Please don't confuse the BREXIT debate by bringing facts and logic into it.
One thing the Brexit debate hasn't been short on is hyperbole, with much talk about a potential economic Armageddon triggered by a leave scenario. Certainly there has been no shortage of tech companies loudly nailing their colours to the remain mast. Microsoft and Hewlett Packard Enterprise even went so far as to email staff …
I must admit to being a bit concerned. The vote is this week and I have yet to hear 1 argument to remain that is either honest or not discredited. More worrying is how the remain campaign official economic reports all seem to support leaving as fixing the housing market, better economic growth, bank of england interest rate rise (something we have all been waiting for) and while assuming awful trade policies as we currently have. Or the amusing arguments that the EU is awful but we should stay anyway. Of course I exclude the amusing arguments of WW3 (Cameron couldnt find a spine for his negotiations so who would he go to war with?) and rivers of blood as no self respecting person would entertain.
Of course the official leave campaign mirror the ridiculous arguments but I can only assume they were a deliberate attempt to subvert the leave campaign or the tories of both sides are simply nuts. But at least the original campaign based on fact and honesty which brought us the referendum in the first place still exists and provides actual reasons to leave.
I despair at the XFactor logic used by some people too (on both sides) that they would vote a certain way but cant bring themselves to support whoever. Both sides have people highly disliked, surely the factual circumstances of what governance we will be living under is more important? Either way you vote its a tory, labour, nutter so not voting is the only way out of that (*I dont advocate not voting).
The official campaigns seem to be 2 groups slapping each other over the head with wet fish. It achieves little, is not informative and looks shameful. The original honest campaign to leave still exists even if it is drowned out but I feel sorry for the remain group who dont seem to have one (or it is drowned out even more by Cameron).
I obviously have my hopes for the referendum and dont care how someone votes as long as its on fact. But how many people will wake up to the result and cry in stupidity because they voted for someones face or another lie (of the many that have been told). Who on earth believes Cameron about Turkey not joining (when it is already being pushed through) or Boris/Gove that the NHS will have the saved money poured into it? The only certainty is this sham democratic referendum is an embarrassment to the country regardless of the result.
More worrying is how the remain campaign official economic reports all seem to support leaving as fixing the housing market, better economic growth, bank of england interest rate rise (something we have all been waiting for) and while assuming awful trade policies as we currently have.
You are clearly confused. The Remain campaign - and 10 Nobel Prize winning economists - are all predicting a drop in GDP if the vote is to leave. If Leave is chosen then the trade policies will only remain the same if the UK govt. accept freedom of movement, which would make no sense given that that is the source of most of the complaints. No freedom of movement, no right of access to the common market. Lower house prices would be good, but the current govt. could do that just fine by introducing, say, land-taxes.
As for Turkey joining the EU: not in the foreseeable future and perhaps never if Imam Erdogan continues on his path. They meet exactly 1 of the 35 criteria and Cyprus and Greece are not afraid to use their vetos.
"You are clearly confused. The Remain campaign - and 10 Nobel Prize winning economists - are all predicting a drop in GDP if the vote is to leave."
Potentially less growth than there would be with very little supporting a recession. So basically our over-performing growth with a stressed effort to add negative effects and not to consider better economic policy which we could do if we leave. Apparently the largest bank in Germany has concluded that on Brexit we are the place to invest as we will boom. So we might grow a little slower (but still growing strong) maybe, assuming the same economic policies we currently have.
"As for Turkey joining the EU: not in the foreseeable future and perhaps never if Imam Erdogan continues on his path"
Except they have just been granted millions of visas due to the Turkeys threats over migration, Cameron supports their joining (has already said he wont veto) and Turkey have already got Germany agreeing to fast track their acceptance. Unless something changes it is happening. I do accept this is under-reported but remain votes would be lost otherwise.
"Not everyone, those with savings yes, those struggling to pay mortages no"
Always some winners and some losers but one of the huge economic problems, particularly in London, has been ever growing house prices and the loss of one of the levers to protect us from the damage of recessions. This is why various central banks want to return their rates to normal for the next recession.
I think the deal was supposed to be granting visa-waivers but that hasn't happened as Turkey won't meet EU demands on the definition of terrorism among other things.
Given that Turkey and the EU can't even get this far the idea that Turkey is about to join the EU doesn't seem very well founded.
"I think the deal was supposed to be granting visa-waivers but that hasn't happened as Turkey won't meet EU demands on the definition of terrorism among other things."
It will happen, because Erdogan has the EU over a barrel.
"Whoops, did I just let through another 1m migrants. Sorry about that!... Whoops, I did it again!"
The EU knows this, and I think you are in denial a bit. Or just naive.
Do you think rules for membership to EU institutions are rigid? Have a look at whether Greece or Italy met the convergence criteria for joining the Euro currency. They failed to meet the rules, so the EU bent the rules. Oh, and Turkey's on the path to full membership - which Cameron fully supports ASAP.
I don't think Turkey's leverage is as strong as you think. My evidence being that the EU hasn't caved in and granted the visa-waivers. There's been plenty of time to do so and it hasn't happened.
As for the other point about Cameron: Well he's our elected leader so if he really wants Turkey to join and we voted for him knowing that...... On the other hand I don't think all of the other EU member states will vote for them to join so we're "safe", As others have mentioned there's no love lost between Greece and Turkey.......
It is difficult to get to the bottom of the argument to leave. In then end it seems to boil down to the belief that we could get back full sovereignty and that this is worth doing at any cost. Personally I don't think anyone gets much say in a Global economy and that in most respects sovereignty has become an illusion.
The Channel 4 web site has got a "Fact Check" section which seemed to me to be quite good at seeing through the nonsense of both sides.
I also quite like this quote:
"The trouble is that most of us have no clue as to how the Brussels monolith works, or who's in charge," says Stay or Go, the Connell Guide to the EU referendum. But, it says, we have only ourselves to blame. "We've made it that way" because too many of us "can't be bothered to vote" in European elections."
"Except they have just been granted millions of visas due to the Turkeys threats over migration, Cameron supports their joining (has already said he wont veto) and Turkey have already got Germany agreeing to fast track their acceptance. Unless something changes it is happening. I do accept this is under-reported but remain votes would be lost otherwise."
I suspect you well know that's not how Europe works. We have a veto, as do other states. Expansion doesn't happen just because one country wants it. Look up the conditions for accession. Turkey have gone backwards in terms of meeting those conditions recently. They're 20 to 30 years away from joining.
The migrant deal is an example of European negotiation working as it has helped reduce and manage the flow of migrants. It's far more likely that the UK border will be at Dover rather than Calais if we leave the EU which will vastly increase the number of refugees reaching Britain.
@ Jules 1
"We have a veto, as do other states."
Cameron has already said he wont and has advocated Turkey joining at one point. Maybe someone else will veto, I dunno.
"It's far more likely that the UK border will be at Dover rather than Calais if we leave the EU which will vastly increase the number of refugees reaching Britain."
As I understand it that is a very different arrangement which has nothing to do with the EU. So leaving will not adjust that border.
"Given that Turkey and the EU can't even get this far the idea that Turkey is about to join the EU doesn't seem very well founded."
Hopefully. Unfortunately Turkey do have the EU against a wall over migration issues.
Still I await a reason to remain. What worries me is this should be easy, the EU is desperate to reform as they are economically and politically disintegrating in its current form. So where are the selling points of this ever closer union, closer integration/reform and positive reasons to remain?
Cameron has already said he wont and has advocated Turkey joining at one point. Maybe someone else will veto, I dunno.
Bojo is on record (2012) as supporting Turkey joining the EU. He's the one with Turkish relatives, after all.
But let's face it: you're just here to troll not discuss.
@ Charlie Clark
"Bojo is on record (2012) as supporting Turkey joining the EU. He's the one with Turkish relatives, after all.
But let's face it: you're just here to troll not discuss."
And Bojo is on the leave campaign, probably for self interest and I dont trust him as far as I can throw him. So what.
I am amused you say I am here to troll after posting something pointless but I assume to discredit the leave somehow (I dont like the official campaigns for remain or leave just so you know). I have discussed the points people have made but all I have so far asked is for a positive reason to remain. I am still waiting.
all I have so far asked is for a positive reason to remain. I am still waiting.
No, you are not waiting. The GDP issue was posted earlier and is a positive reason to remain.
You may not agree it is important, or you may not even believe it. But it is certainly a positive reason to remain and has been provided. So, over to you to discuss it...
@ Graham Cobb
"No, you are not waiting. The GDP issue was posted earlier and is a positive reason to remain."
I did. And we 'may' glow a little slower 'possibly' and that is assuming we dont make better (or in some cases worse) policy decisions. While the largest bank in Germany advises to invest in the UK upon a Brexit as we will take off economically better than we already are (one of the best in Europe).
Economically the remain arguments have actually pointed to the problems we still suffer due to the recession to be improved because of a Brexit. The idea of economic suicide has been pretty much discredited as a certainty (just as runaway success is just as fanciful). Outside of that there seems little expectation of economic problems.
And now my own positive reasons to remain. Please discuss these as well...
1) The EU provides a brake on our government's fawning give-away of our rights to assist their friends in big business. The Tory government are doing this with TTIP -- they will sign it instantly if we leave the EU but are currently constrained by the EU who are (fortunately for us all) concerned about the ISDS clauses. But Labour are no better: they handed the copyright cartels all they asked for, but that is also somewhat constrained by EU work on copyrights.
2) Remaining, and keeping free movement, will gradually reduce the xenophobia, intolerance and racism that drives the extreme right and tricks some people into supporting them. It will take many more years but it will happen. Note that nowadays even Liverpudlians are allowed to live in London without being attacked :-) Seriously, not only have "No Dogs or Irish" signs disappeared for legal reasons but in fact the casual hate behind them has mostly gone.
@ Graham Cobb
Thank you. I seriously was waiting for positive reasons.
1) Sort of. I care little about TTIP myself but the arguments of the EU seem to be- stay and they will vote for it and we will be stuck with it (as you say Cameron wants it)! Or leave because the French will veto TTIP and we will miss out on this opportunity. Obviously both statements cant be true but outside of the EU we can vote for those who represent our choice in trade (and may actually do deals with the various successful countries out there) or remain in and get whatever the EU throws our way/enforces on us.
My view of 1 is that we elect our government to do as we want. Obviously this could be improved, but only if we are out and then vote for change. But the fact that we have an EU referendum shows that issues that do concern us can be voted for (Tories doing it because UKIP were so popular). Basically to remain in the EU to stop the democratically elected government from doing what the population voted it in for seems very wrong. Especially when the EU is not accountable to us (this referendum is as close as we have got). Imagine someone equal to your worst nightmare of a politician taking charge of the EU. I dont care if that is Corbyn, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, Trump, Stalin, Kim Jong Un. How do we stop them from imposing their will?
Also the EU is not the European Court of Human Rights which I think even Russia is a member? So we can still keep those if we want.
2) I am not convinced of this argument. I am not a fan of racists and xenophobes so to me the idea of walling off ourselves from the world into this little european enclave (not the whole of europe) seems wrong to me. Also the tariffs we are forced to apply to Africa so we buy expensive EU food from the 'right' people also seems backward in that respect, but I accept thats my view. I do struggle to understand how globalists are considered racists and xenophobes while limiting to the EU area isnt although I do accept that racists also want out of the EU for different reasons.
Unfortunately due to the unilateral invite from Germany to the middle east (not intended but the result) and the impact of that on neighbouring countries the racism problem has grown, Austria almost voting far right (barely by a whisker) and throughout the EU there is a lot of anti EU sentiment in a lot of countries (isnt it 1 in 3 people in Germany?). Borders have been thrown up and fences built. Instead of coming closer together the EU has caused the election of Golden Dawn members and has boosted the Front National and others in ways almost unknown before. Poles on Germans views on immigrants have apparently taken a steep drop too.
I also dont consider Greeks marching with signs of Merkel with nazi slogans and accusations as a good thing either and apparently the papers in Germany have made some remarks of an Italian in charge of the ECB.
Well, the lack of snappy soundbite arguments is one of the reasons why a referendum on EU membership is such a terrible idea. There are many things to like about the EU and a lot to dislike.
What do I like? Well, as I personally benefit from the freedom of labour then I'm all for it. But this shouldn't be taken in isolation. The ability for skilled (unskilled) labour to move around the single market allows companies to specialise (this is where the City of London profits so much). It also allows seasonal workers to work the harvests which means cheaper fruit and veg. Are there problems? Too, right there have: Germany's failure to apply the relevant legislation has led to wage-dumping in things like the meat industry which indirectly contributes to migration from west Africa. The law has been changed so people are being paid more but as long as the Germans demand very cheap meat…
My main reason for the EU is the hope that by trading and working together we're less likely to have wars with each other. Virtually everyone I know has stories of loss in the second world war and European history is replete with such senseless conflicts. We've now managed 60 odd years without one, which is impressive given our history. Wars are also such utter wastes of resources. Instead we've created CERN and ESA and many other fantastic projects. Our children now have opportunities that couldn't have been dreamt of 20 years ago. Note, Switzerland is already being frozen out of the next round of research project because of the threat of breach of contract.
The European Commission is at its most impressive when it is enforcing the single market and removing artificial barriers to trade such as subsidies to car makers and airlines. It is also powerful enough to negotiate with other countries like the US and China in matters of trade, as has been the case of airplanes or LCD screens or currently steel: the British government alone is pretty much powerless against the dumping of steel by the Chinese.
But there are also things I don't like such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. Both these are vestigial policies of the origin of the EC and are effectively ways for governments to subsidise particular industries. Not that I am against making sure that farmers and fishermen can earn a living. But the subsidies should be vastly reduced and repatriated so that they benefit large farmers and landowners less. When it comes to fishing: we should ask for advice from Iceland which has managed to create a healthy fishery that turns a profit (Europe has lots of poor fishermen and not enough fish).
I also like the improved workers rights that the EU has given us. Although it's actually health and safety, the working time directive means it is far less likely that people like doctors and lorry drivers are working beyond the point of exhaustion.
There should be changes in the bureaucracy: we don't need one commissioner for every member state; the European Council gets too involved in micromanaging policy; the European Parliament needs something it can get its teeth into it. But to get any changes done we have to have a seat at the table amongst friends. If the UK leaves the EU it doesn't get to shape any of the discussions and how the EU should be changed.
The playground game theory advanced by some is sadly misguided. Yes, sometimes you can get more by refusing to budge. But, in general, it means you get less of what you want, especially when dealing with the more powerful. Should the UK decide to leave the EU it won't be able to set the agenda. With national elections next year in both France and Germany, national politics and positions are for more likely to occupy people along with Russian aggression and the slow and bloody decline of Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
Will any of this have impressed you? I doubt it very much. But, whatever happens, come Thursday this insane campaign will be over and we can look to moving on the next one.
@ Charlie Clark
Thats better than a lot of the arguments I hear (as in the alternative is doom). I am going to mention the downsides but I can see your reasoning to vote remain.
Free movement- Some countries are seeing a considerable loss of their next generation as everyone moves out of the poorer country to the rich. Being paid low wages for a rich country is more than a standard wage in a poor one stops the poor one from developing (think of the argument against the NHS for stealing doctors from poor countries, but for the general working population). This has also depressed wages for our unskilled and trades. it has increased our demand for housing and the stress on our infrastructure which is in part to labour accepting the boom but not boosting the infrastructure to cope with it.
War- The EU has caused a war (Ukraine) and is talking about raising its own army which I believe was commented how it would have been useful with this migration crisis Germany started. The various nationalists are gaining popularity on the back of EU decisions and if we leave it is expected there will be a flood of referendums as other EU countries have even less support for the EU than we do. The EU hasnt been around for most of that 60yrs.
"It is also powerful enough to negotiate with other countries like the US and China in matters of trade"
Didnt I read Iceland has organised trade with China too? They completed theirs while the EU takes much longer and is much slower. I am sure a report on the EU trade deals showed it had zero improvement over what we could achieve for us but takes longer. And the free market was necessary when they had high trade tariffs but now they are globally lower. And we could organise trade deals with developing markets which the EU have yet to look at (but china are investing in). The trade area also favours buying from within the trade area but locks out developing countries which need the trade to help their poor and lower our prices.
"the British government alone is pretty much powerless against the dumping of steel by the Chinese."
The UK vetoed tariffs on that steel because it would make us poorer. The US lost out by upping tariffs and unlike the rest of the EU we dont have a problem with China paying for our steel to be cheaper.
"When it comes to fishing: we should ask for advice from Iceland which has managed to create a healthy fishery that turns a profit (Europe has lots of poor fishermen and not enough fish)."
But how can we tell the EU to do this, it is a huge lumbering Goliath but it controls these things. Iceland rejected the EU and as a result can do what is best without having to persuade a huge organisation for permission. If it was a UK government priority it might come up in discussion. But for some one who's livelihood depends on it, they are out of a job and things go on as before.
"I also like the improved workers rights that the EU has given us."
Is that the EU or ECHR? Russia is signed up to the ECHR (think they recently suspended it but not sure). The EU writes laws about the shape of a banana. Now it is an actual crime which can result in criminal penalties instead of what was- do it wrong and we wont buy from you.
"But to get any changes done we have to have a seat at the table amongst friends."
Cameron had a bold list of changes to keep us in the EU or he will campaign for out! We would be impressed! He dropped what the Germans told him had no hope, got the rest slapped down in his face and came back with a pointless crumb and waved it as a victory. If we cant make change because the EU isnt fit for our purpose then we have no hope within. And there is a lot to fix. A migration crisis, financial crisis, economic crisis, unemployment crisis, youth unemployment crisis and thats off the top of my head. The EU last year caught up economically to 2011. We have long passed the recession in this country and it is the EU keeping us on the shaky edge (interest rates, house prices, wage growth, etc) and that is from the remain assessments.
"With national elections next year in both France and Germany, national politics and positions are for more likely to occupy people along with Russian aggression and the slow and bloody decline of Syria, Libya and elsewhere.With national elections next year in both France and Germany, national politics and positions are for more likely to occupy people along with Russian aggression and the slow and bloody decline of Syria, Libya and elsewhere."
And anti-EU sentiment. Unfortunately comments from within the EU have been on the lines of fighting extreme parties in such general elections. And with the EU dictating what is an extreme party I dont see any movement to freedom or better protection of the populations. The extreme groups (read anti-EU) are gaining popularity to get out of the EU. I will be amused if the other countries pluck up the courage and leave anyway even if we stay. If we leave it is a strong possibility they will demand democratic choice too. Then maybe we can make a fair trading area without a shared currency destroying countries and without the micromanaging political insanity causing instability.
"Will any of this have impressed you? I doubt it very much. But, whatever happens, come Thursday this insane campaign will be over and we can look to moving on the next one."
Yes I am impressed. As I said they are fairly reasoned arguments even if I dont agree. At least you wont be voting your favourite (or least) politician or to get back at the gov or whatever. And dont say the next one, this has been an awful campaign from both official campaigns. Roll on next general election.
Didnt I read Iceland has organised trade with China too? They completed theirs while the EU takes much longer and is much slower. I am sure a report on the EU trade deals showed it had zero improvement over what we could achieve for us but takes longer.
I don't know what you read but your argument entirely speculative and completely ignores the fact that the EU effectively backstopped Iceland and prevented bankruptcy, which would have been brought on by, amongst other things, the UK invoking anti-terror legislation to sequester Icelandic assets after the much-vaunted light-touch regulation of IceSave, etc, when so horribly wrong. EU membership is also likely to go back onto the Icelandic political agenda. I'd welcome it, it might help us sort out the CFP.
Want a quick trade deal with China? Then agree to their terms. The EU has yet to recognise that China has a market economy which is a pre-condition for any kind of deal.
I find it offensive that you claim that the EU started a war in Ukraine. When did they deploy troops? Russia was in clear breach of international law when it invaded Ukraine. Russia simply didn't like a more or less democratic government in Ukraine signing any kind of agreement with the EU but this was a) not an act of aggression and b) not illegal.
The EU writes laws about the shape of a banana.
Nope: no laws about bananas were ever written but still a tabloid favourite. However, in a sop to France, the EU does give preferential treatment to bananas from the DOM TOM but I think there are similar agreements for some of the British overseas territories.
When I talk about workers' rights I am referring to those conferred by EU legislation. Nothing to do with the ECHR. which the UK held set up. Which is why, of course, the UK thinks it doesn't need to comply with ECHR judgements.
And with the EU dictating what is an extreme party
I must have missed that. Have Jobbik, UKIP, Golden Dawn, Front National, True Finns, the Swedish Democrats, öFP, get banned from the European parliament? No. As a matter of fact, the German Constitutional Court said that the 5 % hurdle, designed to prevent extremism, did not apply for European elections.
The trade area also favours buying from within the trade area but locks out developing countries which need the trade to help their poor and lower our prices.This is a tautology.
We have long passed the recession in this country…
Under what definition? AFAIK real wages in the UK have remained stagnant.
But how can we tell the EU to do this, it is a huge lumbering Goliath but it controls these things.
If you're a member of the EU you don't try and tell it what to do. You have lots of opportunities to initiate legislation and find allies to push it through (the UK was very active in the expansion to 25 member states, including the freedom of movement of Labour). But as long as the UK stands on its own in the corner, it's not going to change anything.
Basically, you have made up your mind and are pulling "facts" from thin air to support it. I think all your points can be easily refuted but I also know that it doesn't matter what I say, I wouldn't be able to convince you because you've made your mind up.. You know what: that's fine. In a democracy you get to vote for whatever you want but stop pretending that you're open to argument.
@ Charlie Clark
"I don't know what you read but your argument entirely speculative"
Nope. Iceland has a free trade agreement apparently (quick google search) from about 2013 while the EU still dont.
"EU membership is also likely to go back onto the Icelandic political agenda."
If there is enough political will or popularity. So the wait is for political will as unless something has changed the popularity isnt there.
"Want a quick trade deal with China? Then agree to their terms. The EU has yet to recognise that China has a market economy which is a pre-condition for any kind of deal."
So the EU is no better off than Iceland going it alone? And since we were the first in the west to join (or apply) to join the new chinese world bank I think we might still get there before the EU even if we brew up first.
"I find it offensive that you claim that the EU started a war in Ukraine."
Ok your offended. How does that change the EU provoking regime change in Ukraine and then abandoning them when the Russians kick off? All because the EU wanted to expand further. You accept Russia didnt want a new gov from signing an EU deal, which was caused by.... The EU
"Nope: no laws about bananas were ever written but still a tabloid favourite."
Erm up to 6 months prison for bendy bananas? Not a myth - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/12/to-properly-explain-the-eus-bendy-bananas-rules-yes-theyre-real/#69ea6eb224a2
"banned from the European parliament?"
Thanks for pointing out the growing popularity of extreme parties riding on the promise of getting out of the EU. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/24/eu-vows-use-new-powers-block-elected-far-right-populists-power/
"Under what definition? AFAIK real wages in the UK have remained stagnant."
Under the definition of the recession is over and we passed that mark a while ago. On the plus side the remain reports have claimed wages will go up... if we leave the EU. Also that interest rates will go up due to inflation (which we want at around 2%).
"If you're a member of the EU you don't try and tell it what to do." and "But as long as the UK stands on its own in the corner, it's not going to change anything."
2 statements which cannot be true unless you mean ineffective. We could get trade deals but not without getting out (start of this post). Or we can agree to remain in a group with high unemployment, a currency crisis, economic crisis, migration crisis and political crisis. Most of these have been going on for a while, why would that change any time soon? Especially if we cant tell them to.
"Basically, you have made up your mind and are pulling "facts" from thin air to support it."
Its called the internet but over wireless you could call it thin air. I am quite happy that we are looking at the same things but have different interpretations of it, that is why I asked for any positives about the EU to discuss. I dont care that you see the positives of what you have posted, good for you just as I see the negatives of those things. And probably the opposite for leaving arguments. Just because I wont suddenly claim to see the light and blindly agree without thought is as daft as me assuming you would. However it is likely more productive than the official remain and leave campaigns to look at the facts from both sides.
Turkey is at least 50 years away from joining the EU based on how things are currently going for them. That is being a good estimate, it might take them up to 90 years or more until they are able to join the EU.
Under current government in Turkey it just won't happen. They don't qualify for any of the renaming chapters. Not even the super easy ones.
"Except they have just been granted millions of visas due to the Turkeys threats over migration, Cameron supports their joining (has already said he wont veto) and Turkey have already got Germany agreeing to fast track their acceptance. Unless something changes it is happening. I do accept this is under-reported but remain votes would be lost otherwise. "
Your pants appear to be on fire.
"Your pants appear to be on fire."
I hate posting dailymail and this is not where I read it last time but it is on the same story-
Nice and cool thanks. The key is good air flow.
From the link-
"Earlier this week, leaked papers suggested that British diplomats have already secretly discussed granting visa-free travel to the UK for 1.5million Turks"
I can see how you would miss that, it is a small section of the article. I hoped to find the original source going into much further detail on that particular subject. I do want to correct you though. You said billions not me. If your going to accuse me of lying I want to make sure you get your facts straight.
"I can see how you would miss that, it is a small section of the article."
It was a remark made in a memo from, Janet Douglas, the deputy head of mission in Ankara concerning the relaxing of visa requirements for likes of Turkish VIP and special passport holders.
i.e. diplomats & their families, nannies etc.
Stop perpetuating falsehoods, codejunky. You are doing yourself no favours here.
I suggest using a more balanced news source. Perhaps the BBC?
You seem to be on a crusade with this one so meh, why not. So we are not to take our diplomats seriously when they discuss things like this? Lets look at the problem (your link)-
The EU fears that, without it, Turkey will not control migration.
So over a barrel for the mighty EU by Turkey. Not a good start. And-
In one leaked document, Ms Douglas said that when the EU deal was implemented "we will need to develop our own lines on the UK's stance to visa-free travel for Turks".
Now we have Cameron. Not considered a skilled negotiator (nor honest) especially after his EU negotiations were a joke. And an EU desperate. So after the EU deal is implemented our Ms Douglas expects we will develop our own version.
So the point I made that Turkey have already broken the EU through fear stands. And the legitimate fears that the UK will be part of it are not based on made up nothings. Thank you.
Feel free to take whatever interpretation you would like from that but the EU have precedence for ignoring us, even after an absolute guarantee (see using our money to prop up the Euro area) and the yet to be defined 'ever closer union' we will be accepting without having any small print to read.
yep, considering ALL current EU states must vote to accept new member states and Cyprus HATE Turkey (as the island is, as they see it occupied by Turkey) as do the Greeks to a certain extent. So I wish the BREXIT lot would stop peddling this bullshit as all the thick people seem to lap it up.
Who will lose out? A bit of both - it's likely that under the new EU rules on roaming charges, mobile operators will be bring in small rises to the basic amount that everyone pays. That might be bad for people who never travel, and need the cheapest prices possible.
That's a relatively small amount of the market though. Personally, I switched to Three precisely to get a better roaming deal, and data allowances. Now that we've largely transitioned to smart phones, being connected - being able to use maps, check in for flights, etc. when we are travelling is so much more important and useful than it used to be. And there isn't really any good reason for the costs to be so high as to prevent that.
The customer will lose out either way. Leave and roaming charges will increase. Stay in and the EU roaming rule will mean that operators increase basic charges to compensate.
One thing I've learned in my years of dealing with mobile network operators... they're like casinos - the house always wins.
This article is the eternal dichotomy. Every time a news article talks about the growth of some sector or another (eg the music industry), it is at the expense of the consumer spending more money. And yet every time the person writing the article wants to gain the sympathy of the public (eg energy companies), it's presented as "costing the average person £x additional per year".
I upvoted you as the Europhiles here don't seem to be able to read.
Most standardisation measures the EU takes credit for have nothing to do with the EU - they just add pointless gold plating. That doesn't mean as Brexiters claim that we wouldn't have no red tape if we weren't in the EU. It probably is likely we'd have less, and it would be more sensible.
>Three, for example has a 'roam like at home' policy for certain countries. The question is would they revert that?
At the moment that offer is a competitive advantage for certain European countries as the other operators don't yet do it - that could remain after Brexit, but if we stay in then all the operators will have to offer much the same within the EU. So within the EU, it looks secure either way.
But Three's offer also includes a bunch of non-EU countries. That's not EU mandated and a competitive advantage whichever way the vote goes.
To this day I still don't understand why roaming is so expensive.
From what I gather, voice and data these days are pretty much simple IP transit.
Voice is pretty low-bandwidth anyway so the bulk of charges would be data.
IP transit for data is no more costly for a MNO than for any ISP (and the costs are dropping every year), so why are MNOs charging orders of magnitude more? It seems to me like a "pretend charge" created by MNOs to fleece other MNOs.
"Simple one-word answer: Capitalism."
Russell Brand has entered the room.
I think you will find that roaming charges are basically socialist.
The charges fall on the wealthiest, who expense them to their employer (amortising the cost over a business), and generally fall on people who can afford to travel. The profits from roaming charges keep prepay PAYG prices down, keeping costs down for people who tend to be the poorest. Your definition of capitalism is therefore "the rich subsidising the poor" - which will be news to most people.
Of course understanding this requires you to think a bit, rather than give moronic one word answers.
When roaming charges were introduced the tariffs for the poor went up. Another EU triumph, but one that leaves bureaucrats (who roam a lot) very happy. Trebles all round.
I think you will find that roaming charges are basically socialist.
Wait, you're seriously suggesting that the mobile operators offer PAYG service out of the goodness of their hearts and not for profit?
The 'capitalism' answer was a bit smart-alecky but still on the money - the operators will charge whatever they can get away with it. That is unfettered capitalism in action. It doesn't matter if one thinks it's good or bad, it's a fact.
There is some specific network hardware and communication needed, mainly around authentication. It doesn't cost that much, but has to be put in place per roaming partner and the cost has historically only been paid by those users who roam to that operator.
There is also the base cost of the country you're visiting - i.e. what do the local customers pay? Pretty flat across the EU, but not so if you venture further afield.
And then there's a margin added by your home operator.
Guess which of these accounts for most of the cost?
> To this day I still don't understand why roaming is so expensive
Short answer, because they can get away with it !
In very simple terms, when you roam, the foreign network charges your home network for the privilege. Each network seems to take the attitude that you aren't their customer, and if they "make a bit" off visitors then they can be more competitive with their own home customers. The foreign networks don't really have any clout - after all, what can they do, stop their customers using the foreign network (which wouldn't go down well with travellers unable to roam) !
Thus the high roaming charges.
"There is a lot of money that the regulators are essentially transferring from mobile operators to consumers"
Not really. What they are doing is reducing the amount of money that consumers transfer to operators. There is a very important difference. Yes that means that operators will make lower profits, but frankly they've been milking consumers for years...
What? You think we're going to ever let you off your island if you opt out? Why would we want those impoverished inbreeds to foul our parks and beaches? Inflate our real estate prices with those geriatrics that toss their fish and chips all over the place? Increase the waiting list of our hospitals because they can't handle a decent spliff and think they're dying? Add marmite to everything edible? No way! Plug the chunnel! Sink the ferries!
You won't need any roaming any more. Tss...
If we vote for isolation, the total pot of travel is likely to be a little subdued as the UK and to a lesser extent the rest of the EU (and indeed world) take an economic hit. Though perhaps the gap will be filled with more rest-of-world visitors taking advantage of cheaper currency.
Low prices will of course also drive volumes, regardless of anything the EU and the vote may do. I tend to treat roaming data as emergency-only, and stick to wifi spots for connectivity (including VOIP for voice calls). That kind of decision by millions of individuals reacting to high charges makes for a non-zero-sum game.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019