The EU Referendum.

[squern]

just a side note am after a brass back ,sharpend, panel saw, and would look at a table saw,

Don't have either at the moment, I'm afraid.
Hope to start listing again when the weather gets a bit warmer.

[tonyreddevil]

Don't have either at the moment, I'm afraid.
Hope to start listing again when the weather gets a bit warmer.

gets warmer in Summer

[sidthelamp]

The Government seem determined to avoid an adult discussion about our membership of the EU.
They are relying on scaremongering and misinformation, when they should be giving facts and figures to support their argument.


In order to provoke a proper discussion, a petition might crystallize the case for leaving the European Union.


The petition states, “ The 23^rd of June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually”



This is a tangential approach, because the Government website will not accept anything political.
If you petitioned, "The government should discuss fully our EU membership, and provide balanced information so that voters can make an informed choice." it would be deemed political and rejected.

By putting it as a request for a day to mark our independence, it might cause both sides to concentrate on what independence is, and isn't.
Perhaps they might get to the real reasons that people want to leave or stay.


Sorry if my previous postings seem a bit garbled - that is because I am a bit garbled.
But I know what I mean, and hope you do too.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...aMgdgXYD9ZoTOg

If we achieve a Parliamentary debate, I think “Project Fear” can be overcome, and that will force the “Stayers” to explain why they want to remain subservient to a non-elected bureaucracy.

i do find patronizing that the government use fear tactics to persuade us to vote remain, yet they have been in negotiations with the eu for years, for change, which is clearly not on the cards as far as the eu is concerned, yet cameroon tells us he got a good deal which is clearly not what they have debated in secrect, nor have the people been informed for years, heres a extract,

to decentralise – to push powers down as well as up”, without which the EU would not be“democratically sustainable”.In evidence to the ESC on 4 July 2013, David Lidington outlined Government thinking onhow to improve the EU’s democratic legitimacy, starting with a repudiation of the view thatgiving the EP more powers would improve the situation, and going on to discuss a possible‘red card’:Even before we get to the red card, there is a question about whether theyellow card procedure could be strengthened by looking again at the thresholdand the scope of the yellow card process, which at the moment is limited tosubsidiarity grounds but could be made wider to cover proportionality,disproportionate cost, the time given to national parliaments to put forward areasoned opinion, or other grounds. But we thought it was right to bring forwardthe idea that we should go beyond the yellow card and propose an outrightpower of veto. If a given number of national parliaments around the EU saidthat a certain Commission proposal should be blocked, the Commission simplywould not be able to review it and decide to resubmit but would have to take itoff the table. It is not something the British Government have yet formallyadopted as a policy, but it is an idea we have put out that we think needsserious consideration.In November 2013 the Fresh Start Project outlined proposals for a red card procedure to beintroduced via Treaty change, which would mean national parliaments could “combine topermanently block Commission proposals” and, more controversially, could seek to apply thered card to existing EU legislation. The group also suggested strengthening the existingyellow card system “by lowering the threshold for issuance and giving Parliaments more timeto scrutinise proposals”. In their view, the trigger for a subsidiarity notification to theCommission should be three national parliaments submitting reasoned opinions, rather thanthe current one third of national parliament votes, and “a significantly extended period forscrutiny” rather than the present eight weeks.225

[astral276]

Is France intending to end current transposed border agreement?

The papers report that President Hollande has signalled that he is ready to move the border with Britain back to Dover, saying there will be "consequences" if Britain leaves the EU.

I suspect that what happened is Cameron asked Hollande to say so but he was unwilling to lie, so instead made a vague statement. Of course there will be 'consequences' if we leave - that is the whole point of doing so. There will be 'consequences' if we remain. Some will benefit the UK and some will not; the issue for the individual voter is which way they feel the balance tilts.

The treaty is a bilateral agreement that can be terminated by either party. If it was so bad for France they could have done so already and even do so if we remain in the EU. I thought I had read somewhere that there was a notice period for termination (i.e. neither side could arbitrarily end it overnight) but haven't found it in official texts.

[sidthelamp]

how the eu and Westminster have helped destroy the uk steel industry


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35708741

[squern]

[My petition has now gone live, so please sign up if you think we should have adult discussions about EU membership.


M. Hollande joins the list of people who have threatened dire "consequences" if we leave.
That's really scary, isn't it, "consequences" from the French.

[yellerbelly]

There is also another petition running asking that parliament discuss a damning letter written by Lord Kilmuir, Lord Chancellot to Ted Heath regarding 'constitutional limitations' on our joining the EEC makes for interesting reading. Link below

http://www.englishconstitutiongroup....dward-heath-2/


https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122770sent

[sherlock07]

There is also another petition running asking that parliament discuss a damning letter written by Lord Kilmuir, Lord Chancellot to Ted Heath regarding 'constitutional limitations' on our joining the EEC makes for interesting reading. Link below

http://www.englishconstitutiongroup....dward-heath-2/


https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122770sent

shared this on facebook

[olivia8143]

From WEAR RED Stand up and Be counted (Facebook page)

"The Out campaign seem to have one default position when it comes to challenging information they don't like or that indicates that actually the UK won't be a land of milk and honey if we leave - and that's to dismiss it as 'scaremongering'
This is generally without actually explaining why and offering jingoistic platitudes to justify their position - Britain will be fine because it's 'a great nation' and that the Europeans will be so cowed by our shining magnificence they will come rushing to offer us favourable trade deals (notwithstanding the fact we have just flipped two fingers at them and put their economic futures at risk as well..seems a Brexit will magically alter fundamental human nature in our European neighbours as well - hallelujah!!).
Yet if you look at the pro-Brexit argument, it's obviously mostly based on scaremongering - From immigration to sovereignty to straight bananas, the anti EU brigade has dripped venom, fear and nonsense for decades into the nation's collective psyche.
Now since we came out on the side of remain, we have been accused of being in the pay of multinationals, of being traitors and have had people we know are right wingers telling us we are selling out our socialist principles by supporting remain...
err no, we believe as Corbyn does that we are better and stronger in a EU that works for the common good; an EU that has as a collective been way way better than our past governments at protecting our environment, our rights and our safety (you know all that 'red-tape' the brexiters want to get rid of); an EU that is all that stands between us having the likes of Iain Duncan Smith, Nigel Farage and Michael Gove decide what our rights should be (and if that doesn't cause an involuntary shudder we don't know what will).
Hypocrites!
WR
http://www.theguardian.com/…/iain-duncan-smith-damns-bullyi…
http://www.mirror.co.uk/…/iain-duncan-smith-blasted-scaremo…

[westlondoncarparts]

This whole EU Referendum matter is descending into a farce. Nigel Farage and UKIP have been peddling untruths about the EU for years. Now that there is going to be a Referendum, the Yes people are accentuating negatives and not giving much of a positive case for remaining in the EU. Until advocates of Out or In start to bring some reality and truth to the debate, we will end up with the farce of a large chunk of the British electorate voting on one of the most important issues that could face us without knowing the facts and making their decisions based upon hearsay and half baked myths.

The issue about treason has no basis. We had an election campaign in 1970 in which all three major political parties said that they would seek entry into the European Economic Community. Edward Heath’s Government brought to the Westminster Parliament the terms and conditions it had negotiated to sign the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community and around 300 hours of often very heated debate followed in the Parliament. The Westminster Parliament approved the terms and conditions of EEC membership. The ensuing European Communities Act 1972 was signed by the Queen. In 1975, the EEC Referendum result showed around two thirds of the voters voting to stay in the EEC. There was no treason against the Queen or against the UK.

One of the worst lies is that back in the 1970s we joined a trade market only and that all the rest of what the EU is about now is something that has been done to the British against our will and without our agreement. The truth is that joining the EEC was not just about joining a trade market, it was also about joining a Community to build a better Europe, a community in which the UK was a stakeholder.

The Treaty of Rome was signed by Edward Heath, the British Prime Minister, in Brussels on 22 January 1972. We became full members on 1st January 1973. Three summits of EEC leaders were held between the UK signing the Treaty of Rome and the UK Referendum on EEC membership in 1975. Links to web pages with information about the summits are given below. The subject matter of the summits included economic and monetary and political union and other matters beyond what would be expected of a trade market only, and these were matters that were very much in the public forum of debate in the run up to the 1975 Referendum. This shows very clearly how Nigel Farage has misled the UK electorate with false statements. He is entitled to wish to leave the EU and to encourage other people with the same desire if he so wishes but he should stick to the truth and not make things up.

In October 1972 the first summit of the enlarged European Economic Community was held, part of the extract of the communiqué at the end of the summit being given at:
http://ec.europa.eu/dorie/fileDownlo...&cardId=203015

Other information about the summits can be found as follows.

Paris Summit in October 1972
http://aei.pitt.edu/1919/1/paris_1972_preparations.pdf

Copenhagen Summit in December 1973
http://ec.europa.eu/dorie/fileDownlo...&cardId=203013

Paris Summit in December 1974
http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe...C0350A12BC.pdf

At this stage in the Referendum proceedings, it is not unrealistic to expect that both the Out and In camps should be able to give the British electorate some idea of the economic impact of Brexit upon companies by company size, industry sector, and so on. Some companies will benefit from Brexit, others will suffer. The British need some idea of the impact on British companies overall. Both Nigel Farage and David Cameron have had years to get such an assessment done so that the British electorate can make informed decisions. I am sure that we all have a better chance of winning one of the National Lottery games than getting sensible information about this from either side. And until they have done such basic work, a lot of their utterances on the economic impact of Brexit will be not much more than hot air.