UKH

The readers of UKClimbing and UKHillwalking have shown overwhelming support for remaining in the EU. In our survey for which we got over 4,000 responses, 81.2% of those with a vote said they are going to vote to stay in the EU

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Well done Alan for keeping this issue in the climbing news and I'm very pleased to see such a large percentage of Climbers/Hillwalkers supporting the Remain campaign (I would have been very disappointed if it were not so and find it very hard to see how any right thinking individuals can align themselves to a movement fronted by the likes of Farage).

However, I hope such a large percentage in favour of remain doesn't lead to complacency. Make sure you make every available vote count. If you are still undecided remember the status quo position has meant we have continued to grow our economy and keep unemployment at its lowest rate for years. Member states are safer together and long term European initiatives are at least attempting to address the global time-bomb of climate change and improvements to our environment. If you are still undecided vote for an established system you know works well and lets work together to make it work better!
Dave

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

"Vote REMAIN because all the most vile racists and xenophobes in Europe and around the world want Britain to leave."?

What if most rapists, drug dealers and, I don t know, bankers want to remain? Should I vote "leave"?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Dont you mean 81.2 % of those who voted ?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Thank you Alan for publishing the results which are heartening to see.

I am proud to participate in an activity where close cooperation with and trust in partners is fundamental and in which we achieve much more in shared endeavour than we can achieve alone. And I'm proud to see that reflected in our attitudes to the critical decision we will make on Thursday for the future of ourselves and our families, for Britain, Europe and the wider world.

Martin

In reply to PATTISON Bill:


Err yes - that's why it says: 81.2% of those with a vote

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm voting OUT because of that kids hair

In reply to Blake:

If you vote out we will be subjected to Johnson's hair 'style' even more often.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

If the EU is working so well for the good of all, then please explain to me the Greek economic situation and Spanish unemployment.

In the meantime UKC should report on climbing issues, unbalanced political opinions are available from a variety of other sources.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Thank you Alan for taking the time and trouble to research and present this poll. However I intend to vote out.

I not sure therefore why you felt important to continue the presentation with 'Where do I stand'. Where you stand is not relevant. If you wanted to let your readers know what you thought about leaving the EU you could have done so in a separate post.

The importance factor of any poll is non bias and independence. It just looks like you got the result you wanted then followed it with your moment on the soapbox.

Anyway Thursday will tell.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

That's much in line with what I would have expected but given the level of the debate on here that's hardly an endorsement for "In" is it? I'm still undecided but I'm still searching frantically for views from both sides and the constant cries of bigot, racist, little Englander in response to serious concerns does not endear me to the remain side.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

Absolute middle class idiots.

In reply to MaxJEF:

I've never suggested that the EU is perfect but I strongly believe it is better than each country trying to go it alone. I do believe we in Britain have done very well from it over the last 40 years (some countries may have fared less well - not neccesarily all the EU's fault) and my last sentence above does suggest we (Britain) should be using our influence to continue to improve it.

In reply to zimpara:


Sorry I forgot that one.

In reply to zimpara:


Who are?

In reply to GridNorth:

The tactic of shouting "racist" at anyone who voices a concern about immigration is entrenched. New Labour used it to great effect in years past.

I don't fear other cultures or nationalities but I do value my own, hence I shall vote leave.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

So if you are undecided, or wondering whether to bother voting:

Vote REMAIN because all the most vile racists and xenophobes in Europe and around the world want Britain to leave.

This statement does your cause no good whatsoever. Whatever is it doing in an article which is presented as a factual poll.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

I think it's far from perfect but I was a "Remainer" up until David Cameron's failure to achieve any meaningful concessions pushed me to undecided.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:


So you can't/won't explain the Greek or Spanish situation, typical of the Remain camp.

In reply to zimpara:


No, class has nothing to do with it. It just means that most climbers and hill walkers are used to thinking for themselves.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Personally I hate the fact this material is on the front page. Whilst a good few regulars on the forum enjoy the banter, this isn't why people visit a climbing website. There's just no escape from it.

In reply to Trangia:


And are not The Scum/Daily Fail readers.

Andy F

In reply to MaxJEF:

I have never professed to be an expert in the national politics of any of the EU member states so I can't help you specifically with the Greek or Spanish situations. I suspect the EU was a bit over optimistic about Greece's potential when it became a member and there is no doubt that it is still struggling to maintain its position but I don't feel that is a reason for us to leave.

In reply to MaxJEF:

What makes you think that Greece or Spain would in the long run be better off outside the EU? Yes they might have been able to acutely respond to the banking crisis (note, not sovereign debt crisis, let´s stick with the correct attribution) by devaluing. However, the pre-crisis level of their economies would have been vastly lower had it not been for huge prior EU investment, mainly in the infrastructure of these countries. This is obvious to most Greeks and Spaniards, hence the continuing support of EU membership in these countries even amongst anti-austerity politicians.

If you have travelled to southern Europe from the 1970s to the 2000s you could see and sometimes even smell the progress for yourself: Anyone remember bathing in the Adriatic before the EU funded sewage works in many Italian communities, or what travelling by train from Barcelona to Andalucia entailed?

Whether a temporary exit from the Euro would have made sense post crisis, or whether this nuclear option should be excluded for overriding principal reasons is a matter of debate amongst the Euro zone countries.


CB

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I stopped listening to the for/against arguments a while ago when it became clear most of it was complete bollocks. I have posted my in vote from an idealist point of view. I think we should be working towards a united world in everything, not individual states putting their own interests first. We should be working towards the best for the human race, not the best for individuals. I think being part of the EU is going in the right direction for that one day, a planet Earth Union. I don't care if that makes me an unrealistic dreamer. It would be cool

In reply to MaxJEF:


It isn't clear that the Spanish unemployment rate is because of the EU at all. Spain had a property boom and bust, which has been exacerbated by rigid labour market laws (which are a matter of domestic rather than EU policy).

As for Greece, I agree that there are more significant issues, which have mostly arisen because of the extension of credit to Greece (which I accept was partially resultant from joining the Eurozone). However, the position has arisen because of how the situation was managed, rather than solely because of the EU - Greece accepted funds to repay the banks which had exposure to shaky Greek debt, rather than defaulting then. Since then, yes, the (German led) position of the Eurozone has been concerning, because they don't appear to have accepted that a debt write-down could be accepted (even though that appears to be what Greece needs). However, (1) these are issues which are a result specifically of entering into currency union without also entering into fiscal union - and the UK is outside the Eurozone, so this debate does not affect us directly in the same way.

In any event, (2) the author clearly states that the EU isn't perfect, so identifying a deficiency doesn't really skewer their argument. In my view, saying that Greece was so badly treated that the whole EU project is unviable is a stretch - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The "can't / won't explain" criticism is far more validly directed at the Leave campaign, which has not spelt out a clear defining message for leaving the EU, and then profited from that confusion - as it allows them to make contradictory claims, about the use of funds, the limitation on EU migration, and access to the single market.

In reply to GridNorth:
My reasons for remain are;
I think leave is a huge economic risk with almost no clear benefits. At the moment 60% of large global companies have their European base in London. They won't if we leave. At the moment the financial centre of Europe (and one of the two world centres) is London. This props up the British economy and will be diminished if we leave, European banks will start migrating to Paris and Frankfurt, and non EU banking will drift to HK and Singapore. We have a £1.6 trillion national debt. If our credit rating suffers by leaving, the cost of servicing this debt will rise significantly. All indications show the pound will drop increasing the costs of all our basic goods. Access to our biggest trade partners will be more complicated. Plus id like the option to retire somewhere warm when I'm older, with full health care rights. Plus I'm basically an internationalist at heart and think we should be working together with our closest partners rather than pulling apart.

In reply to MaxJEF:


Voices of concern!

The so called 'debate' about immigration is almost devoid of facts; there is a wealth of good research out there which demonstrates that migrants make a net contribution to the economy and areas of highest unemployment are in places with few migrants. Not to mention the most recent conflation of refugee crisis with immigration.

Almost all of what is 'voiced' appears to be based the very, very old idea of 'fear of the other'; as it was previously with the Irish, with Afro-Caribbean’s, with Ugandan Asians.....

It is never overtly racist; but anything based on such negative potrayal of others is not healthy.

I haven't paid too much attention to the referendum campaign, but I did notice the recent 'out' broadcast start with a warning of what would happen if the Turks joined the EU - god forbid!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

How on earth do you square all this waffle:

Another important question for climbers and hillwalkers is what would be the impact on travel across Europe. Whilst the changes may be small, it is difficult to imagine any scenario where travelling to climb, and more significantly, work, in the outdoor industry in the EU would get easier following a Brexit...

This has allowed me the free time to pursue my love of climbing, and travel across Europe in pursuit of this passion. I have built my business based on my passion and that of my friends and colleagues. The ease of travel and trade in combination with this peace and prosperity has enabled us to make UKClimbing and Rockfax brands that are successful and known around the world.

I also met my wife who was on an EU-sponsored language exchange program and she has made her career in an area of education for which the language and cultural exchange programs fostered in the EU are crucial.

With the very next sentence:

Looking to the future I see the EU playing an even bigger role in combating climate change - the biggest threat to everyone

So your hobby, income and love-life all depend on extended travel options, which miraculously also lead to the biggest challenge to climate change, rather than being a massive contributor to it?

Unless you're gobbling CO2 at some fantastic rate this is just complete nonsense but you are by no means the first person to make this bizarre claim that the EU does both.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


There isn't a wealth and what there is, is largely voodoo.

But the point of course is that we can maximise that contribution by raising the bar for entry, just like the US does.

People like yourself and the OP who make these dubious claims about immigration and refugees are part of the problem, and have been for 15-20 years at least.

If we leave the EU it'll be in part because you've been ducking and diving for years and not addressed the issue with any reasonable arguments.

If we stay in you still won't address them.

In reply to stevieb:

The only thing 60% of the large global companies add to the UKs economy (certainly not straight up tax- I mean look at gary barlow pulling the wool with offshore accounts etc) is coffee and pie bills at lunch time.
So get out.

In reply to winhill:

Twit

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


You don't see the connection between your vacuous virtue-signalling, the insults and people thinking you're a gob shite?

In reply to John Postlethwaite:

Yeah, your opinion about 'fear of the other' irish carribean asian etc is bullshit.
Why don't you live in east london or bradford/other typical location taken over. Because you wouldn't want to let your kids out on the street.

Climbers are used to thinking for themselves? Sure, but this opinion poll is a rare old thing showing the 'in' voters are embarrassingly niave

In reply to zimpara:

I'm voting in because, in my opinion, the remain side have told fewer lies
Which is a damning indictment of the campaigns.
:/

In reply to winhill:



It doesn't though in reality - there are x million illegal immigrants that are central to the US economy, hence Trump's "wall".

In reply to zimpara:

Do you not let your kids out where you live? My main worry about the kids on the streets where I live is traffic safety.
It's impressive how many assumptions you can load into the two words "taken over"!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:


Will you so pationately defend the NHS ?

With sheffields blood services moving to Manchester this will directly impact the climbers that end up in the Hospitals. Why do you waste time on the referendum when something that will kill is happening ?

In reply to zimpara:


Shocking. Never heard of or cannot recall Powell's 'Rivers of Blood ' speech, to cite one example, from the 1960's. Let alone all the accounts of people themselves.


'Taken over'!

In reply to muppetfilter:


This is obviously a cost-saving move. In the near-inevitable event of NHS budgeting becoming even more difficult post-Brexit, this kind of thing will be happening far more.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:

Don't care for your middleclass correctness much either.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:



Go easy on zimpara, they must be a teenager (at least that is my impression from how he/she posts: Good stuff mixed with occasional toe curling nonsense betraying a complete lack of reference). In that repect exactly like my two girls,

CB

In reply to MG:


And it is actually essential that they are illegal, as illegal means cheap: No health insurance, no pension costs, if they get sick don't treat them, just deport them when they go to the hospital. The entire agriculture in the California central valley would collapse without exploiting (largely illegal) immigrants, and illegal ones are easier to get rid of in these times of drought.

CB

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I am struggling with this 'News' article. Give the results of the poll fine. The bulk of this news article is pure propaganda.

Has the author considered joining the Daily mail writers, for or against surely UKC/UKH has got to be better than producing waffle which bares no scrutiny whatsoever.

In reply to GridNorth:

Might this be the kind of thing you're looking for? Very clear, factual and dispassionate.
youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y&

In reply to zimpara:
Well US companies account for a quarter of foreign businesses, and they alone employ 1.2 million people in the uk. So at a rough guess we're looking at 3-5million in total. Glad that you can be so blas£ with their jobs.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Poor survey response due to people not really considering it to be 'climbing news'

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

"Vote REMAIN because all the most vile racists and xenophobes in Europe and around the world want Britain to leave."

This line has absolutely no place in this article or on this website and should be removed. it is complete nonsense and unfounded. your other points are legitimate views open to debate but this is just hate filled opinion.

First of all why would some neo-Nazi in the eastern block care what is gong on in the UK? secondly it is exactly the current economic mess in the EU and specifically the Eurozone, along with the migration tensions within the Schengen zone which are fuelling the current rise of the far right across mainland Europe.

In reply to zimpara:

Wow Zimpara, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, even though 90% of what you post on the forums is complete nonsense, but seeing your post about areas of the UK 'being taken over' makes me absolutely sick. The thin veneer over your racist attitudes is clearly peeling off, better get some superglue.

In reply to MaxJEF:


I can try to explain. I expect yo don't really want to hear though! no offense intended)

There was a financial crisis. It hit Greece and others very hard. Being in the euro (rather than the EU) made things worse. Then Germany decided to be d!cks and make things even worse than they need be. So it wasn't the EU wot dpne it, it was the euro and the EU countries. Especially Germany

We're not in the euro and germany can't do that to us. Nevertheless, we implemented our own stupid fiscal policy all by ourselves.

In reply to winhill



^ This.

Vote remain because Alan says so. Not sure how this article can remotely be described as 'news'

In reply to Ridge:
Normally the good folks of UKC would argue about anything.

I think it speaks volumes that no one will argue that the contents of this 'News' article are Justifiable.

In reply to Aztec Bar:

Complete nonsense... editorial opinions are a standard practice in news sites and several people have pointed this out before. It hilarious that Alan could be regarded by some here as worse than the Murdochs, Barclays, Desmonds etc of this world.

In reply to Offwidth:
So because the Daily Mail can do it, it's Ok on here?
I thought we might be better than that.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Good on you Alan and UKC, proud to be a UKC user.

One could equally hope the UKC users could be better than moaning about the owners having and honestly expressing an opinion.

In reply to Aztec Bar:

Shooting the messenger is going to help?

In reply to UKC/UKH News: really nauseating editorial, you just dont get it. We have gone from co-operation and a free trade zone to almost full governance by a centralised un-transparent government in Brussels.. and people really think that is a good idea?

it seems to have slipped people's notice but there is not peace in Europe, there is a horrific ongoing war in the Ukraine , the EU is partly to blame for this!. You now have the worrying sight of NATO building up force on Russia's border as well, who would have predicted that 20 years ago? peace my arse! Throw in forced sanctions on Russia for all EU countries and you are now seeing economic collapse in agricultural and other sectors of EU countries e.g. Finland, France. what about the UK? The media are doing a good job of not telling us the impact on sanctions on our economy.

I must be living in some parallel universe when I read the arguments for Remain, utterly bizarre.

In reply to Webster:



You are right in that I did put that line in to be deliberately provocative. Maybe the word 'all' was overstating it though - I'll change it to 'most' on the assumption that the others, as you point out, either don't care, or aren't aware. They aren't cheering for Britain to remain though.

Alan

In reply to Aztec Bar:

So how come you get to express your opinions and yet you want to prevent Alan from expressing his? Sounds a bit unfair to me.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'm glad you replied, I was beginning to think we were all victims of the best troll ever.

In reply to Erik B:


Are these arguments bizarre or is he just another one of those 'experts'?

youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y&

Alan

In reply to GridNorth:

Try this - far from 'bigot', 'racist' https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1293361974024537/?pnr...

In reply to The Climbing Academy:

Same link but worth posting twice!

In reply to Webster:



Because it is a bedrock of their creed that different races, different ethnic groups, different religions can't live together, can't intermingle and interbreed. White supremacists from Texas to Siberia hate the notion of successful multi-culturism. Religious fundamentalists the world over don't want to see a pluralistic, tolerant society succeeding. All these groups know that creating division and hatred is their best recruiting tool, and harmony is their enemy.

Voting for Brexit doesn't make you a vile racist, but there's no doubt it's what they want, and serves their aims.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I just don't label mine News.

In reply to The Climbing Academy:

Just watched the first few minutes as I don't have time to watch the rest at the moment. My first reaction though is that he is not really a disinterested party. His career seems to revolve around the existence of the EU but I will try to watch later today. Thank you.

In reply to Aztec Bar:

Everyone is also entitled to skip items of news they are not interested in. The fact that you have been motivated to reply suggests this is an important issue to you?

In reply to Aztec Bar:


although yet to reply to winhill's observation above ..

In reply to The Climbing Academy:


And also check his follow up on immigration - https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20/eu-law-expert-responds-industrial-d...

Alan

In reply to Dave Musgrove:
I think it is an important issue, it will effect us all.
Regardless of personal politics I am not a fan of papers giving opinion. They (Newspapers) should report news. They are an unelected service supplier yet their influence on people's lives thoughts and opinions is vast. Particularly those who believe without chalange or question.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


"Vote REMAIN because all the most vile racists and xenophobes in Europe and around the world want Britain to leave."

What is your source for this claim?

In reply to winhill:

....

I can't square that waffle, with combating climate change, but which of us can? Who was going on about climate impact in the 80s and 90s.

Yes, the EU help my generation prosper, and yes, times have changed and now we need the EU to help combat climate change. Is there a problem with this?

What is your solution to climate change from a leave perspective?

Alan

In reply to Aztec Bar:


The news was the result of the survey. After that Alan helpfully distinguished his opinion by putting in bold "Where do I stand?". He couldn't have made it any clearer.

In reply to winhill:


Yes, more of this sort of thing please
http://www.scotsman.com/news/laggan-village-shopkeepers-face-deportation-af...

In reply to Sir Chasm:
The article showed bias an inaccuracy and opinion almost from the start and well before the section labeled 'where do I stand', it did go up a gear or two at that point, granted.

Sorry I'm off to work now. (If I still have one by the end of the week !)

In reply to GrantM:



The media, the internet. Have you actually looked?

Here's one for starters - http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/672618/Geert-Wilder-Britain-European...
or here - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fd2fd876-235a-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d.html#axzz4CC...

I undertand Dutch and know a lot about the country and this guy is one of the most unpleasant nutters around. I would seriously question myself if I found I was agreeing with him on anything.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: so the so called academic mouthpiece thinks Remain have been a wee bit naughty now and then with some dodgy stats but not too bad, while the bad leave campaign are dreadful. its clear where his allegiance lies.

The sad thing is I witnessed all of this before during the Scottish Indy ref, the exact same tactics have been used in the EU ref by the Government and its generally compliant mainstream media.

what will the EU look like in 10 or 20 years? that's a key question, I'm pretty damn sure it wont be the utopia you and others try to paint, TTIP etc etc what a nightmare. The one thing that makes Europe special in the world is its collection of nations, languages and culture, do you really think the EU has, or will continue to nurture that? all i see in the future is a one big grey, droid like, soulless block of people, a bit like a vast Luxembourg!. maybe with the odd football tournament in some sterile, characterless, sponsor clad all seated stadium thrown in by the football branch of the EU- UEFA, so we can all pretend we still have some individual nationhood left.

In reply to Erik B:


He does support his 'allegiance' with an entire academic career spent studying the subject to a level way beyond the rest of us.

Can you link to an equivalently convincing leave video?

Alan

In reply to Erik B:

Ha! That's exactly the kind of baseless, fact-free scaremongering everyone on both sides has been railing against!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Yes, thanks for attempting to be patronising though. Your claim is 'all' (later revised to 'most'). You have found a couple of links but don't actually support your claim of all/most so I'm guessing you don't have any credible source.

Which is ironic because you also posted a link to an academic who complains about dodgy facts and statistics used by both sides. Have you actually looked at it?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: this seems a good argument youtube.com/watch?v=9otn_5LVQq8&

worth listening to, tackles things from a different angle perhaps!

In reply to GrantM:


Well I was hoping you might look. I could post links to far right organisations in Austria, Denmark, France, never mind the UK groups like BritainFirst, EDL and all those lovely people.

Let's reverse it - show me a vile racist and xenophobe that is supporting the Remain campaign.

Alan

In reply to john arran: ha ha of course its baseless, its a vision into the future. something we should all be doing rather than listening to guff academics who earn a living harping on about stats

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Christ, I came to UKC today to get away from all this nonsense!

I'm thoroughly disappointed Alan.

In reply to Nathanie1:

Then why did you open the thread? The title's pretty clear about what the subject is.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


No, you made the claim and presented it as a news story so it's your responsibility to show that it is true.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

You can't move on the internet without being asked to watch that link du jour, so I will re post my reply with questions to the first person I saw who posted it..

I listened to him. A few points..
a) he doesn't mention immigration once (fine, not his area of expertise...but widely missing the point of why many leave voters are voting leave) Only to say that if you want the single market, you MUST have free movement of people. Non negotiable....apparently. OK. So if we don't want free movement then we must leave single market...what would that mean...well
b) He says currently our single market access allows us to trade freely with the EU because we have agreed already on component/safety/regulatory type issues (he uses an example of a UK computer /chip manufacturer already complying through single market homogenisation of regulations) So, if we left....is he implying that the computer/chip manufacturer will suddenly change it's production practices and start producing something else? Or will it continue to manufacture the same product that was fully compliant with EU law/regulations as before and therefore should be freely able to access the EU market as it is fully compliant? I can imagine some initial red tape, import duties? what else?
c) He implies we currently trade with the rest of the world with not that much to offer but leverage access to other EU members to gain an advantage? Really?

Hey, he's a prof at Liverpool Uni so who am I to argue ,

In reply to GrantM:


I think you'll find he presented it in the clearly identified Opinion section of the linked pages rather than in the News section. Opinions are often formed without reference to known sources, and indeed sometimes such opinions will turn out to be baseless. If you know of any counter examples to show that his opinion in this case is baseless then it sounds like he'd be happy to hear it.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

the only reason Britain needs the EU to wave the big stick at the UK over climate change issues is because the average Brit isn't prepared to doing anything about it themselves. The UK is totally free to impose far stricter legislation itself, but it won't or hasn't. It isn't something that only the EU can deal with, anybody can.

As a slight degression a couple of years ago, the EU took the UK to court, because it was selling home insulation VAT free to help meet climate change targets, but selling it VAT free broke EU competition laws, as it penalised those who might wish to get the ferry/tunnel across between France/UK to buy their insulation in a different country. Not sure how many people actually travelled from France to buy the UK's cheaper insulation, but the EU spent money on lawyers fighting it.

EDIT. Let's be honest, most of us are Eco hypocrits, how many people only climb locally? etc..

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


He ran out of time but addresses immigration here - https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20/eu-law-expert-responds-industrial-d...


I don't know the answer to that question. I think the point is that only the EU trade deals do this which is why it is a good trade agreement. I think it also means that if we want to continue to trade then we will need to comply with these regulatory barriers but we won't have any say in what they are.


I found that one surprising too but nevertheless, quite a powerful point if true.

Alan

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Alan. I'd actually like you to remove this thread altogether. The biggest worry I have right now is that the Remain camp seem to have become complacent just because of a sudden surge in what is still likely a very close contest.

You haven't climbed the mountain until you're safely back down.

In reply to summo:


As we are totally free to impose far stricter legislation as part of the Eu and don't, how is leaving the Eu going to help us (the UK, not Sweden) address climate change issues?

As a digression, there seems to be a preponderance of climate change deniers on the leave side.

In reply to Removed User:


This does not sound very democratic does it. People might read it and

A) Not bother to vote, or
B) Change their minds.

so we'll remove it.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
In Alan James' highly selective list of reasons to vote remain he fails to mention vote remain to continue to hand over our sovereignty to a failing, corrupt and anti-democratic bureaucracy over which we have virtually no influence, or vote remain to continue uncontrolled, massive and unsustainable migration to this small country with all the inevitable pressures on services etc. The alternative is that we can regain the primacy of our democratically elected parliament, our supreme court from the unelected, unaccountable, political elite in Brussels and choose our own desiny not least because the EU itself is unsustainable and will likely collapse within the next 30 years, maybe sooner

In reply to Aztec Bar:

Well this is a private enterprise and Alan is entirely entitled to push a view point he feels strongly about, in an issue that is far more important than, for example, any general election.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I've just watched yet another "independent" film claiming to present the "facts". It did but in a very nuanced way. I suspect that the only way the issues can be presented honestly is to ban the use of adjectives

I'll be glad when this is all over and I can get my life back. I'm convinced that for me this is going to come down to the line and how I feel on the day. This is very annoying because I consider myself a reasonably intelligent, balanced but pragmatic sort of person guided normally by my brain rather than my heart.

In reply to neilwiltshire:


Agreed. Its the Title 'News' at the top I struggle with.

Call it "My opinion about remaining in the EU" and I'm fine with it.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


by voting for a party in London, Wales, Stormont, Edinburgh that has some greener policies. I don't mean the green party, as half their stuff is dreamland, but at least the libdems tempered the conservatives. Or by Government petition, there is a system in place that now forces MPs to debate issues if they reach a given number, which isn't that high. Debate is clearly not law, but it's a starting point.

In reply to GridNorth:

I also spotted this weakness in his argument when I watched it. However, he goes on to say that if we leave the EU he will be kept in busy for a long time to help sort out the law system.

With this bit of info I'd argue he is well placed to be un-biased and he is also an expert on the topic.

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

It wasn't that film I was referring to, I think it may have been a Panorama with Nick Robinson.

In reply to summo:

... and in what way is being part of the EU stopping us from electing domestic parties with greener policies and implementing them?

In reply to Erik B:

The EU was about peace between EU members, countries which had been at war constantly for centuries, have not since the ECSC and later the EU.

Ukraine nor russia are in the EU. Therefore you can't expect the EU to be easily able to get peace.

In reply to rockcat:

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-immigration-and-pressure-nhs/

In reply to summo:


As we are already free to vote for such a party, and as the Eu doesn't prevent us imposing far stricter legislation, I ask again how does leaving the Eu help us address climate change?

In reply to MaxJEF:

Dave, I can assure you that Spanish unemployment is due to the poor vision of corrupt and inept Spanish politicians and nothing to do with the EU.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

In reply to john arran:


Or, why do we need to pay the EU to enact green policies which we could do ourselves? It not that leaving stops anything, we are currently paying others for things we could easily do for ourselves. We have a parliament, two houses - hundreds of MPs & over a 1000 lords/ladies, various regional parliaments in all corners of the UK, I think that's sufficient to get the job done, do we really need the EU as well?

In reply to john arran:


The link is to a single article (not multiple pages), which was posted in the News section of UKC and clearly marked as news. His claim is ridiculous, it's obvious he won't be able to provide any evidence and he has admitted he put it there to be 'deliberately provocative' - yet it's top of the list of his reasons to remain in the EU. It's disappointing, if not unexpected, to see this kind of tabloid journalism here.

In reply to summo:



You said we need the Eu,
"the only reason Britain needs the EU to wave the big stick at the UK over climate change issues is because the average Brit isn't prepared to doing anything about it themselves.". Did you forget?

In reply to summo:


If the Leave campaign were being fought on that basis then there's a good chance I'd be voting with them, as I'd initially planned to do, having been a Euro-sceptic for decades.

But it's been fought largely on the basis that we need to keep foreigners out of the country as they are a universal drain on resources, we don't have room, and staying in the EU will mean that the entire population of Turkey will arrive in the next 5 years.

Despite it's very many failings, the EU has done much that is good. And chief among these is the single market and the free movement of people. I can't see myself voting for a campaign whose basis has been opposition to those principles.

In reply to summo:


Well, we could do, but we haven't.

However, it makes much more sense to do it EU-wide. For example, reducing the wattage on vacuum cleaners. The EU has come up with a single set of guidelines that aim to make all vacuum cleaners use less power. Technological advances mean we can get just as much suction these days anyway from lower wattage machines. This is a good thing since it will reduce power consumption. If you apply this across the whole EU as agreed by everyone in the EU, then no market is favoured and we can buy and sell each others vacuum cleaners. If a single country does it (which they are perfectly at liberty to do) they run the risk of damaging their domestic vacuum cleaner market since they would then have to make special version for export. There isn't as much incentive to do this hence it rarely gets done on a national basis and certainly not by the countries who are exporting the vacuum cleaners.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
are you seriously suggesting I vote remain so we can all use the same wattage vacuum cleaners? No more mine is bigger than yours?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


how does the wattage saved compare to the electric consumption of trains sending 700MEPs, plus staff to Strasbourg every month?

In reply to summo:


Are you serious? For a start this was an example to illustrate a point, not a reason to vote remain in itself, however that was pretty obvious.

Secondly, 100 million vacuum cleaners with a 10% saving in their power consumption, would save enough power to send the MEPs up and down twice a day at least! I can't be bothered, but this is an easy calculation and with the 100,000,000 in it, the end number will be very big.

(BTW I agree that the Strasbourg thing is daft).

In reply to MaxJEF:


Well, given that the net economic benefits of immigration have been repeatedly demonstrated (most cogently in Jo Cox's last article http://tinyurl.com/zzrwmqk) then, apart from wilful ignorance, there doesn't seem to be any other explanation. If it looks like a racist, and it sounds likes a racist, then...


Britain is a multicultural society. Get used to it.

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:

But that is missing the point. I am fully in favour of immigration. It's control that is the issue and WE, the UK, won't have control if we stay in. Am I still a racist?

In reply to GridNorth:

If we leave the EU and continue to admit just as many people, would that be OK? Because that's what most people seem to think would happen, excluding the more frothing members of the Out campaign.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:




Jeremy Clarkson

Although I'm guessing he's one of the rare exceptions to the "not everyone who votes Leave is a racist xenophobe, but all the racist xenophobes will be voting Leave" rule

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

can I see your workings out?

I imagine that with advances in tech, any manufacturer would happily fit a smaller motor that performs equally as well because it is cheaper for them, then sell said hoover at 10% more, because they can market their new innovation. I see no need for the EU legislate what natural efficiencies in business would drive anyway.

As a climbing/walking website if you said the EU allowed all European manufacturers to have standardised CE testing(albeit often cost prohibitive to small manufacturers) of critical equipment, allowing the consumer to shop and know everything was to a minimum standard etc.. I would give you credit, at least you'd be on the side of your site sponsors. Most of us have seen dubious Russian, Chinese... ice screws, wire gates etc... over the years and acknowledge testing is important for certain bits of kit. But hoovers oh dear.

In reply to simon kimber:



Ha, yes, that was a surprise. He isn't vile though!

Alan

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:

You are a dreamer! The UK is lucky in that it has a channel of water between it and mainland europe that most illegal immigrants don't fancy swimming across. If it didn't, all you fantasy chasing idiots would be in for an immigration shock and crying like babies to get out of the EU to set your own stringent immigrstion policies. Just look at the issues caused by the channel tunnel riots.
Wake up

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:
You are a dreamer! The UK is lucky in that it has a channel of water between it and mainland europe that most people don't fancy swimming across. If it didn't, all you fantasy chasing idiots would be in for an immigration shock and crying like babies to get out of the EU to set your own stringent immigration policies. Just look at the issues caused by the channel tunnel riots.
Wake up

In reply to summo:


If this is what would happen, why hasn't it happened already? Perhaps because you are assuming the market will do something when it might not. Environmental concerns are a typical example of an external cost which the market doesn't tend to fix, because the people who suffer the cost of inefficiency include people who aren't party to the transaction.


Great, there's another example of something good that the EU has done. Thanks.


Why not, though? Alan has set out neatly why it makes sense to legislate for this. I agree - if we don't have cooperation across different markets these type of things will never improve.

In reply to zimpara:



How does leaving the Eu stop people trying to get here illegally?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

two options, it is already happening as he suggested saying manufacturers were using smaller motors due to improved tech. Or there is no public demand for such models as the suction power if sh*te. |

Either way it is a very poor example of EU legislation helping the environment. If the EU wanted to do that it could tackle shipping running on bunker oil, which is easily the worst possible fuel in the world, there has been some moves towards bunker oil, but nothing major. Or even cars, do we really need any car with an engine over 1.8 - 2litres? etc... but it won't why not, because the EU committees are heavily lobbied by big industry, so any meaningful environmental legislation is absent, all we get are little tinkerings round the edges.

In reply to summo:

seeing as the EU are generally much more pro-environmental than successive British arguments I have no idea what you are talking about. Look at the EU regulations that require farmers to maintain hedgerows and set aside some space for wildlife. In places like the US that is all ripped up to be more 'efficient'. Same with the EU banning some pesticides/neonicitinoids. I'm sure I read somewhere it was the UK that succesfully lobbied the EU to weaken the testing regime for diesel vehicles. Then there is the case of how badly London is doing on its EU-imposed air pollution levels. Boris and the tories have been fighting tooth and claw to try and get out of all of that

In reply to GridNorth:


No, clealry not. But you've fallen into the trap of talking about "control" where what people really want is "low immigration". We already have control over non-EU immigration, and the figure is still high. And despite its best efforts, the government hasn't reduced it much. Why is that? It is because the choice is between having a functioning modern economy, or having low immigration, and the government assumes that people want the former over the later.

I wrote this on here a while ago about government control over immigration, and I can't be bothered to do anything but cut and paste:

So how does this work then? Does the government set a quota for people? If so, how does it do that and make it accurate? I'm assuming this will require an expensive bureaucracy, probably a bit slow, always eager to cover its arse and subject to political meddling. What happens when the quota of 10,000 widget fiddlers is reached, but Acme Inc needs a few more widget fiddlers and can't find them in the UK? Is it tough luck for Acme Inc, which then loses out to its rivals in the EU? (Or indeed simply opens a factory elsewhere.) Or does Acme Inc now have to start lobbying someone, somewhere in government to let them have a few more fiddlers?

If the government really wants to "control its borders" then effectively it has to say no to Acme Inc, regardless of how much the economy needs those widgets fiddled. After all, it's bringing the immigration numbers down. Or, if it simply bows to the inevitable and lets Acme recruit the widget fiddlers, then it's not controlling borders and what's worse, you've just created an expensive, inefficient bureaucracy which bigger, more powerful players will game to their own advantage, all to get back to the rough situation we are in now, in which companies who need to recruit abroad do so.

In reply to summo:


The relevant EU legislation doesn't simply refer to the wattage though, it is about efficient design, so the "suction is ***" argument doesn't necessarily work.


OK - why not try to lobby for these things then? Maybe the EU hasn't gone far enough, but given these are issues where no real change will happen without cooperation across as wide an area as possible, surely the answer is to use the forum of the EU better, rather than throw it away and have nothing? Your example of shipping is a great one, as shipping operates between different jurisdictions so will be far harder to change without a larger scale level of government such as the EU. It isn't credible to argue that we'd be able to fix this better as a smaller nation, acting unilaterally.

In reply to jsmcfarland:


The EU regs don't require farmers to do any of that. They can if they wish have various distances of fields margins etc.. under certain schemes (although the new version may have changed it and I've not worked with CAP in the UK for 5+ years) and are given a little money for it and by little I mean little. Most of East Anglia, Lincs and other places had all that was ripped out decades ago. If you see a field bigger than 1 or 2 hectares then at some point in it's history hedge rows have almost certainly been ripped out to some degree. CAP is incredibly biased against UK farms, they get much less per hectare than many of their European counterparts.

Neonicitinoids aren't completely banned, they have allowed specific uses, having a small farm I can easily avoid the need for any chemical at all and I also have 8 hives, so I welcome any long term ban, but it can be banned nationally, it doesn't need the EU.

My point is, if the UK population as whole or majority desired better regs. it can have them, with or without EU help. The UK problem is it votes for anyone who promises lower taxes, it's like everything else in world doesn't matter.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


but to do this do you really need to be joined fiscally, legally etc.. etc.. or do you just have collaborative bodies for respective industries.

The EU should pick it's fights, rather than as you say try to assess how much suction power a cyclonic dyson has verses a traditional hoover/filter bag style, maybe they should be looking at why 40% budget of the EU is CAP, do they need to move their world for 1 week every month etc.... we are paying their wages, all 40,000 plus of them, but the stuff they look at and try to legislate is madness at times.

In reply to summo:

Well we aren't joined fiscally - do you notice us having the same rates of tax as other EU countries? I accept the VAT point, but even there we have a large degree of flexibility.

As to the rest of your message, well yes, we could agree all of these things by inter-governmental agreements on the specifics. But the EU has been effective, and (because there is a degree of supremacy of EU law) we actually get actions, not meaningless pledges that are abandoned. If you want to throw that away, then propose something else which will be able to achieve as much, for the same or less cost - and then see whether that means some people find it objectionable (for the same reasons).

In reply to andyfallsoff:


No full joined, but we have links and other non euro nations have at times pegged their currency. So the links are there.


Many of their environmental pledges are European average goals. Like percentage of energy from renewables, so countries like the UK, Denmark or Sweden which have a higher proportion are effectively covering for others who have practically none. Yet again the same nations apart from being net contributors financially, are also carry the can in other respects.

In reply to summo:


But at least it brings all of the member states together, sets goals which are measurable, and aims for a target. Of course some states will do better, and it isn't surprising that the generally richer northern European states do. Isn't the real question whether the position of either the laggards or the aggregate of all states would be better without these targets? I find it hard to see how they would. In any event, that isn't how all of the environmental standards work - some of them are just standards that have to be met. Why throw those away?

In reply to MaxJEF:


More to do with the Euro than being in the EU

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What an absurdly one sided and idealistic vision of the EU you paint Alan! This is nearer the truth. vimeo.com/166378572

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I don't see that because someone nasty is voting for a particular cause it means you shouldn't vote for it. If we all followed that philosophy we'd never vote for anything.

I've travelled all over the world in my lifetime and met people of many different races, colours and creeds and I've found that like people anywhere there are the good and the bad, the incredibly kind and helpful and those who are out to rip you off, the peaceful and the violent - just like in the UK. But I also don't think all races are the same, that is not to say one is better than another, just different, and thank goodness for the difference - it is partly that that makes travel so fascinating. However, I have nothing against people of different races coming to live in the UK as long as they accept the principles of democracy, freedom of speech, equality of sexes and rule of law that makes this country (or these countries I should say) such a good place to live.

I will be voting leave because I think the population of the UK is already too big for the area of land available and that any policy which gives an open door to any number of people who want to come here without us having any say in the matter is completely daft. The population is set to increase by almost 10 million in 25 years. In some 150 years it will have doubled (and that's assuming that things stay as they are (unlikely). How building homes, roads, workplaces etc etc for so many people on what is currently countryside equates with tackling global warming or is in any way environmentally friendly is quite beyond me. Currently the government lets in more immigrants than it really wants to because otherwise the NHS and many industries would grind to a halt but it must be obvious that such a policy is unsustainable (very overused buzzword I agree but correct in this instance) in the long term, both for the UK (which should be producing its own doctors, nurses and potato pickers) and for the countries whose workers we are enticing away because they then can't develop as many of their best people are abroad.

I will also be voting leave because I think that the Eurocrats will gradually take over everything and that our democracy and sovereignty are at risk in the long term as the absolute aim of the EU is undoubtably a European Superstate. Some of you seem of the opinion that any Eurocrat or Euro MP is trustworthy, unlike our own MPs. Unfortunately this is most unlikely to be the case - there will be just the same mix of the good, the bad and the ugly that you get at Westminster, but even more removed from what is going on in the far reaches of the country/society than our local versions are. And at least you can go and see your local MP if you want to.

Many of the younger people using these forums will never have known anything but the EU and so the idea of leaving must seem very scary. However I can assure you that Britain managed absolutely fine in pre-EU days. One could travel and work abroad in most of the EU without a visa though you might need an easy-to-get work permit. What you couldn't do was move to another country permanently without permission. Such arrangements worked fine and it is a total mystery to many of us why we ever let the perfectly good trading arrangement of the EEC turn into the bloated, over-idealistic, money-wasting mess that is the EU.

It's time we were out of it, before it's too late.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sport


Care to expand upon this statement?




That was back when our economy was the slowest growing of all the rich countries and we were known as the sick man of Europe.

Still, jumpers for goalposts!


One could travel and work abroad in most of the EU without a visa though you might need an easy-to-get work permit. What you couldn't do was move to another country permanently without permission.

People must only move if and when bureaucrats tell them it's okay...

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:




Are you quite sure about that?

It sounds like you are describing the post 1972 situation to me.

We are voting on a return to the pre 1972 situation (abrogation the Treaty of Rome and associated treaties) which was very different indeed.

We may then be able to negotiate something similar to what you describe or not. It is not certain.

In reply to cb294:

Greece voted 61% no to the EU's bailout clauses?

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

The "not enough space" argument is bogus. In our cities, there is loads of unused space because of the changes to industry over the previous decades. Also, much of the new housing stock is higher density and inner-city, a trend which can continue. There is no need to build on greenfield sites to house immigrants.


This is true, over a long timescale. But this is a huge problem with the capitalist system and the belief that there can be never-ending growth, membership of the EU is scarcely relevant. There are lots of arguments to be had about immigration, particularly what policies are needed to get the greatest benefits from immigration while minimising the costs (which hit people in certain places far more than others). But given that even with free movement of people from the EU, we still let in a greater number through the points-based system for non-EU migrants, it's obvious that EU membership is not the crucial factor in this. Without any solution to the hard economic facts: the need for workers to sustain growth, with an ageing population, leaving the EU offers no solution to the long-term effects of continual growth.


Why would the UK be subsumed into this if we don't want to be? The idea that we don't have control over massive decisions in the EU is plainly false. Were we forced to join the Euro? Why would we be forced to be subsumed into a closer union if our elected government didn't want that?


Not relevant. The world has changed a lot, this information provides no insight into the likely effects of leaving. The question is simple: would life be better after leaving? The evidence tells us that it is beneficial to the economy and environment to be in the EU; no practical improvements to our lives have been offered (let alone demonstrated) by the leave campaign. I have absolutely no reason to think that life will be better, and many reasons (economic, environmental, social policy from the right wing of the Tories) to think it will be worse.


Why will it be too late? What's going to happen that we can't control?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Another interesting pro remain link....

https://nealhockley.com/2016/06/21/the-short-uncertain-and-unenthusiastic-c...

In reply to Peter87:

Read what I wrote: Greek EU membership as such is not called into question even by politicians/parties opposing the austerity measures imposed by the bailout conditions (bailout of Greeces creditors, that is, not Greece itself!).

How to deal with the banking crisis is separate from the question of EU membership. In fact, even EU and Euro membership could in principle be split (as demonstrated by the UK), except that the creditor state decided to make an example of Greece rather than compromise the reputation of the Euro. This is not the policy I would have favoured, but even despite this rather unfriendly treatment the majority of Greek voters supports EU membership.

CB

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Quite obvious why most Climbers and Walkers support Remain ... Leave may interfere with their holidays in the sun ...

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Well said Steve.
Being out gives all the gain and no pain because we have control on our rules, taxes, agreements - anything we want we are in a strong negotiating position.
DC

In reply to USBRIT:
They don't realise what it was always like before as Steve said - pas de probleme .. ..

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


By definition, we won't have control over agreements - by their nature, they have to be agreed by both sides, and no-one knows what the outcome of negotiations will be. To pretend otherwise is delusional nonsense.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:



Apart from with the US, who have already said they aren't really interested in negotiating with us.

In reply to tony:


I would agree on the agreements. But I think Germany will want to keep selling us cars, france sells a huge amount of food here. All the Med countries need every penny spent by tourists or retirees there etc... Some EU politicians who have a comfortable lifestyle already might wish to cut their nose off to spite the face etc... but I bet their population doesn't.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


Even if true (and to an extent I believe that it is), membership of the EU is not the only thing that has changed since then. Among other things, the world has moved from a collection of insular nation states to a global economy. Many of the things you don't like are more a product of that than of EU membership. Yes, if we leave we could in theory limit immigration.

But in practice, we'd continue to allow much the same level. If we didn't then perhaps we could increase pay to a level that would allow some of the work to be done by British workers (assuming they have the skills) - which would mean our businesses would lose out to foreign companies who paid less. Otherwise then we'd suffer a skills shortage that would also lead to an export of jobs.

In reply to summo:


On the other hand, if the EU allows a post-Brexit Britain to keep pretty much the same beneficial arrangements as we currently enjoy, why wouldn't other countries then want the same? leading to a collapse in the EU. Which might be a good thing. Or it might result in the return of nationalist Governments across the continent, which isn't likely to have a good result.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I don't really understand the low pay argument. We have a minimum wage don't we? Yes, there is a black economy for sure, but I suspect that is more Chinese cockle pickers then Polish strawberry pickers. Whatever, the undercutting local workers problem is completely within our control with our minimum wage.

I did hear from an immigrant once that the main reason people from outside the EU and inside like Britain (above currently relatively good employment prospects and relatively decent minimum wage) is that we don't have ID cards so it is relatively easy to 'lose' yourself here. I don't know what the facts are behind this but it sounds plausible, however I suspect it isn't a big issue for legal EU migration.

Whatever you think about ID cards, this is completely within our control and something that is widely applied throughout the EU by other countries acting independently. The point being that subtle immigration controls can be made at a country level and not that I support ID cards, which I don't.

The current high levels of immigration are entirely down to the strong economy requiring the employees. It is a good thing for us and not such a good thing for the countries they are leaving. However many of these countries are on the way up so other places are likely to become just as attractive as this happens.

And another thing. I keep hearing that nonsense about the EU and Antartica as slow growing economic areas. Is this a serious point? The reason the EU is slow growing is because it is top of the tree (US excepted). It is a bit like saying that if Leicester City win the Premiership again next year, then they will have failed to grow as a club, ok, let's say Spurs coming second again.

Alan

In reply to summo:

This just means that we have some negotiating power, though - it doesn't mean we have them over a barrel. They could say the same about us - of course we will agree to whatever they ask, the UK sends 44% of its exports to the EU...?

Anyway, as we have seen in this referendum campaign, the population of a country isn't necessarily governed by rational self interest - hence all the people who are willing to sacrifice economic prosperity to vote out.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
After much soul searching I think I am voting to remain so I am one of those rare individuals, someone who has changed their mind. I was always wavering towards Brexit. But and it's a huge but I have grave reservations because a) I am not happy with uncontrolled immigration. b) I think the organisation is a lumbering, undemocratic, possibly even corrupt monolith c) by voting remain I am agreeing to further integration/federalisation which I disagree with. It's just that I think we are now too far up to our necks in all the sh*t that it will be difficult to extricate ourselves without huge damage and if we did there are likely to be petty paybacks. I also think that if we withdraw there is a good chance that we will be the ones who are responsible for the break up of the EU as others would be sure to follow and a failed EU is not in anyone interests. So by every reasonable argument I'm a Brexiter but I do not want that responsibility.

Al

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I don't think countries such as Greece and Spain with 48.9% and 45.3% youth unemployment rates respectively can be described as fast-growing. The total Eurozone growth rate is forecast to be 0.5% for 2016, compared with 6.7% for China and 7.4% for India. These are the sort of statistics that make people say we should be growing our extra-EU exports.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Both sides have power, only in different aspects, I think any possible negotiation will have give and take on both sides, it's simply not a black & white process.


willing to sacrifice? Nearly all folk talk of market dips initially, which I don't doubt as they've pretty much made it self fulfilling having spent months talking the market down. But I've seen little or no economic forecast to suggest that in 10 or 20 years the UK would be suffering. Perhaps the UK has thrived (relatively) for the past 30 years in spite of the EU, not because of it?

In reply to John2:


Germany exports more to India than we do. Which suggests either we're not very good at selling stuff, or that the Indians don't want to buy what we've got to offer. I'd go for the later (perhaps they have more use for machine tools than complex financial instruments or branding advice at the moment), but it hardly supports the idea that we need to leave the EU to be successful elsewhere.

In reply to GridNorth:


some time ago I thought like that, perhaps a little selfish in that current double taxation treaties help me and without them I could potentially pay more tax. But, I decide to follow my heart as the EU must reform and a remainwin will be a like a green light to the EU to continue on their current course. We will only really know the answers in another 40 years and even then we'll be divided as to cause and effect, as the 'expert' economist still can't agree on the past 40 years that have happened, never mind predict the future.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

I think we will remain, (I also think we will, in time, wish we had left when we had the chance )

In reply to seankenny:

Germany is Europe's industrial power-house. The fact that the Germans export more to India than we do is nothing to do with the fact that they are in the EU - it's to do with the quality of their manufactured goods. We need to start looking away from the EU and manufacture goods that the world's faster-growing nations want.

In reply to summo:


Erm, the Treasury report looks 15 years ahead. In case you haven't seen it - as your post suggests - here's a link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5...

In reply to John2:


Well, that was my point: they make stuff that the Indians want to buy. Perhaps, as the Indian economy matures, they will want to buy more of our services? Of course, that might be difficult if we've knackered the City thanks to leaving the EU. But that's by the by, why can't we develop the manufacturing capacity to create these goods whilst remaining part of the EU? Why can France and Germany do this stuff, and we can't (or not so much)?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Thanks UKC politburo for telling me how to think but...

Leave

In reply to seankenny:


>Care to expand upon this statement?

Is that a trick question?

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:



No. I'm just wondering what's different about them.

In reply to seankenny:
I suspect Stephen was conflating race with culture or ethnicity though I'll leave him to confirm or otherwise.

I think most geneticists would agree that there are differences between races. It's only racists who'd argue that there are differing levels of humanity between races.

Bollocks I've used the word racist in a Brexit thread, and it's so un-PC to refer to anyone as such.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

I love the way that Eurocrat is used to describe people who have worked on EU stuff

I was on a Working Group for a European Standard that became BS EN Artifical Climbing Structures. Everyone of the Eurocrats that contributed to the Standard was from the climbing wall industry. It was chaired by Steve Jones then head of Entre Prises UK. I very much suspect that many Working Groups are populated in this manner ie by experts from the relevant industry yet they/we are branded Eurocrats.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

yeah. It does sometimes seem like those people who know what they are talking shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm not saying there is a need to build on green field sites purely to house immigrants. Housing is constantly being built on greenfield sites to cope with Britain's ever expanding population, roughly half of which expansion is due to immigration. We currently have a huge housing shortage in the UK, particularly in the south-east. This pushes up house prices so that it is very hard for young people or people on low wages to afford to buy anything and as a result finding anything to rent is also difficult. The only real solution is to build in the countryside and to achieve this the government has been relaxing rules on building in the greenbelt. To say that all this housing can be built on brownfield sites is just not true. Where are the brown field sites in Dalston where 121 new houses have been built on pasture land last year or on the outskirts of Carlisle where 103 have just gone on what the developer has (presumably without realising the irony) christened the area "Clover Fields" and advertises the houses as "among untouched countryside"? At least three more huge estates of more cheek-by-jowl houses are planned for Carlisle and a massive estate of 350 at nearby Wigton, all on green field sites. And this is in an area that suffers terribly from flood problems. All that extra building, tarmac and block paving does not soak up water and adds to the run-off. And most of the brownfield sites that do occur only happen because whatever was on them relocates to a greenfield site. Thus in Penrith, the Auction Mart relocated to what were fields next to the M6 allowing Morrisons to build in the middle of town and the football club relocated to a greenfield site near the A66 so that a huge shopping centre incorporation Sainsbury's could be built. Meanwhile, the donkey field up near Penrith cemetery has had the donkeys removed and is now being built over. And so it goes on and on and on, all over the country. If you haven't noticed, maybe you should get out more?!

I am not saying that we shouldn't build houses at all, nor that we shouldn't accept immigrants at all, but unlimited immigration will lead to unlimited demand for housing and whatever else you are voting for if you vote Remain, you will be voting for potentially unlimited immigration.


Who knows? But I bet it won't be nice. The problem is that the longer we stay in the EU the more inextricably tied into it all we will become so that whatever "they" come up with in the future we will have little choice but to go along with it. And I strongly suspect that they may have held back on some plans which we will find out about if the Remain vote carries the day.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Not personal, I assure you, and anyway, I don't mean people like yourself, I mean the likes of Jean Claude Junker and other members of the European Commission.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

So many fallacies it's hard to know where to start.

First of all, if OUR UK and/or local government relaxes its own planning regs to build on greenfield sites, when there's plenty of other alternatives around, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU and everything to do with the people WE elected in the UK or locally making decisions we don't agree with.

Secondly, if house prices in the SE are too high for local people there are plenty of things OUR UK government could be doing to help, but isn't. Blaming it on immigrants when the real problem is foreign investors is simply wrong.

Thirdly, as you no doubt will have read a great many times recently and are inexplicably choosing to ignore, the EU is governed by US as European nations, and if at any time in the future WE as the UK nation decide we don't want to be part of what WE as a group of nations is implementing, either we could block it, or if necessary and we feel strongly enough about it to leave, that is the right time to do so. Not now and on the basis of some hypothetical what-if scaremongering that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


Fixed that for you.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:
But that's the point Stephen, EU stuff is not just made up by the EC to piss nations off, it is created by interest groups from those nations. The EC formalises it and the elected European Parliament votes on it.

(Edit: Don't worry I wasn't taking it personally)

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I believe the argument is that British workers are too fussy to pick strawberries for the minimum wage, but Polish immigrants don't mind. If this is true (and I'm not convinced) then if you exclude the Poles, either nobody will be left to pick them (so we lose an industry), or wages will rise to whatever is needed to persuade Brits to pick them (so prices go up and people are worse off).

In reply to GridNorth:

On (c) you can put your mind at rest, we have and will continue to have an exclusion and/or veto on further integration. If Parliament votes for it and another referendum supports it (as is now required by law) then we'll get closer integration but not otherwise.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Brexit devotees seem to assume that it is worth damaging finance, the automotive industries, British science and the NHS in order to make a level playing field for British potato pickers. I'm not sure I get this...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

For gods sake UKC! Why are you putting political shit on your website?! I personally, when it comes to climbing, don't care what the outcome will be. At the end of the day the rock, mountains, hills and the snow is still going to be there... I come on UKC to get away from all this! I am very disappointed in you...

In reply to seankenny:

It's not just potato/strawberry pickers. It's construction workers, it's warehouse workers, it's call centre workers, it's cleaners, it's everyone who is working for a low wage kept low due to an excess of unskilled labour/workers killing to do unskilled labour for relatively tiny wages.

The point is to make a sustainable society where everyone can afford to live, not where cleaners have no chance whatsoever of getting a house and people like you or me with better jobs are absolutely fine. Raise the price of strawberries and we all lose a couple of pence on a punnet. Raise the price of wages at the bottom and we have more people able to afford to spend so a better economy, we have more equality of income overall which is better for everybody.

The alternative (which you all seem quite happy with) is to rely on a section of society willing (or forced by circumstance) to take tiny wages and prop up the lifestyles of the rest of us. Really surprising that so many supposed left wingers don't get this.

I'll ignore the nonsense that people who think we should leave think it will crash the economy - that's what you think, not what they think.

In reply to thomasadixon:


We have complete control over the level of that low wage, it is called the Living Wage now (although that is a bit of a misnomer I think) and we have the ability to set this. I also think that increasing the living wage would ultimately benefit the UK economy but the notion that it is being kept down because of EU immigration is a nonsense, it is the Tory government that have done that.

If there is an excess of unskilled workers, why is unemployment falling?

Alan

In reply to summo:


I agree. I don't get why you think that means we will get exactly what we want.

In reply to seankenny:


"Brexit devotees seem to assume that it is worth damaging finance"

We entered WW2 assuming it was worth any cost to our economy to free our European allies and keep our own freedom. This was from a man and his followers who had gained control of the German nation and was clearly going to act in his own unacceptable interests. Yes it is worth any money to ensure that the motives of your leaders are the same as your own. Be thankful your life is not also required.

In reply to thomasadixon:






For a start, I completely agree with your aims. Yes, we should definitely have a society where working in a warehouse doesn't mean being condemned to a financial half-life, spinning in and out of temporary contracts and poorly paying jobs.

However, I don't believe immigration has been a huge driver of this sort of in-work poverty. Or, should I rephrase that: the research I've seen on this suggests that immigration has not been a huge driver of this. To quote the NIESR:

"We can calculate that the new paper implies that the impact of migration on the wages of the UK-born [in the semi-skilled service sector] since 2004 has been about 1 percent, over a period of 8 years. With average wages in this sector of about £8 an hour, that amounts to a reduction in annual pay rises of about a penny an hour."

(http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/immigration-and-wages-getting-numbers-right#.V2...

You are of course free to not believe this - but I haven't seen any better research on this, which suggests that it's pretty robust. And that your belief would remain just that!

Clearly, I don't want to see the poorest people in the UK be made poorer. But I don't want to see everyone else made poorer, either. In fact, I see the effects of immigration as being so limited that they could easily and cheaply be off-set by the tax and benefits system, especially given the obvious financial advantages we reap from having immigrants.

Of course, these changes would still mean a lot of people are working poor. We've now got a hard problem to solve - and one that's troubling countries across the world, not just those in the EU. Which is why we're in the mess in the first place: no politicians wants to say it's a tough thing to do, they might not be able to manage it and they don't have the answers. It's easier to blame immigrants.

Easier in the short term at least. How angry are people going to be when we kick out the furriners and they're *still* skint?

In reply to David Riley:



By your logic, if Mr Corbyn got voted in and you didn't agree with his motives, and you could pay £10,000 to have him shot - you would!

In reply to seankenny:

Obviously not. Can you explain why you think that ?

In reply to David Riley:


As you said: "Yes it is worth any money to ensure that the motives of your leaders are the same as your own."

The motives of Mr Cameron aren't really the same as my own, for example. In fact, the assumption that this is what you'd get if only we left the EU strikes me as rather utopian. And it also assumes that the politicians in Brussels are our leaders. I just don't see that, I'm afraid. There is a reason that the BBC reporters are always outside Downing Street and not in Brussels - that's because it's where the power is in the UK. Or a big chunk of it, anyhow.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Archive this thread and remove survey results from Ukc news please.
I've gone against my better judgement and read through a lot of it due to boredom and its laughable
What's going to happen the day after the referendum?
UKC NEWS - 81% of E.u strawberry pickers don't like potato pickers?
Stick to climbing news its what you are good at

In reply to David Riley:

It's irrelevant anyway as this thread has now been Godwined.

In reply to john arran:


I think these days we can describe it as hitting the Govehole.

In reply to seankenny:

How are you, how is the EU, going to get us to one? It leaves the responsibility for all this sort of work with the member states - so it's relying on the UK government who are limited in the measures they can take by their membership of the EU. What is it going to do to make this happen?


Your belief is based on what you want to believe, and who you want to believe. Basic economics says that more supply = less demand and so lower wages, and this was rightly confirmed by the leader of the Remain campaign Lord Rose (conspicuously silent after he said that, unsurprisingly). We're not going to convince each other on this, no.


Presumably Blair thought this too. Turns out giving out money to the poor while allowing conditions that ensure they get paid bugger all just bankrupts the state and doesn't fix the rich/poor gap (indeed it gets worse). Good stuff.


They need to get the answers - by trying stuff and seeing what works, it's the only way to learn. It's certainly easier to pretend that this situation is unfixable than to take measures to fix it.


It'll at least create a situation where it's blindingly clear who is responsible - our leaders - and we can actually put pressure on them to fix it. As it is they blame it on the EU as our membership of the EU makes the country much harder to govern. Voters don't know how to react and so the issue gets buried.

In reply to seankenny:

I was referring to the population not myself. That the motives of your leaders should reflect the democratic decisions of the electorate.

In reply to seankenny:

Yep. Godwin, Gove - interchangeable now: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/michael-gove-compares-experts-wa...

In reply to chris74:

Is there anything else that should be removed from the internet because you can't help clicking on it despite it being obvious what you'll find?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Like many I am still undecided and struggling with many conflicting factors that determine my one unchangeable vote, but I am leaning towards leave for ideological/democratic/accountability reasons. Two questions please;

Firstly which of you enthusiastic remain champions can’t wait for TTIP? Do you think it will be in our best interests? European opinion polls suggest the people don’t want it yet they crack on. And are you happy with the secret nature of its negotiation? I realise David Cameron is one of its biggest advocates; the UK needs change too, bring on Proportional Representation!

Secondly by my calculations my vote counts for 1/500,000,000 in the EU which means I am 35 times more likely to win the lottery than have my opinion heard in Europe. This is further devalued incalculably by the fact that the European Parliament is only a share of the European decision making legislature. Would you call this an effective democracy? At what point does democracy become so diluted as to become meaningless for the individual people it governs?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Quite a few actually , but for the minute can we just stick to removing non climbing news from UKC news

In reply to David Riley:


I could quite easily envisage a situation where, with a bit of nifty campainging, a majority of the population would support, say, detention without charge. Should a leader reflect this hypothetical desire of the electorate's? Or should they stick by principles which have been around a lot longer?

In reply to thomasadixon:

You'll be pleased to know the statement "basic economics says..." has been dealt with by, erm, economists:
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/101ism.html

TL;DR - basic economics doesn't give a full picture of how labour markets work. You can of course believe that simple economics taught to first year students is better than the work done by professionals at a think tank, but I'm not sure why you'd want to believe that - unless the cognitive dissonance of believing it is so strong that you'd rather avoid the discomfort of new ideas by sticking with old ones (this is the usual course of action).

As for immigration itself: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-25/immigration-isn-t-that-b...

"These and other surveys and meta-analyses all reach one overwhelming conclusion: Immigration has at most only a small harmful effect on the native-born. If this were biology or astrophysics, that would be that -- the media would accept the scientific consensus, until new research came along and overturned it. But this is economics, and so politics and ideology inevitably get in the way. There will always be people who are in favor of immigration restriction, and they will always have reason to question what would otherwise be a well-accepted consensus."

I suppose this is what worries me most about the referendum debate: facts have been debased, and "my beliefs are sacrosanct regardless of any evidence" has become the guiding force in society. It means we can't even examine others' perspectives.



Actually it was the financial crisis (in the short term) and old people (in the long term) that bankrupts the state.


This is the problem tho: since 2010 we've had a government that hasn't tried to fix this problem. Or at least not very much. Was that the fault of the EU? At least - as you allude to above - the Labour govt had a crack at this problem.



Our leaders still are responsible for the many problems Britain faces. The EU is a red herring. What could we be doing that we aren't doing, thanks to the EU?

In reply to Timothy:


You know this is nonsense, right? The idea is to vote for an MEP, from a short list of candidates. The candidates with most votes win, so if you are in the majority, your MEP wins. Well done. Then that MEP represents your interests (unless you picked a UKIP one, who stays at home and cashes the cheque).

Democracy isn't like a lottery with one winner. Or do you wake up at each UK election and think you have a 1 / 64,000,000 chance of "winning"?

In reply to Timothy:


I reckon that if you have an opinion at odds with half a billion people you are going to be outvoted whatever democratic model you choose.

Can you give an example of something you've thought 'The EU is not listening to me' about?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Well done Alan for sticking your (and your business's) head above the parapet. I've met a fair few for IN who wouldn't take the chance of alienating customers in what has become a divisive vitriolic campaign. It's good to see strong support foe IN in this little niche of society at least. The loud voices of the few can easily drown out the quieter majority so it's hard to judge opinion in the forum sometimes
jk

In reply to andyfallsoff:


curiously this independent survey showed LibDems were the best on average of the political parties, but the best individual was Earl of Dartmouth for UKIP, representing SW England, best attending UK MEP... and one of the best in the whole EU.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-elections-2014-meps-who-o...

I'm no fan of UKIP, but at least keep your propaganda fairly accurate.

In reply to jkarran:


Thanks. I think we can also say well done to Stephen Reid for coming on here and stating his opinion even when he knows that it is contrary to 81% of the audience, who are all his potential customers.

Alan

In reply to summo:


You mean like being correct in saying that by the criteria used to measure value for money UKIP cam bottom out of Lib Dems, Conservatives, Labour and UKIP.

In reply to seankenny:


Stuart Rose is an economist isn't he?


Certainly agree here. The claim of cognitive dissonance when someone comes to a conclusion you disagree with is part of this, of course. I've read plenty of analysis on both sides so unless you're going to quote something new it won't add anything. Love the comparison of macro economics to testable, repeatable, scientific knowledge by the way. They are essentially the same I suppose...at least when the economist in question agrees with you of course.


Oh come on. It's all of these things added together.


Yes, and they failed - according to the government as the numbers of low paid workers went up, due to immigration it became more and more unaffordable. Again we *know* that the cost went up enormously, but I guess it's the governments fault for not finding more money, not the fault of the government for letting large numbers of low paid workers in.


Restricting the supply of low skilled workers/workers willing to work for less than a reasonable wage to do a crappy job. The EU isn't a red herring, it's a real world complicating factor that changes things. Yes, our leaders are responsible, but they're no longer free to make whatever changes are necessary. Some powers (and endlessly more) have been passed to the EU. And, again I suppose, the EU has no responsibility to fix these problems. If our country takes a hit it won't support our pensions, it will (see Greece) just force us to cut them. If we've got a massive rich/poor gap? It simply doesn't care, it's not its problem.

In reply to summo:



Apologies - I was going on the average rate, as per the following article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-meps-attend-the-fewest-e...

Not meaning to criticise the attendance rate of those UKIP MEPs who do actually attend. Although if this Earl is so prolific, and yet the average UKIP attendance rate is still so poor, it makes you wonder just how little the remainder turn up?

In reply to seankenny:


I can see why you support remain now. You don't want any democracy.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Not climbing news. It should be on the guardian or some other champagne socialist paradise website.

In reply to Alyson:

I can give you two; accountability and TTIP, as per my questions. My statistical example is a bit stupid I agree, but it illustrates the dilution of democracy as an organisation gets bigger even if we do tend to vote in groups. The groups get smaller in proportion to the whole and are less able to represent their groups interests. Do you think you have a say in how Europe is run? We are represented by MEP’s (who we may not have voted for or agree with) and our government (who most of us didn’t vote for or agree with). Do they represent your views fairly in Europe? My questions still stand.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


It's not 81% of the audience though, it's 81% of the people who filled out a readership survey and expressed an opinion about how they intended to vote. You say you got over 4000 surveys filled out, so did everyone answer the question on voting intentions? How does the 4000 compare to the total readership of UKC? And, since you're not impartial on this issue, who did the counting?

In reply to Timothy:

It's not a more or less democracy issue. It's an agreement we as a nation freely enter into. It's not our government and prevents us doing relatively few things a majority in this country would want to do. We can leave anytime we vote a government that wants to leave in. Either you think the practical pluses outweigh the minuses. Or you don't. Weigh them up and vote how you will, but don't get fooled into thinking it's a point of democratic principle.

In reply to Donald82:

Agreed. Whether or not you think the EU is a democratic organisation (personally I believe it to be fundamentally undemocratic) we always have the option of withdrawing by electing a Government who wishes to do so. Or by voting in a referendum of course.

For me, the decision would be an easy one, if the Leave side hadn't run such a dishonest and xenophobic campaign. An Out vote will be widely seen as a vote for closing our borders; whereas it could have been a vote for a genuinely outward-looking UK (rather than the current outward-looking-up-to-the-edge-of-the-EU system).

In reply to Donald82:

For me this point is crucial. For a long time the 'sovereignty' argument was the biggest thing pushing me towards leave but I was believing the common misconception that the EU has sovereignty or legal authority over the UK.

Only the UK parliament has power over UK laws and EU laws are only enacted because the UK parliament says so. Courts only defer to European law at times because the UK parliament tells them to. This might seem like a technicality because we still have to follow certain EU laws and regulations *in order to keep our membership* but it does matter:

If the EU proposed some bonkers rule e.g. "the slaughter of the first born" and the UK parliament passed a law contradicting it then the UK parliaments word would be law. The worst that would happen was that we couldn't be in the EU anymore.

So voting to leave to preserve sovereignty is effectively like saying we should quit pre-emptively so that we don't have to quit later in some hypothetical situation.

In reply to Timothy:

TTIP must be a stay/remain neutral issue. The current government are pro TTIP (with a proposal to remove the NHS pretty late on - and with this referendum getting tricky in prospect - when it was obvious the votors were learning what it meant) and the case against it is being fought across europe. Why would we accept any such deal where we can get sued by US multinationals with no clear fairness to the 'court' and where we can't sue back?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:



Anjem Choudary

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Taken off the front page so fast? LOL

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Where were they all yesterday!!?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Congratulation Brits for taking this important step to leaving this artificial creation called European Union . Although I am not a British or English I take it as my personal victory too, and a victory of all the free minded people, and I do not understand what it has to do with mountain climbing.
As long as there are mountains there will be people to climb them regardless of any political or whatever union.

In reply to irenka:

You are right it is an artificial creation. In the same way that countries and borders and sovereignty are all artificial creations. At least the eu was borne out of a vision for unity rather than division.

In reply to irenka:

Will you still think the same in a few years if your fellow countrymen are refused entry to the UK?

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Sour grapes, any good for climbing food?

In reply to irenka:

Well I will now be climbing less mountains due to pay cuts and price of living increases hooray

In reply to Cheese Monkey:



Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
'

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Could this be interpreted as a mandate to remove all the bolts?

In reply to Al Evans:












Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try.

Sang John, sat at his Steinway in his vast mansion...