:


apparently it's evenly split

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/02/uk-small-businesses-are-ev...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The whole Newsnight link for a bit more balance -

youtube.com/watch?v=aHvrhv2nsSU&

In reply to Jim Hamilton:



So it seems. However, from that article: "Big companies overwhelmingly want to stay in the EU", so perhaps Alan is just thinking big!

In reply to andyfallsoff:

One should also consider the character of the speaker when they hear a politician claiming that leaving the E.U. will empower the UK to form more lucrative and more favourable trade deals. In that case, I think they're actually speaking God's own truth but neglecting to mention to whom the deals will be more lucrative or more favourable. Surely, those fancy new deals signed by the future independent UK will favour London businesses, politicians and the super-rich and do naught for the man in the street!

Why don't people ask these questions? Why do the Brexiteers just accept what is being said because they'd like to live in the rainbow-unicorn-land that the muppets describe, with no reason to believe that that will become a reality and tonnes of precedent suggesting that it won't?

In reply to andyfallsoff:



I take your point. Something I hate about politics though is the lack of long-term planning because of the general election cycle. By concerning myself with the personalities surrounding the referendum I feel I'm falling into the same short-term view that I hate about politicians.

Also, I don't think too much should be taken for granted about Boris being leader if he wins. Michael Heseltine for example never became leader of the tories despite being the main figure behind the end of Thatcher's leadership.

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:


Sterling will plunge on the forex market so anything paid for in Euros (probably US Dollars as well) will cost more. Most obviously, your next French/Spanish climbing holiday will cost more. Gear produced overseas will also cost more (could be good for DMM perhaps).

No E111 cover so overseas trip insurance will cost more.

Not convinced ease of travel will change much.

But the economy won't do as well and might even go into recession, so we won't be doing as much travelling anyway.

In reply to john arran:

As another SME I am certain The Climbing Works will suffer as a result of the vote ending in us leaving.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Well quite, but the tenor of the leave campaign is that without the EU we will be able to get rid of a lot of "red tape" governing these things. If what they really want to do is get rid of these "Euro diktats" and replace them with some home grown laws what's the point. It's the same with the money saved, it's disingenuous/outright lies from most of those banging the leave drum to say the money saved will be spent on the NHS, will it f*ck.

And as for returning power to Westminster, why will that help me or the majority? Regardless of a labour or Tory govt power will always lie with the rich. Pick up a copy of Private Eye to see how the country is skewed towards the rich, be it tax loop holes, golden handshakes, bank bail outs, grouse moors etc etc. The EU may be run by an elite largely divorced from the UK but they don't seem to be any worse at looking after than the 'little man' than any of our last dozen Westminster govts. In fact with the environmental legislation, and working time directives, ECHR etc they seem a damn sight better (don't worry, there's plenty in the EU for the rich guys as well as I believe the economic arguments of the remain campaign).

In reply to john arran:


Well you'll have to believe me when I say that I never even thought about Rockfax when I wrote that item this morning.

Regarding Rockfax, I doubt it will have much effect. Climbers are reliably slow to stop spending on their passion hobby which is why the outdoor industry tends to do okay in a recession. Any reduction in travel abroad will mean an increase in travel in the UK - this would suit Rockfax either way.

There is nothing that the EU does to me now that makes doing business more difficult for me. All the awkward tax and VAT stuff comes from inside the UK. The zero VAT on books is a positive UK thing that the EU haven't tinkered with despite there being VAT on books in many other EU countries. Printing and carriage have got significantly cheaper over the years and I am sure that is due to the single market. Even cheaper printing can be had in China mind but it tends to be unreliable and slow to arrive.

I do know that it is virtually impossible for me to sell books in the USA or anywhere outside Europe. That is due to the cost of carriage which makes it unviable with the quantities we shift. I am not sure that a great trade agreement with the USA would change this much though. There was a hell of a lot of forms and red tape selling to the US on the one occasion I did make a big shipment, so that might go away, but that wasn't a limiting factor.

A full blown recession could have an impact I guess, and that may happen, but I started my business in the early 90s recession, and expanded it in 2008, so we should be able to weather that unless the real doomsday scenarios take hold.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Unfortunately I highly doubt that, even if the TTIP get's signed. The redtape might might get less of a hassle for those that are shippin' stuff all the time... But for smaller businesses doing a few shipments a year... doubt that.

From what I have learned, TTIP is great for multinational big businesses... not so much from even mid sized firms.

Then again, I might be completely wrong (but from the track record of US of A, don't bet on it).

In reply to Misha:

On reflection, A plunge in sterling more often than not results in an increase in the FTSE, The reduction on the sterling recently has boosted allot of share prices within the FTESE 100 due to weaker pound against the dollar, it could potentially drive the FTSE up. Upon further reflection though, it is just not possible to predict the outcome of the economy, if you consider the multiple factors my professional guess is nervousness about voting out is creating a volatile market, should we leave a probable immediate reduction in the value of the FTSE which will probably recover on the back of the weaker pound due to company maximising on the weaker pound. Should we stay I envisage little change on the day and infact we may see some shares prices within the FTSE fall due to a potentially stronger pound. Sooooo many variables! Just before any of the arm chair trolls comment, I work as for an investment bank as stock broker.

In reply to Doug:


You need to press "Read More" Doug.

In reply to Mr. Lee:


It's a referendum about whether you restore to the UK Government the powers that will subsequently be abused, whether it's by Gove or Cameron or god help us Corbyn.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Those things will most likely happen within the E.U. anyway. But you're a Scot and therefore oddly blind to the neoliberal flavour, expansionist aims of the E.U. project.

D

In reply to silhouette:

I didn't see the "read more", a result of trying to do more than one thing at a time while being distracted by someone on the other side of the room. Does seem that Alan knows which way he'll be voting, unfortunately I can't vote as I've been in France more than 15 years

In reply to skog:

Because UKC has always been a source of news and information for climbing and related activities, something it does very well. I wouldn't want it to start taking sides on political issues because it's about climbing and climbing is apolitical. You can all gather under a cliff or boulder regardless of political view, religion, nationality, wealth, career, etc and all that matters is who can get up the route on the day, all the rest becomes meaningless. I wouldn't want UKC being such a huge climbing community to suddenly start pushing its politics on climbers.



I have no problem if the owners or individual staff members want to voice their personal views on any political matter on the forums for the members of UKC to read but it should be kept as their individual personal views, even if every single one shares the same view. Once UKC the company (which isn't a person) takes an official stance on an issue outside of climbing then it becomes a problem because UKC is the platform that many people go to for factual information on climbing matters once it starts becoming more than that its no different from politically bias national news papers, giving people the version of the news which best suits them.

In reply to Tyler:


I don't think the ECHR is anything to do with the EU.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


How do you think it would suffer?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You do know that it's perfectly acceptable to ignore or disagree with what the owners of UKC say?

I do think it's a bit precious to suggest they have to keep their opinions to themselves. There are hundreds of opinions expressed on UKC, of all shades, and the relative freedom with which we're able to exchange views is one of the things I like about the site. Restricting the owners from enjoying the same freedoms as the unpaying punters seems a trifle unfair.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Plenty companies have taken a stance on this issue and of course actively support political parties. It is surely up the owners of those companies.

Individuals can take a view on whether they wish to be customers of those companies.

Of course all of this ignores the fact that UKC hasn't actually expressed a view beyond "it's a big decision, register to vote".

In reply to Rob Parsons:

When economies suffer, as ours would in the event of a Brexit, at least in the short to medium term, one of the first sectors to suffer is leisure. Climbing walls are leisure centres.

Plus the costs of many products that we buy will go up, partly as a result of a weak £

In reply to Mr. Lee: If leave wins then Cameron will resign fairly soon. Who will the tories vote to lead them - I think it'll be the person they think has been the most "honest" in the leave camp. My money would be on IDS.

In reply to The New NickB:


As mentioned above, the owner expresses such an opinion in the 'read more' section.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Ha! Certainly went well for him last time around: "Do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man" ...

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Thanks for explaining.

I don't think publishing one political article in all the years it has been going, and publishing it under Alan James's name rather than UKClimbing's, constitutes the site pushing its politics on people. It's one article and thread amongst hundreds of political threads, and the site is very liberal about allowing all sorts of views to be expressed and argued (and is all the better for it).

Additionally, I see no reason why businesses should have to refrain from making political statements - it's up to them to decide what their scope is and what's relevant, or even what's more important to them than their ordinary business.

And I don't think you could be much further from the truth when you say that climbing is apolitical - the activity may be (barring matters such as access and the like), but the culture most certainly is not!

In reply to Rob Parsons:


You're right, I missed that. The rest of my post still applies.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Why do you think they would be in charge? At the moment only one of them has a position in government, and in the event of Brexit he would be the only one with a job at all!
I can't see any of the 'remain' Tories voting in Johnson or Gove as their new leader.

In reply to Misha:




The E111 is valid for countries in the EEA, not the EU specifically, we also have reciprocal healthcare agreements with many countries outside the EU, so these would not be affected either.

I seem to remember the rise of the 'staycation' during the most recent financial crisis, which gave a boost to the UK's tourism industry.

Not to mention the foreign holidaymaker's coming over here if the pound takes a dip.

Every cloud and all that...

In reply to Dell:


But the UK is not a member of the EEA, it is a member of the EU. If we leave the EU we have no formal relationship with the EEA. This is just one more thing amongst the thousands that would involve long, complex and expensive negotiations to get back to something similar to what we have now.

In reply to TobyA:

Any dealing with the EU is likely to be long, complex and expensive. Because that's how the EU is run.
Thanks, you've just reinforced my out vote!

In reply to Marc Langley:
FTSE isn't driven just by forex though. It also reflects the general state of the economy among other things. It's been jittery lately but not massively different to a few months ago as I guess the market is assuming a remain outcome.

Fundamentally, I can't see how the economy will end up significantly better off by leaving. At the same time, there's a real risk of the economy ending up worse off. That's what most respected experts are saying and it's common sense - general market sentiment against the UK due to no longer being part of the EU, risk of tariffs, less foreign investment as no longer seen as a gateway to the EU, general uncertainty leading to less investment and hiring. It's essentially a one way bet for a worse economic outcome. So to my mind it's economic madness to vote out.

In reply to Misha: But the economy isn't the only issue. The problem with staying in is not the state of the EU now, rather what's it going to be like in 10 years time, etc.

Trouble is it's all speculation and we're going to end up voting by gut feel and I feel like I've got a stomach upset

In reply to Dell:
Fair points re staycation and more spending by overseas tourists, though not sure that would outweigh the general negative economic impact.

Re E111 and EEA, we'd need to be in the EEA for that and that's not automatic. Oh and what do EEA members do? Pay into the EU and accept EU regulations! Do you think the EU would give us E111 rights for nothing in return? There are many more Brits going on holiday to the EU than the other way round.

It's like this with most benefits of being in the EU, free trade being the key one. The leave campaign just assumes that everything will be fine and will continue as before because we can negotiate a good deal. At the same time Cameron is accused of not getting a good deal - so we can't get a good deal now but we will magically secure one once we leave?

It's simply naive to assume that we will keep the benefits without any or most of the costs. Why on earth would the EU give us something for nothing? Yes, we are the fifth largest economy in the world. Behind Germany, by the way, and just ahead of France and Italy. We are the Titanic, bigger than most. But the EU is an iceberg. In an acrimonious negotiation, I don't fancy our chances as we're much smaller than the EU as a whole. EU trade is much more important for us than UK trade is for the EU as a whole because the EU economy is much larger.

In reply to Michael Hood:
No one is forcing us to have monetary or political integration. I don't get why we should vote out now to avoid something that might happen in 10 years' time. If it comes to having to join an EU superstate (which I very much doubt), we can vote out at that point in time if that's what most people want to do.

In reply to Misha:

All predictions for worsening of the economy are short term forecasts only, and a lot of these economic experts the same ones that have made failed predictions in the past. No one can truly know what will happen to beyond the next 2-3 years.
A short term recession is a small price to pay given the opportunities that Brexit will open up for us.

https://twitter.com/MarrShow/status/736835284537466881

In reply to Dell:



Good to see you are voting based on a complete understanding of the issues. Or maybe not.

In reply to Dell:


If that includes the sorts of policies supported by the likes of IDS, Gove & the like, I'm not sure they are opportunities that interest me. Any thing else to offer ?

In reply to Misha:


If you believe in democracy, then why should any such negotiations be 'acrimonious'?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I don't think E111 is such a big deal anyway, and I can't see why we can't just agree a deal to carry on as before, "our citizens get emergency treatment abroad and yours get the same" isn't the kind of thing another country would turn their nose up at.

And who goes on holiday these days without valid travel insurance? Especially if it's a sporting holiday.

E111 is not a dealbreaker for me, neither are phone roaming costs, these things are just crumbs from the table.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Show me someone who has a complete understanding of the issues! Not even the leaders of the remain/leave campaigns can get their facts straight!

In reply to Doug:


Well don't vote for them then.

In reply to Misha:


Indeed, why vote on this issue *at all* now? Principally, we're doing so to address a schism in the Tory Party.

I'd prefer not to have been asked about this at all, but the vote is there, and we have to make a careful decision on it. If we choose to vote 'in', we can't then be a endlessly shilly-shallying reluctant member always threatening to leave in future when we don't like something, or always looking for 'opt outs.' That's not how the other Western European nations behave, after all. So - to my mind - an 'in' vote must logically mean a real and honest acceptance of the quite openly-stated future direction of travel of the EU.

In reply to Dell:


You were talking about the EEA, you realise that's something different from solely the EU don't you? I'm not quite sure why this would be a reason to vote leave, but each to their own - it's not really been a fact based campaign has it!?

But yes, the UK will have to enter into long complex expensive negotiations with the EU and the EFTA countries to negotiate arrangements to replace the ones we already have. Again, not sure how that is a reason to vote out - we don't need those negotiations now, but we will if your side wins - so it seems you want what you are complaining about?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The big issues for me revolve around environmental protection, climate change, collective security and freedom of movement. You can take your pick who you believe on the financial situation neither side seem to me to have truly credible evidence based arguments and for what its worth an independent financial adviser told me recently that his understanding was that the though there may be short term fluctuations in the event of a leave vote the big financial institutions were more concerned about the chaos that would result world-wide if Donald Trump becomes US President.

In terms of workers rights, environmental protection and climate change, short term national government policies invariably seem doomed to failure whilst the EU can transcend our 5 year election yo-yoing and put longer term strategies in place that give some chance of continuity.

During the current period of international terrorist threat from the likes of ISIS and the apparently increasing risk of instability on the eastern borders from Putin and his aggressive interventions in Ukraine It seems ludicrous to me that we should consider fragmenting our security response. The arguments about re-taking control of our borders to prevent terrorism are laughable. ISIS sympathizers are already here in considerable numbers but that is more as a result of our long term internal social policies.

I could go on but I won't. The EU is not perfect but we should be striving to influence improvements to it rather than running away and letting it crumble and fragment.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It's been said several times that we won't get another referendum for decades, so if we get this wrong then we are stuck with our decision.
It's also been said the the EU has a few unpopular policies up it's sleeve that it's holding back until after the referendum so as not to influence the 'out' vote. I can't offhand remember who said it and where, but I'll rack my brains and try to find a link.

In reply to Dell:


Great. Can you spell out a few opportunities I'm likely to receive as a result of Brexit?

In reply to Misha:

if the FSTE isn't not partly driven by forex then I am stumped as to why it rocketed yesterday on the back of a weak sterling? Maybe I need a new job. Of course forex plays a part in the FTSE, Royles Royce for example has done very well recently on the back of a weaker pound and so have a few other FTSE 250 organisations,

Whilst I agree it is economic madness to vote out, it is not certain that it will be detrimental to economic performance, we have multiple models running within my organisation which show possibilities should we vote in or out. A week pound is great for tourism and as I know companies benefit on the back of this, Like I said, utility there are to many factors at play to make an accurate decision, the fact is we just don't know either way or at least we don't know the severity or the benefit either way!

In reply to Dell:

What opportunities?

In reply to Mr. Lee: not on some, on others yeah.

But we don't have socialist core, we won't pay the taxes, in Norway it is accepted the young single people pay taxes for later on when they have a family.. That wouldn't be tolerated in the UK

You've cherry picked one country when many non EU countries lag far behind..

A lot of very stupid people will wake up after the referendum and realize the borders will remain open, unless we stop Access to the European market, if so you may as well switch off the lights..

This idea we can 'negotiate'.. I think some of you think Great Britain can dictate.. Yet Norway nor Switzerland do..

Switzerland even had a referendum to close its borders.. Yet at least a year after it hadn't and I don't think they have yet? Basically because the EU threatened to deny market access..

In reply to Marc Langley:
There's very very few economists who think we are in for a good few years of we vote out. Things may bounce, but it will almost certainly be a depression and then a huge loss of trade.. Then we'll see, but it's hard to see anything but a bleak time over the next 5-10 years

In reply to Dell:



F*ck me I'm voting out then!

Although I read somewhere, can't remember where, that we will all be millionaires if we vote in!

In reply to Roadrunner5:


You've mentioned that before; the key phrase is 'negotiation' - which is a two-way street.

Of course the UK wouldn't get everything it might want; equally, it would not accept a deal it couldn't live with. At the end of it, we'd have a deal (or deals) which were acceptable to both sides: that's what both sides would want (indeed, *need*); that's how the world works.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

Great post.. The U.K. Government does think in 3-5 year timeframes.. The EU sets out targets and strategies for decades ahead.

You only have to look at our beach quality for an example. That was almost all down to EU directives and in our lifetime seawater quality has improved dramatically

In reply to FactorXXX:

imagine if the EU wanted to standardise maps and didn't use OS, think of some of the variants out there in Europe.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

How can you negotiate open borders?

Switzerland the worlds bankers and Norway a global oil power couldn't! Yet we could??

You are having a laugh. It's an absolute lie.

The negotiation is 'can we have access to eu markets?' EU 'yeah but only if you have open borders'

That's what a negotiation is..

In reply to TobyA:


I'm logging out now to watch TV, but the World is your oyster, go for it!

In reply to Roadrunner5:



No - that's a parody.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:


Most of these exist in far better formats in the Nordics, with much better right to roam/land access acts as well. All done without the EU. The problem is the UK population lacks the will and needs to be dragged kicking and screaming, rather than face facts.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I'm not I have ever said we are in for a few good years, I was merely commenting on how the FSTE tends to increase as a result of a weaker pound, I am merely pointing out that if you through brexit into the mix there is so much unpredictability that it is unclear what will happen in the long run. Don't get me wrong I am a voter in and a brexit could have a real impact on my role. I was just trying to clear up a few myths.

M

In reply to Dell:

You could just make it up as you don't seem bothered by facts eg EEA isn't the EU.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

"Today is the last day you can register to vote in the EU Referendum. This is really important for many reasons..... I am sure most people are sick to death of the arguments...."

Thanks but I'll be busy shopping that day, and tying ribbons on trees.

Also, I'm not sick of the arguments, I haven't heard any, where can I find them?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Great- UKC is now has a f*cking political agenda. DON'T mix politics with climbing, ever.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What has the EU ever done on grit?

In reply to summo:


Interestingly I saw just a last night a map of recycling across Europe, https://www.facebook.com/amazingmap1/photos/a.853968798052122.1073741828.85... and the UK is doing better than Finland, and just behind Norway. Sweden was well ahead, but I'm not sure the Nordics are as similar on these issues as many presume. Norway's environmental laws may be great but there is the irony that they are about the wealthiest country in world by flogging their oil and gas to the world market.

In reply to Rob Parsons:
Ok so how couldn't the seize or Norway manage it?

What do we offer to global economic super powers don't?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Disappointed to see ukc getting involved in politics.
The article in question has been presented as ukc news.
This is not general chit chat on a forum.
What's this all about?.
I'm seriously considering printing my logbook off and going elsewhere - climbing and political views don't mix. Post your opinion on Twitter or Facebook

Strictly speaking the OP doesn't demonstrate any agenda other than encouraging participation in the vote.

While the suspicion has it that a low turn out means Brexit and a high turn out means Remain, is there anyone (in favour of Brexit) that is actively advocating mass apathy? Either decision on a low turn out is highly dodgy.

Lack of participation in something this significant is shit. Register to vote, cast your vote (or spoil your ballot) but don't sit on your arse.

Apparently analysis of registrations shows that the major barrier registering is not having your NI number to hand. I realise this is a pain in the arse but can you really justify not bothering to vote (at all, in anything) because you couldn't be bothered to find this? This puts the vote on Europe somewhere below booking an online takeaway in the level of importance for a big chunk of people.

Can we have a straw poll here? if you fall into the "no politics on UKC" camp is it safe to say you'll be voting out?

In reply to chris74:


Why not? I both climb and have political views.

In reply to all: I feel a bit shafted by the government. Cameron's renegotiation was a joke and now we're having to vote on this important decision without any real facts. I would have liked the government to ask the people what kind of Europe they wanted to be part of in the future, to have worked out what the closest thing to a consensus was from that asking, to have then tried to negotiate that position within the EU, and then to have asked a referendum if that position wasn't clearly achieved. Instead we've got the current mess.

If we vote in, then we will be stuck with any future political integration - we will not be able to keep on opting out, except probably for keeping out of the euro itself.

If we vote out, then it's into the big scary unknown which may or may not be better eventually but is likely to be economically painful in the short to medium term.

I would like to stay in the EU, but I don't want further integration, in fact I want less than we've currently got. I think the European Commission has too much power and the EU should only be making laws with regard to free trade (although I realise this is quite wide reaching). I don't want the EU deciding on the UK's security - Schengen (spelling?) is a security joke. Which way should I vote - clear as mud.

In reply to chris74:
>climbing and political views don't mix. Post your opinion on Twitter or Facebook

One of the most absurd comments I've seen on UKC. Politics permeate everything, just as ethics do.

In reply to James Malloch:
Climbing website = climbing issues.
If I wanted politics I would go on a political website.
If u want to express your own political opinion on this website I'll just scroll down and ignore it.
To have a ukc news article about registering to vote on the main page and for author to then go on to express the opinion to 'stay in' is.....not climbing related in any way

Chris74: in which case I suggest you bugger off to some other website - but before you go would you please pin your colours to your mast?

In?
Out?
Apathy?
Other?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:
You obvously haven't read the bit where the author of the article says that he thinks we should stay in the E.U.
Anyway - happy climbing. I am now going to go on various social media formats and express my political opinion to people who I have at least vaguely know

In reply to chris74: The views expressed in this thread are no more political than loads of threads in the Off Belay or Down the Pub sections.

Although I don't have a problem with Alan trying to get everyone to register and vote, I think it should have been made explicitly clearer in the full article that he was fully in the remain camp and that what followed were solely his views (and maybe why and how he thought they would affect him, UKC/H and Rockfax). He's just as entitled to express his views as anyone else is.

If you don't like the politics on UKC/H then just don't follow this thread.

I will take your advice and bugger off. Sorry no politics I'm just a avarage climbing enthusiast trying to get up routes as best I can.
Oh, I did a route this evening and it was graded V.S - definitely a sandbag and tall persons route! Happy climbing

In reply to Michael Hood:

That's a reasonable point

In reply to Dell:
A short term recession vs some unproven opportunities? Better hope your job won't be on the line in the short term recession! It's an irresponsible gamble for a whole country to risk being worse off for the prospect of some potential, unproven gains. That's a risk you might be happy with in your own life but a lot of people don't want that risk. If someone gets their bonus cut or looses their job, try telling them that it's ok because in a few years someone else in the country will have some new opportunities! Anyway, I doubt the UK on its own would get better trade deals etc than as part of a much bigger trade block. Stronger together.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I come here to escape this crap............

In reply to Rob Parsons:


The EU exit negotiations will probably be tough and acrimonious because the way will understandably want to discourage other countries from leaving so will seek to impose tough terms on any deal. I don't fancy our chances - the Titanic vs an iceberg.

In reply to Dell:
Agree E111 is not a deal breaker, it's just one example of the many things that would need to be negotiated and there will be lots of much more complex issues on that negotiation list. The years of messy and expensive negotiations with the associated uncertainty is enough of a reason to remain! Let's start the list...

Trade in goods
Trade in services
Trade with non EU countries (will presumably need new agreements as current ones are EU)
VAT on EU transactions (currently common EU principles)
Movement of people for work
Movement of people for tourism
Position of EU nationals currently living/working in the UK
Position of UK nationals currently living/working in the EU
Various regulations and standards - do we keep the EU ones or invent our own red tape. (Any businesses with EU operations would still have to abide by the EU ones, so that's two layers or red tape! Or get rid of all these annoying regulations including workers' rights and environmental protection, the Tories would love that.)

In reply to Marc Langley:
I think you misunderstood me. I said the FTSE isn't driven just by forex, ie it is driven by forex but also by many other things. I think we'll agree on that one. I imagine you would have many models. Being a prudent accountant, I focus on the downsides...

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

You come on UKC forums to escape discussion of the EU referendum? Clearly not in the past three months you don't.

In reply to Dell:


This is typical of the leave camp. "Vote leave, the EU is terrible, we'll be better off out!" "Ok, could you spell out how we'd be better off?" "Look, I'm telling you, we'll be better off, vote out!"

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



One of the most absurd comments I've seen on UKC. Of course its trivially true in one sense, but the referendum has precisely nothing to do with climbing. If the best evidence of relevance offered is it may increase the price of foreign jaunts (may), all that's demonstrated is the utter solipsism of climbers. And to be fair that is not what Alan is arguing. He is expressing a entirely personal view. Thats fine but it does not constitute UKC news, save it for the forums.

Or are we keen to hear the UKC view on social policy as well? How about abortion, thats an ethical issue with as much relevance to climbing i.e. none. Would you be so relaxed if there were lead articles on these issues, expressing UKC staffers sincerely held personal opinions? Or would you be fine with that as well, so long as it was the 'right' opinion?

In reply to Misha:


I'm not gonna type it all out for you! The debates have been going on for months, you should by now have a grasp on the reasons for Brexit, there is a massive campaign for it if you hadn't noticed.

Here, I googled something for you.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/02/david-davis-britain-would-...

In reply to Dell:


Ok, I remember what it was now.

http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-presses-brexit-hold-button-uk-refer...

and this, skip to 8:40. youtube.com/watch?v=ZRhI2yhTLcA& (Port services directive: http://capx.co/eu-officials-all-at-sea-over-ports-legislation/ )

In reply to shanghai:

You registered just to post that?

In reply to MG:

And you replied to argue - oh, nothing.

Never felt the need to comment before because I never read the pub. And thats the point, what should be in there is a headline article.

The consensus of this thread seems to be its absolutely fine for UKC to espouse a political position. But thats because its a safe, don't scare the horses position. My point is what if it was something more controversial. Or in fact what if it was Leave, complete with links to ukip's informative videos? Suspect there would a little less equanimity.

Of course it would never happen because 'know your audience'. That is, a form a self-censorship. So essentially we've got the principle that it fine for UKC to take a political position, provided its a safe, establishment line, that won't worry anyone unduly. Whats the point of that? The argument might right or wrong, but UKC shouldn't be making it.

In reply to Misha:


Quite a lot of expats to be moved back to soggy UK from sunny Spain .

In reply to TobyA:


I would agree, I do notice slight difference crossing the border, Norway is a little more consumerist, if that's the right world. Oil & Gas, you can argue that if the rest of the world cleaned up their act, Norway wouldn't sell as much. Not sure how the UK rates so high, unless all the litter on the roadside verges counts as being recycled back to nature. Here for a family of 4 we have less than a carry bag of non recyclable waste a week, in the UK people complain if their massive wheelie bin isn't emptied every week.

In reply to shanghai:
Of course UKC should. companys like Nissan , Airbus, RBS etc are openly expressing their views in public.

UKC are entitled to do the same .

And for what it's worth I have encouraged my employees to vote and I have told them of my view that we should stay from a business perspective.I have also explained why .

In reply to summo:


It all be done within the EU. For example, land access is very different in Scotland, compared with England and Wales. Similarly, Scotland has much more demanding emission reduction targets and a stronger renewables sector than England and Wales. Being in the EU doesn't stop different countries doing their own thing.

In reply to Frankie_Tucker:


Can I call this a Godwin, even if it wasn't meant as one.

In reply to neilh:


but have you contacted your customers to tell them to vote "In"?

In reply to summo:

hey! check your facts if you're going to rant about our recycling in UK!

Wheelie bins get emptied fortnightly now, not weekly and they are not "massive". Councils have consciously made them much smaller. But we do have a whole array of bins, bags, cartons etc to put our recycling in.....that accounts for a "massive" pile of stuff on the pavement on collection day

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I don't recall UKC starting a thread entitled 'Scottish referendum - please register to vote'.

probably not as important eh?

In reply to James Malloch:


Yes, you may, but to me that doesn't mean they should go together at the same time. For example:

*My doctor has views about health and views about TV, but I wouldn't like it if my doctor spent half the consultation talking about last night's TV programmes.

*Waiters have views about the referendum, but I wouldn't like it if my waiter talked a lot about that instead of the menu/ food.

Now we are going on about wheelie bin collections, UKC has become the Daily Mail!

I'm surprised we've got this far without mentioning the hundreds of millions a week we pay as a membership fee, that £1.7 Billion payment from 18 months ago that we couldn't squirm out of paying, or dare I be the first to say it...... unlimited immigration!

In reply to tony:


which also implies you don't need to be in the EU in the first place?

In reply to Dell:

Which is the sort of time frame it will take for the EU to wheel out the Brexiters bogeymen of Trukey joining and a United States of Europe.

Oh no, but I forgot those are already on the cards because.....


I bet it has, along with a whole load of other bullshit. Any word on what these policies are and why they are except form the UK veto/being voted in by the EU parliament?

In reply to Babika:

your idea of large bin may differ to mine, it would take us a few months to even a fill a standard black bin bag. We have nothing to put out on the street as we are considered to live too remote, it's not time or environmentally efficient to drive a truck around remoter parts picking up a few bags or boxes every few Km. So we have to take our own waste to the local depot, as and when you drive in that direction. I think the bigger problem in both countries is packaging, strange how the mighty EU won't tackle big corporations over this, but are quick to insist on what the individuals in the public must do with it.

In reply to abseil:




I think the key phrase you have used is "I wouldn't like it". Some won't like it, some will. You can't please everyone.

A restaurant, a doctors, or UKC may get a complaint for such an act, they may even lose customers. But if they make that decision to do that then it's their decision. And fair play to them for it.

It's a huge referendum and I personally think that it should be advertised via a many channels as possible. If that comes with personal views then you can choose to ignore them, post your disagreement, or stop using the service.

In reply to Tyler:

>Any word on what these policies are and why they are except form the UK veto/being voted in by the EU parliament?

See the links I provided earlier:


http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-presses-brexit-hold-button-uk-refer...

and this, skip to 8:40. youtube.com/watch?v=ZRhI2yhTLcA&

Port services directive: http://capx.co/eu-officials-all-at-sea-over-ports-legislation/

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I will not try to retaliate and try to 'one up' you for deeming my comment to be absurd.
I, unlike yourself and certain others do not feel the need to assert my political opinion onto people on a climbing website.
I login to ukc for climbing issues and to enjoy the logbook features.
Politics has an effect on us all and the way
Live our lives in many ways , but they do not permeate everything.
Water plays a vital role in our very being, and it can permeate a lot of things (not everything) I do not feel need to discuss it on ukc. And ethics? I like that 1!
Happy climbing

In reply to summo:


I totally agree with you on this. It really pisses me off but neither the UK government nor the EU seem to care. They seem to forget that well before we get to recycling we should be reducing.......

In reply to chris74:


And yet here you are on this thread.

In reply to James Malloch:


Actually I was rethinking my point after posting. My doctor has a right to talk about last night's TV during a consultation, and it certainly wouldn't be so bad at all if he/she did so.....

I guess I just have referendum overdose [like many people?] so I'm a bit grumpy about it... best wishes, James.

In reply to summo:


We don't, but it ensures a minimum standard and a level playing field to start from across all of Europe, which is a good thing imo.

I have no faith in our current government (and very little faith in the opposition in all honesty) to act in "the people's" best interest if it would cost "big business". A least the EU drags us up to a minimum standard.

In reply to Uisdean hawthorn:

Interesting debate, sorry I haven't had chance to read all the replies.

1. Yes, of course an internet community should be used as a way to encourage people to vote in this *one off* crucial referendum. The news page with the button at the top is an ideal way to get people to register and I can't think of any arguments why not to use it. It makes no difference what the internet community is about, they should all do it, because this is a mainstream form of communication.

2. Should UKC be neutral? Well there's no obligation, it's not the BBC, so Alan et al can weigh up the pros and cons themselves. Since Alan feels strongly about it and has chance to post some really good information at the right level for the audience and present it honestly ("for those who are left-leaning and have never heard of the pious infant* Owen Jones") there would have to be compelling reasons to be neutral. The only reason I can think of is that he will mildly alienate some of his readership. Will they stop visiting the site? Probably not. Will the number of "bloody UKC lefties" increase for a bit then return to normal levels? Probably.

On balance, weighting the relative importance of the pros and cons the decision to post the article as it stands is entirely justified in my view. So thanks for posting Alan, for me it would be harder to stomach if it was outy, but the way it's presented is entirely fair and honest, and anyone who describes this as "propaganda" needs to consider their language more carefully.

Great stuff, thanks Alan.




*I love him really, that's a Charlie Brooker expression I couldn't help using.

In reply to chris74:




And how is one thread which will disappear in the fullness of time getting in the way of you doing that?

In reply to Andrew Griffiths:

To me, this whole EU debate boils down to one crucial question, how many people do you think should be living in this island without the pressure on the countryside and the wildlife it supports becoming severely detrimental (or even more severely detrimental than it already is). This is the major long term question. The economy, people's right to move to their gite in France, how straight bananas should be etc etc are very much secondary to this and are really short term issues that people may vote on to suit their short term interests. Whereas, the size of the UK population relative to it's land area is a long term issue that will effect, probably not me, maybe not my children too badly, but my grandchildren almost certainly - if we stay in the EU, as there will be absolutely no way we can control it.

So - What effect would leaving the EU have on climbing and hill walking ? Probably none. You'll still be able to travel abroad to climb just as now.

But if we stay in the EU, expect more difficulty travelling, more restrictions on parking coupled with more pay and display car parks, rules against wild camping etc, as pressure of numbers from the ever increasing population forces ever greater regulation of our lives in general. And expect less countryside, and less beautiful countryside, as more and more of it is eaten up by the housing estates, windfarms, solar parks, industrial estates, roads, hospitals, schools etc necessary to cope with the increase.

England is already the second most densely populated country in Europe, and the UK as a whole, the third. So, how many people do you think should be living in this island?

This is why I'll be voting to leave, even if it probably isn't in my short term interests to do so.

NB This is my personal view, not that of my business, and I know some of my staff will be voting for the opposite!

In reply to Babika:


Have to agree with Summo's subsequent comments about recycling. In Norway I struggle to fill a standard carrier bag with non-recyclable material over a full month. A standard black bin would probably do me for 6 months I reckon. It's partly because pretty much ALL packaging is recyclable. Been a couple of years since I was a UK resident but I remember a lot of meat packaging for example not being recyclable. Or sometimes 'check with local recycling depot' type labels. Seemed worse with some supermarkets. More effort required in Norway though. Plastic bottles and drinks cans I take to collection points in supermarkets, cans and glass I need to take to collection points at the end of my street. Waste food is also separated and taken to a big bio fuel plant. I've got no idea to be honest whether this has anything to do with the EU as presumable the UK could make up it's own legislation about packaging needing to be recyclable? UK seems pretty good compared to Europe in general though.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:
Much depends if the UK stays in the EEA/single market & the Brexit campaigners seem to have different opinions on that


I suspect that we'll have most/all of those both in or out of the EU - parking restrictions, pay & display parking etc not being under the control of the EU, indeed many of them are local government &/or National Park

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


Mr Gove seems to have convinced himself that we'll be allowed to remain in the single market without having to abide by any of its rules. But in the real world, we'd either stay in the single market and continue to accept free movement of people (in both directions); or we'd leave (in which case most of the Out campaign has been based on a lie) and have to accept the economic consequences. In the short to medium term these would be severe.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


I'm actually still undecided but UK population is a big issue for me. 70 million people is a lot for a small island and net 1/3 million immigration sounds too high to me. Population was 60 million when I was young. I get the economical benefits to the UK economy of immigration but 300,000 people need houses to live in. Are we building houses fast enough to match this rate of net immigration? I suspect not, which means demand for housing surely rises and so do prices. Those houses if built are likely going to encroach on green spaces. Renewable energy becomes less and less feasible with population increase also. How many wind farms do 1/3 million people need for example? A bigger population means more roads. I personally can't see how population increase can benefit the environment. Maybe I'm missing something here. Like I say I undecided and unsure how much leaving the EU would actually change things.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

How exactly do you think that the EU is making the number of immigrants to the UK larger, than there would be without the EU? The British borded isn't open, UK isn't part of the Shengen, so there will be no difference in terms of border control either in, or out of the EU.

And saying that by staying in the EU you will have more difficulty travelling as opposed to being out is ludicrous. You are contradicting yourself, on one hand you want the borders to be closed more so less immigration can occur, yet somehow that is something you don't want when you plan to travel abroad and need to cross those borders. The two don't mix, borders work in both directions.

In reply to Uisdean hawthorn:

+1 for me too

In reply to Mr. Lee:

I am almost certain that a Brexit government of BoJo et al would have a detrimental effect upon the U.K. environment. The thought that they would either maintain or improve the environmental protection directives the government is currently constrained by seems fanciful at best.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:


Well said.
jk

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


The reason for the current high immigration levels is due to the fact the economy is doing well, better than many other European countries, and unemployment low and falling. Nigel Farrage said last night that there was an "oversupply" in the labour market. This patently isn't the case if unemployment is falling. Yes, open borders has contributed to facilitating this but it isn't the cause - all the other EU countries have open borders and many of them aren't suffering from big increases in internal EU immigration. It is precisely the open borders policy that has enabled the country to do well by giving us the labour force that we need to grow the economy.

If the UK economy goes into recession (which it will do if we leave) then the immigrants will stop coming whether or not we put up a wall - putting up the wall will just speed up the recession - but a recession won't just take their jobs, it will take much more than that.

Over-population is a world problem, not one specific to our country. It needs to be dealt with at a world level, not in a 'not in my back yard' level. The EU is our way of being at the world level.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

What, jobs like at SportsDirect, who, (according to the news) employ mostly East European, Zero hour agency workers, on minimum wage, too frightened not to come to work so that one woman gives birth in the toilets? Those kind of jobs do you mean?
I bet there's an awful lot similar companies taking advantage of limitless cheap labour.
UK unemployment is currently standing at 1.7 million ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36090124 ).

In reply to GeneralFifi:



But there is a big difference in travelling to find work, and travelling for leisure purposes.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



I think propaganda is an appropriate word to describe the assertion that those links are "how it is"- showing just a short clip from an Inner during a debate, and Gordon Brown speaking from the ruins of Coventry Cathedral.

In reply to Lusk:
What's your argument? That Sports Direct should have been better regulated? Or that if we leave the EU and inevitably cannot get access to the common market without free movement and stay out of that too, then UK workers can suffer that fate instead - and that's better?

On leaving the EU and common market, we can be pretty sure the economy will take a major hit, so high unemployment. People desperate for jobs, and a right-wing government that believes in reducing regulation. In these circs, conditions for low paid workers, wherever they were born, are going to be rock-bottom.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Quote please (you made that up).

In reply to GeneralFifi:


Under current EU arrangements we can't stop people from the EU coming here whether we are part of Shengen or not - this even applies if they have criminal records (and haven't we got enough of our own criminals already?!). If we left we could stop them if we wanted to. Whether we would would depend on our national interests, but at least we could.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


We can stop serious criminals coming in. There is also a strong case to say that recent changes in this legislation may get better if we stayed in the EU, but could be worse if we leave.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/mar/29/eu-dangerous-...

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Ah Alan, you have far more faith in politicians (and especially EU politicians) than I do!

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

I think immigration issue is tremendously difficult not only to find the best solution, but even to have a honest discussion about.

I used to work in immigration, and the main purpose of our job was to convince the public (or to help ministers convince the public) that immigration was something that could be turned on and off like a tap. Looking from the inside, I did not believe that we were controlling immigration, we were putting on a show with two purposes: convince the voting public and create the impression to would-be illegal migrants that they wouldn't get in.

But, let's take a fantasy world where there is enormous investment and immigration controls are effective, for the sake of argument. Just under half the immigration into the country is from the EU and I think (sorry, haven't checked this recently) that the EU migrants are the ones most likely to go home again after a bit. In terms of population increase I think the concern would be more with the established India and Pakistan where the aim of the migrants is often to get one person over (e.g. on a work permit), then bring family, joining an established community here. This is generally through legal routes, or through abuse of legal routes (all you have do to gain entry to the UK is lie, and no one can check whether what you're saying is true or false, basically).

Immigration is a function of economics. When there is growth, employers demand high immigration and the government will not say no because that will damage growth. In recession , we all feel the squeeze on public services and the immigrants who came here during the boom become the scapegoat. The cycle continues.

I don't think leaving the EU would have much affect on immigration because:

- to get out of free movement we'd have to leave the common market and that sounds like the best way to car-crash the economy
- if we did leave the common market, then the same system applying to non-EU migrants would apply. You may not think this listening to the news, but we already have a 'Points Based System' and one which has been tightened down pretty much as far as it'll go - but still we have more migration from outside the EU than from within. So a Points Based System applied to the EU may not have much affect on numbers
- If all you need to do to get into the UK is lie, then actually the whole issue is red herring, because anyone that really wants to come to the UK does anyway, regardless of policy

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Is this really ukc news?.
Should this not be in some other category such as 'owners political views'? - in that case I could respectfully avoid your opinion and go about enjoying your website.
I am not being sarcastic and I'm honestly not looking to make any sort of point. I am just asking the question.

In reply to Dell:



Fair enough

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Phrases such as ".. people are sick to death of the arguments" followed by "..videos that get to the point in a more intelligent way..".

Why not say something like 'Here are a selection of videos that sum up my views'.

In reply to chris74:

UKC isn't the BBC. You wouldn't expect such objectivity from any news website. As it is, the op was relatively objective and makes a fundamental point that whatever your viewpoint, if you aren't registered to vote, you don't get a say in the most important political decision , probably in the last 40 years

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


Yet you apparently believe the politicians who tell you that we can somehow leave the EU, stay in the single market, and not allow free movement?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


That's not an assertion that those links are "how it is". The article is exactly what it says it is, a call to vote (either way) and links chosen by someone who says straight what their perspective is.


That would be fine too, but it's nothing like propaganda as it stands.

Why don't you respond by posting 3 short videos at the same level of quality (so the stuff that's been said about 80m Turks etc is out, so is 350m quid a week for the NHS) to show the other side? You might struggle to find the material...!

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

No I don't, at least not any more than the ones who tell me the opposite. All politicians have to balance the demands of big business (which create the most jobs) against what the "people" actually want. I've just thought about the issues and to me this is the most important. I don't think the population of this island should become bigger than it is because if it does it will end up wrecking what I love about the place, the countryside, the peace and quiet, the wild spots that aren't National Parks or SSSIs or anything in particular, they're just wild spots. Mind you, I'm not convinced that we'll achieve that by leaving the EU but I know for certain we won't if we stay in.

In reply to galpinos:


Even if the UK doesn't, the EU does. But because its a democratic organisation, it does take time for these things to happen

In reply to Lusk:


....and not forgetting my Dentist (Portugese) and my GP (Spanish) and not forgetting the wealth of EU researchers chosing to work for UK companies.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

My customers are overseas .....

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


The politicians on the remain side cannot be trusted:

U-turn Cameron? Took-us-to-war-on-a-lie Tony Blair? Misses-all-his-own-economic-targets George Osborne?

They all have a proven track record of getting things wrong.

The leave bunch are at least prepared to try something fresh. I'd rather vote for the guy with the cojones, and if it doesn't work out we can say at least we tried, and didn't just roll over and accept a shit sandwich.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Don't agree.


Not interested in propaganda from either side, which is why I posted the full Newsnight link. Could add the other programmes on the different issues.

In reply to Dell:

Yeah, Hitler said something fresh..Fresh does not mean it's actually good.

In reply to Dell:

The 'Brexit' bunch may be open to fresh ideas but they also have a track record of lying at least as bad (& probably worse) as the other side

In reply to Heike:

It doesn't mean it's bad either.

BTW, Godwin's law says you lose!

In reply to Doug:


Probably.

In reply to Doug:

Let's bear in mind just how untrustworthy Boris Johnson has been with his views on Europe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports...

In reply to Dell:

Are you trying to say that they are only "probably" liars?

Not correct - for one because of the link Gordon shares below, but also I think Boris is the only one of the frontline politicians on either side to have been sacked from two jobs, both times for lying (Times first, then the Tory party itself).

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>





Sensible arguments Jon, I agree.

From what I've seen and understand currently,The vast majority of EU migrants are net contributors to our economy and essential to our continued growth. A significant proportion of non-EU immigrants, particularly from the Indian sub-continent are not. Sorry Steve Reid - I don't think your arguments re overcrowding are valid. We do need to build lots more houses but how will we do that without Polish bricklayers? We also need to invest more in our NHS but without the vast non-native workforce we have now it won't matter how much money we put in. And that particularly goes for the ever increasing demands of the non-medical care system for our elderly.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The Huffpost is anti Brexit, and has taken snippets out of context.

I think the opening sentence of this article from August 2014 explains it all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28672286

The UK should not be "afraid of in going for an alternative future" if plans to reform the country's relations with the European Union fail, London Mayor Boris Johnson has said.


"Plans to reform the country's relations" can be taken to mean Cameron's recent paltry negotiations, after which Boris decided he was for leave.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That's like saying
"There's no point in locking up your bike, because there will always be some bastard with a hacksaw"

In reply to Dell:

you really believe anything Boris Johnson says ? how many other journalists have been sacked from the Times for lying?

In reply to Dave Musgrove:



Homes these days are increasing being built by methods other than brick, and anyway, what's wrong with training up our youngsters to be brickies? Or are we going to condemn them leaving school with no jobs to go into? Like in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal etc. with their mass youth unemployment problems.

As for carers, we can have a preferential visa system for any professions that we need urgently, including nurses and doctors etc... even brickies!

The key point is being able to control the flow inwards to suit our requirements, how would that not be a better system than we have now?

In reply to Doug:

I believe him more often than I do Cameron, let's leave it at that.

In reply to HeMa:


I doubt it will be feasible to force all British expats to return to the UK, or to force all EU expats living here to return to their home countries - there are simply too many expats for that to be feasible. I also hope that no sensible government would want to actually round up people and escort them out - that's the kind of thing the Nazis would have done. However it's possible to take away people's right to work (legally) and access government services and that would mean that a lot of people would have to return home (particularly working age people).

The BBC reported recently that 1.6m EU nationals working in the UK would loose the right to work here. If that kind of number of people has to leave the (legal) UK workforce, the economy would go into recession as there won't be enough people working to keep a lot of things going properly. Some of the slack would be taken up by the 'native' unemployed but a lot of these 1.6m jobs won't be filled because (1) they require skills which 'native' unemployed people don't necessarily have; (2) they are in different areas to where there is a lot of unemployed people; and (3) not all unemployed people actually want to get a job. So realistically the government would need to allow EU nationals already working here to remain. You'd hope the EU countries would similarly allow British working expats and pensioners to stay where they are but who knows...

In reply to Misha:

No one's getting kicked out. That's been repeated over and over, it's just far too complicated, and why would people be asked to leave if they are settled and have a job?

Something to do with the 'Vienna convention on the law of treaties' gives people rights that allow them to remain a resident of a country they've settled in. For someone to try and override that, just to have their 'revenge' on the UK for leaving the EU would be completely unworkable.

Expats in Spain are spending their pensions into the Spanish economy, the Spanish wouldn't let them leave.

In reply to Dell:


Why? What has BJ done or said to make you believe he is remotely trustworthy?

In reply to Dell:

Net contribution £8.5bn - not much compared to GDP of £1,800bn or government spending of £770bn. By the way, those who suggest the money would instead be spent by the Tories on public services are being rather naïve.

Immigration is not a bad thing. I suppose I would say that, being a (non EU) immigrant myself (although I've been a British citizen for over 10 years). However I challenge you to find many (any?) 'native' unemployed people who could do my job (tax adviser specialising in mergers and acquisitions). EU nationals doing relatively unskilled jobs may be an issue for British unemployed people who have little or no skills but the real problem there is not immigration, it's the fact that those British people couldn't be asked to study and get some qualifications to be able to get a decent job. Besides, many EU immigrants are here to do skilled work and fill job vacancies which would otherwise go unfilled. Immigration thus actually contributes to the economy by plugging skills gaps and job vacancies in specific sectors of the economy or geographic areas.

Bear in mind that the size of the economy and the number of jobs in the economy is not fixed. Britain's population is twice the size it was a hundred years ago and yet we're far more prosperous and there are far more people in employment now. Clearly the economy and the job market have expanded over time. So the fact that 1, 100, or 100,000 people from abroad get jobs here does not mean that 1, 100 or 100,000 British workers lose out on a job. Think about it, the fact that a Polish software developer or builder starts working in London doesn't have much impact on an unemployed warehouse worker in Newcastle or even in London.

Besides, most EU immigrants are relatively young and childless (David Davies says so in that website you linked to), so we're getting working age people who have been educated elsewhere (at no cost to the UK) and who are net contributors to the government's coffers (they pay tax but don't use public services as much as older people and people with children).

What we can't escape from is that we live in a globalised world where goods, services and information are traded or passed around the whole world. That is one of the key foundations of our prosperity. With this globalised economy comes a globalised workforce and population. The UK can shut the door and be left behind or it can embrace globalisation and reap the benefits. Of course I'm not saying there should be no limits on immigration at all (I hope it will happen one day once everyone in the world is reasonably well off and shares similar values on human rights and democracy, but it probably won't be in my lifetime; of course once that happens, there will be less incentive to move to this rainy land, the climbing is great but the weather is crap!). I think the balance is about right with the EU. 330,000 a year sounds like a lot but that's only 0.5% of the overall population, which is something that can be absorbed easily enough. Besides, most EU citizens don't want to or aren't able to move to the UK, they're either happy enough at home, have too many local ties or don't have the ambition and motivation to move abroad (that's a big step to take). That's why it's 330,000 and not 3 million a year.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:
Ah yes, the "Britain is full" rubbish. Most of the population growth will be in the cities, not Keswick. There are plenty of brownfield sites in cities (here in Birmingham they keep redeveloping them but there's plenty more left), the issue is often rigid planning policies and lack of infrastructure but that can be resolved and has nothing to do with immigration.

As for this being your view and not that of your business... If you own the business, that's the same thing as far as I'm concerned, so I'll have to remember never to use Needle Sports again! Got to put your money where your mouth is...

In reply to Dell:


Well we aren't doing that fast enough which is why the jobs are being created for the polish brickies.


But unemployment with us still in the EU is low and falling because our economy is good - there are plenty of jobs to go to. Leave the EU though and that could be very different as the Polish brickies will be aware since they will then go somewhere else.


Which is pretty much what is currently happening only the control is being exercised by the businesses and NHS, etc.

Alan

In reply to GrahamD:

Genuine question, what is the legislation they are bringing in?

In reply to Mr. Lee:
A higher population will place a greater environmental strain on the land but don't forget human ability to solve problems. Look at recycling, house insulation, car fuel efficiency - all are better now than, say, 30 years ago.

In reply to Dell:



So is any of this based on knowledge or just newspaper headline I wonder? The vast majority of housing is still built with at least 50% traditional methods (ie even timber frame is clad in brick or block). That's mainly because its what the public want to buy.

Nothing wrong with training our youngsters to be brickies, but we cant do that fast enough and have proved time after time that we simply don't train enough anyway in our boom and bust construction cycle.

Anyway, its not just the brickies, its the boarders, the RC gangs, the list goes on and on. Getting them now is hard enough without kidding ourselves that we can kick all the EU labour out and satisfy this demand by training.

In reply to Misha:

Excellent post!


To put the current contribution in perspective, the benefit from getting the contribution back will be like going to the supermarket with £101 instead of the £100 we had the week before, and that is assuming the prices hadn’t gone up because we now have to pay import tax. In reality, we won’t have anything like £100 to spend after the collapse of the trade deals.

Alan

In reply to Dell:

The UK's economy is fairly strong (as evidenced by immigration!), so anyone who gets decent qualifications and wants to get a job can get a job. Whereas if people leave school with no or few qualifications, they won't have much chance of getting a job anyway. If an immigrant who is willing to work harder and better comes along and gets a low skilled job which a low qualified person might otherwise have been able to get, my answer is that the low qualified person should have spent a bit more time studying at school!

By the way, I'm not suggesting that brick laying is low qualified work. If a British person qualifies as a bricklayer, I suspect they'd be able to get a job as construction is on the up at the moment but I don't know much about the bricklaying job market. What I do know is that many manufacturers struggle to fill job vacancies due to a lack of suitably qualified applicants.

In reply to Lusk:
Don't you think Sports Direct etc would be able to exploit British workers as well? Many companies do! And aren't some EU regulations aimed at improving workers' rights?

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

We could stop them if we wanted to AND knew they were a criminal. How would we know that - is it printed on their forehead? Or should we just assume that all Eastern Europeans are criminals? Do you think it says in their passport that they've been to prison? What about people who are criminals but haven't been to prison?

Clearly *a very small proportion* of EU nationals are criminals, same as with British people. *Some* of those EU nationals will come to Britain. However to cut off all EU immigration because of that is to lose a sense of perspective.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Stephen - I'm not really sure why you think environmental protection would be more ensured by being outside of the EU, as opposed to within it? One of the reasons for pressure on housing, particularly in the SE is to do with green belt policies which are UK laws, long predating membership of the (as then) EEC.

In a brief job I did years ago working UNEP, my boss was a former Finnish minister for the environment (he was the first in Europe in that role from a Green Party, and indeed had been the first in Europe Green party MP back in the 80s). Nordic politicians were very accessible back then (this a was a bit before the murder of Anna Lindh which changed things somewhat), but the only time my boss told me he had needed a security detail from the security police was when they introduced Natura 2000 programme into Finnish law and he would go to public meetings about this. Death threats or other threats became quite normal because people in rural areas saw this as the EU enforcing environmental regulations on to them, stopping them using "their" forests as they saw fit.

Population is an interesting one but I don't actually think it has quite the relationship to "areas of beauty" or the state of the countryside that you are suggesting. The pressure on housing seems to be in the urban areas, again where there are limits to development due to planning laws.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


I'm an immigrant but I don't want to have children, so is it ok if I stay? Actually, I'm a British citizen, so you'll have to put up with me anyway. Whatever next, one child policy, mandatory castration? I agree that world population growth is an issue but that's mostly coming from the developing world and in particular Africa. The solution is economic growth so that people don't feel they need to have as many children. Population growth in the developed world is minimal and some countries have a falling population (eg Russia). Thing is, this is a global issue, not a UK one. There will be much more impact on Keswick from global warming (a global problem caused by a rising global population among other things) than from another 100,000 people coming to live in Birmingham. As for Birmingham, that would present some challenges but also some opportunities because an increase in population drives an increase in economic activity. But at a global level shifting people around won't make that much difference.

In reply to Dell:

People have to leave countries because of employment (or lack thereof) all the time. An Aussie mate of mine did her PhD at Helsinki Uni with one of the preeminent professors in the world in her area of bio-medical research. She was funded by Finnish foundations to do her research, but once she graduated she had IIRC 6 weeks to find employment before her visa ran out. She couldn't find a job that suited her in that time, so was told she couldn't get her visa extended and she had to go. She didn't want to leave, but ended up taking all her Finnish funded knowledge skills and data back to Australia and getting a private sector job there. It always seemed the most ridiculous result imaginable to me but now in the UK we are forcing out UK trained teachers who are teaching in UK schools, because they are Americans or Canadians and a teachers salary isn't high enough to meet the governments residency permit requirements! This is at the same time as there is a national teacher shortage in quite a few different subjects.

If the negotiations aren't as super successful as Brexiteers seem to just presume currently, I don't see why that won't happen to at least some Brits elsewhere in the EU and some EU citizens here in the UK. My kids were asking me last night if they can get UK passports as they seemed to think they might get told to leave their schools, and indeed the country, if Leave win! I told them not to worry about it, and of course no one is getting chucked out of school for being from another EU country, but in the longer run I will of course apply for UK citizenship for them if the Brexit wins.

In reply to Dell:


Or we could just have, you know, a free market in labour where you can hire the people you need with the skills you need without all the 'red tape' of visas and work permits and the need to pay 30k+ that the Brexit lot bemoan holds back business. You can't have it both ways.
jk

In reply to Misha:

Just wanted to say 10/10 for effort on this thread tonight. It can be a thankless dispiriting task but you've done a cracking job.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
Thanks, it's an issue I feel about strongly. I don't usually post about non-climbing stuff because most of it isn't important enough as far as I'm concerned I think there are some people in the leave camp on this thread whose mind is already made up but there might be others reading who haven't yet made their minds up and every vote counts. Although whether many people are still following this thread is another question, it's getting pretty long.

In reply to TobyA:

I was referring specifically to citizens from EU member states.

Regarding your second point, I wholeheartedly agree! I have a Kiwi friend who ended up leaving the UK despite having a secure reasonably well paid job, but was a few thousand short of the minimum salary requirements. You do of course realise that the rules for non-EU citizens have been tightened up by the government as a way to offset the amount of EU immigrants that the government can do absolutely nothing about! The Conservatives promised to get immigration down and they went for the easy target, those from outside the EU!

It's nothing short of discriminatory, the UK's immigration policy should be applied to every potential immigrant equally, whichever country they come from. Within the EU, we can't do this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-urged-to-rethink-...

In reply to jkarran:


If you're such a fan of free markets, then why are you rooting for the EU, with it's trade barriers that effectively shut us out from the rest of the World?

...and vice versa : http://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/

In reply to Dell:


If BrLeave wins, it will be the same with Kiwis and those from EU. Especially if the government wants strict border control... in which case after an adjustment period visas might be required for all non citizens...

In reply to Dell:


Because he knows that the EU can broker a better deal than the UK alone.

In reply to Misha:

do you mind telling everyone who you work for and who your client companies are? So others like you can not put their money where your mouth is?

Edit/Extra, you appear to be the first person in any of the EU debate threads who has stated they would take their stance to the next level. There are many with vastly different opinions, but none have said they'd take the actions you suggest you would. I disagree with many on here, chasm, romthebear, neil..... but if I needed a product and their shop sold it, I would buy it there and introduce myself, we may hold different opinions, but we are all climbers and that should be the stronger bond, not who you vote for.

In reply to summo:


Ummn. There one other bloke in this same thread earlier... stating to be takin' his business elsewhere from UKC... Perhaps not the same, or maybe it is (if he branches his boycott to also include Rockfax guides).

In reply to HeMa:

Missed that post, perhaps the 2nd person then. Still pretty sad though.

Given UKC's hit rate, is the UKC responsible for the surged in demand that broke the electoral registration website?

In reply to Dell:


Cameron has forgotten children at the pub. Johnson has forgotten that he had children.

And threatened journalists who have pointed that out.

In reply to summo:


Really? To be honest, the guys making a choice which the overwhelming economic consensus says is going to make Misha poorer. Why is it bad for him to consider doing likewise? And that's before you consider the sensitivity that someone who's said he's an immigrant himself might feel when people say "enough of these immigrants, we are full".

I'm going to be pretty pissed off if my quality of life diminishes as a result of an exit vote, and the fact that some of the people who would have made it happen are climbers doesn't in any way excuse them from being complicit in that.

In reply to AJM:


I guess it's your call, but it's turned this into the Scottish referendum, where people who lived on the same street or worked together didn't dare take about, because it was that divisive. What happens to the economy in China or the USA has far bigger consequences that anything in the EU, I'd be more worried about Donald trump, than the In/Out vote.

The world will change if we stay or go, the EU will change if we stay or go, the UK will change if we stay or go. But the rock will always be there.

In reply to galpinos:

There already are EU directives, which are being worked on and refined and updated all the time. Unfortunately these things do take time and collaboration to get right.

In reply to summo:

>What happens to the economy in China or the USA has far bigger consequences that anything in the EU, I'd be more worried about Donald trump, than the In/Out vote.

It will if Europe is allowed to become a bunch of bit part players

In reply to Dell:

Shut us out from the rest of the world? Have you seen what you eat and where it came from? Where do you think the electronics you're using were made and where did the intellectual property underpinning the key devices in them come from? Where do you think all our professional and financial services sell to? Where is Jaguar Landrover's biggest market or Rolls Royce's for that matter? Get real, we're not shut out of trade with the rest of the world by the EU.

I design electronics that we export worldwide from within the EU, I see no sign of us being shut out of anywhere. On the contrary the European standards we design to are widely respected and accepted which opens door for us.

I'm rooting for the EU because it makes sense, it works and we're stronger when we cooperate.
jk

In reply to GrahamD:


by signing TTIP, I agree.

Absolutely brilliant piece here - https://medium.com/@williamgadsbypeet/project-fear-is-a-fitting-name-you-sh...

Very long, very funny and hits the nail on the head throughout. Worth reading by everyone - in, out and undecided.

Alan

(Thanks Alex Ekins for spotting it)

In reply to Dell:


How about this then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10052646/Quitting-the-EU-wont-solv...

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Gives a 404 error?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
This works for me:
https://medium.com/@williamgadsbypeet/project-fear-is-a-fitting-name-you-sh...

Edit: Ah, it's the UKC expletive filter converting it to f*cking. I've fixed the above link manually in the database

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

We've had Cameron v Farage, but this is the debate everyone's been waiting for https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/the-great-eu-debate-boris-johnson...

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

A very fine piece indeed. A few of the many standout quotes for those that chose not to read it:

"If you are in the trenches and someone screams ‘incoming!’ The correct response is to take heed and duck. If you stand up and go ‘I declare that alarmist nonsense’, you are, quite rightly through Darwinism, going to get your bloody head blown off."

"Stop letting the Leave campaign lie to you, you’re better than that."

"When you ask the Leave campaign to point to an area where they’ve had the evil EU intervene to the detriment of Britain, it gets awfully quiet."

"I’m not saying that everyone who votes Leave is racist, but everyone who’s a racist will be voting Leave."

"the only accurate thing Brexit has done is call the Remain campaign ‘Project Fear’, spot on, you should be f*cking terrified."

In reply to lummox:



If we try and decide how to vote by wasting our time pointing out the flaws of the politicians on both sides of the campaign, we'll still be at it long after the referendum is over!

In reply to Dell:

BoJo is a demagogue who will do anything for power. His extracurricular activities are just another measure of the man.

Darius Guppy also springs to mind.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:



Are you trying to suggest that Boris is inconsistent?

Read to the bottom:
However, he concludes his article by saying: “This renegotiation can only work if we understand clearly what we want to achieve: a pared down relationship based on free trade and cooperation. And our partners will only take us seriously if they think we will invoke Article 50, and pull out, if we fail to get what we want.”

Which is exactly what he is trying to achieve now.

In reply to lummox:

'Bojo' was quite popular as Mayor of London, he did an OK job of it, certainly better than the job David Cameron is doing as Prime Minister.


Don't all politicians do that? Even Jeremy Corbyn is turning his back on his beliefs to ensure that his party doesn't oust him.

In reply to Dell:


He's not trying to convince anyone he's serious about invoking article 50 if we don't get things all our own way. He's trying to invoke article 50. Big difference.

He's gambling your future and mine by backing the Leave side not because he believes in what he's doing (he's evidently conflicted) but because it differentiates him from his main rivals for the Tory leadership. He's not risking much personally, if he loses he goes back to being the lovable rogue ex-mayor back bench MP waiting for his next chance to stick the knife in Cameron's back. Don't be under any illusion, this is all about him and his career, f*ck the consequences. Johnson is an odious self interested serial liar who'd do anything to further his position, believe him at your peril because he does not give a flying f*ck what happens to you and me in the carnage that will ensue should his gamble pay off.
jk

In reply to Dell:


I think it is, yes. ie getting a Leave result in the hope that the EU will make more concessions, leading to a 2nd vote in which he'd support the Remain side and sweep triumphantly into no 10.

He more or less admitted as much a couple of months ago before swiftly retracting.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:





The problem I have with this article, is that he starts off berating Economists for trying to predict the the future and failing, and then goes on to make a load of predictions himself.
He sums up by saying that we shouldn't listen to politicians because they are all "ass holes" (As opposed to arseholes?)

Well where does that leave us then?

In reply to Dell:

So if all politicians lie, why do you condemn DC etc. for doing it but forgive Boris?

As to how Boris apparently did an OK job of being mayor of London, can you name anything he actually did that you agree with? The role has very little power, other than green lighting building developments. Another thing where he said one before being elected (that he wouldn't simply allow unlimited building and overseas investment) then did another (approved more or less all of the planning applications for anything anywhere).

In reply to andyfallsoff:



>In reply to Doug:
I believe him more often than I do Cameron, let's leave it at that.

In reply to Dell:



Corbyn said that he is for Remain , then apparently got confused and read his speech he had prepared for all the reasons that he was for leaving

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Has anyone see 'Brexit the Movie', I came across it last night , but have still to download/stream it, what is it like ?


I found the link for You Tube.

youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0&

In reply to Dell:




Remarkably, some don't. Some are rather more principled than others.

BoJo wouldn't understand the meaning of the word.

In reply to lummox:

We seem to be playing the man and not the ball, which doesn't really get us anywhere.
The vote on June 23rd isn't, do you like Boris, yes or no.

In reply to Dell:



I beg to differ. The outcome of the vote almost certainly results in him becoming PM within the next 18 months or not.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:



A second vote? what second vote?

Is Boris saying we should leave, and renegotiate our way back in but on more favourable terms for us?

That's still a better option than remain, cos we've bugger all chance of reforming it while we're within it. Cameron's desperately weak negotiations have proved that.

In reply to Dell:

Happy to play the ball not the man, but it was your message up-thread that said you couldn't support the remain campaign because the politicians can't be trusted:

In reply to lummox:

How so? Will all the Tories that are voting remain suddenly decide he was right all along?

In reply to Dell:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35670906

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I was merely responding to the accusations that those on the Leave side cannot be trusted. They are politicians, none of them can be trusted! This is why we should be voting on the issues and not personalities.

In reply to Dell:

No, I'm sure you're right - Cameron will stay as PM if there's a Brexit win.

That sounds entirely plausible.

Like 77 million Turks swarming towards the UK.

As the millions of Bulgarians and Romanians did.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Well that article makes everything crystal clear!

In reply to lummox:






I didn't say Cameron would stay, you said Boris would become PM.

No one has said that 77 millions Turks, or that Millions of Bulgarians would come.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov...

In reply to Dell:





your fellow traveller Farage warned you that millions of Bulgarians would swamp the country.

Didn't happen did it ?

In reply to L'Eeyore:

I usually use stronger words about Farage and BoJo but that will do.

In reply to Dell:

Erm...

Enjoy Google's top hit for '77 million turks': http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/661387/Migrant-crisis-Nigel-Farage-Turkey-...

Perhaps you meant nobody credible?
jk

In reply to lummox:

It was aimed at you!

In reply to lummox:

I think you may have taken his words out of context. He said that more would come than the Government suggested would come, and he was correct.

In reply to jkarran:

Yes, that's a headline to a Daily Express article.

Nobody had suggested that all at once, they would "swarm towards the UK"

In reply to Dell:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/number-of-romanian-and-bulga...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/366693/Britain-to-face-new-immigrant-wave

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21640358-romanians-and-bulgarians-und...

In reply to Dell:

This one contains attributed quotes but frankly I'm getting sick of reading for you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484445/Turkey-blackmailed-Britain-...

And this one contain's Farrage's measured take on the matter.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ukip-referendum-tv-channel/eu-loophole-could...

TLDR... Here's the Farage quote: "The EU is negotiating visa free access for all Turks, all 77million.
“It is also proposing visa free travel with Ukraine and the real problem is that in theory, free travel means you can come to Europe for 90 days.
“But the reality is that a lot of people will disappear or when they get to Germany claim their rights of family reunion.
“The real problem isn’t people trying to get to Britain illegally, the real problem is that in a few short years all of the people that came will have German passports, Dutch or Belgium passports.
“And as you know an EU passport means unqualified travel to the UK."

jk

In reply to jkarran:

The point is that 77 million would be given access, which would be correct. Not that the entire population of Turkey would up sticks and move to the UK


Regarding your second link:

Published by the Daily Express and Written By Rebecca Perring 19/04/16.

In reply to L'Eeyore:
Well for starters he's the leader of the UK Independence Party. Should really be reason enough to mention him on a thread about the EU In/Out referendum, no?

Secondly: In direct response to Dell's demonstrably absurd claim that nobody on the Leave side has been using Turkey's new deal with Europe and their one-day-maybe accession to the EU to put the frightners on us.
jk

In reply to All:

This has been a very good discussion so far. Please can we keep it on the issues rather than sending personal insults back and forth.

Alan

In reply to jkarran:





Don't you have to be living in Germany for seven years to get a passport? I can't see any problem with someone who's been living in Germany for seven years coming to the UK? Can't see why they necessarily would want to come to the UK having been settled in Germany for seven years though... And I can't see anyone setting out to live in Germany for seven years just as a stepping stone to get to the UK. I think we might be overestimating our appeal as a country!

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Quite. I'm not sure the message was meant for people who'd actually give it a moment's rational thought!
jk

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Actually it's 8 years, and a bunch of other requirements...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law#Naturalisation_as_a_Ge...

In reply to john arran:

One more ... "So please, for the love of Jehova ...".

Oh dear, he's a religious loon.
I think anyone who believes in a God is a deluded fantasist, so we can safely disregard his piece!

In reply to Dell:



I've just watch a broadcast by Vote Leave. They suggested that 88.7 million people when Turkey and 4 other countries join the EU, which will definitely happen soon. They also repeated several times the 350 million per week figure that even John Redwood this morning said was a mistake.

Apparently if we leave the EU the NHS waiting lists will vanish and everyone will be cured. We'll use the 350 million to build a new hospital every week, while simultaneously giving it to the nurses and doctors (Schrodinger's 350 million?). If we stay however then these 88.7 million people will all come here to use the NHS while somehow avoiding [paying any taxes to fund it, and it will be closed down as a result.

It's been on before so they presumably stand by everything in it since they've decided to repeat it.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-vote-leave-nhs-ad-that-swung-shelaghs-vote-131097

In reply to RyanOsborne:

You might be surprised, there are certainly migrants in Sweden who are planning to get their nationality, then head to the UK. I think the English language is the draw, as it's easier to improve their English, than work on another language from scratch. I've met some who haven't learnt any lingo after 5 years. The consensus is that it is the next generation that intergrates, not the one that arrives. There will of course be examples of extreme cases at either end of the scale.