Should We Leave the EU?

[Blamethrower]

The only argument for remaining is "this is what we currently have, this is how it benefits us economically, do you like it or not?"

The burden of proof in an argument always falls towards the people who are arguing for change.

The only argument I've seen so far is that the European Court of Human Rights "force us to pay money to terrorists". Never mind the fact that the ECHR isn't the EU, has nothing to do with the EU, and we'll still be a member even if we leave the EU. Nor, for that matter, the fact the ECHR didn't decide that.

The EEC and EFTR are the things we want to part of, these are what benefits us financially and with mobility, not the EU.

The EU is an unelected, unaccountable law maker that presides over all sovereign states.

In places like Germany/Holland, they interpret EU laws differently so that it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of their people. Take the smoking ban:

- the UK said it's banned absolutely everywhere, no exceptions
- Germany set their lawyers to work and created non-smoking bars, smoking bars and bars with smoking rooms.
- Holland, many bars when I lived there had a jar behind the counter where you "made a contribution" to the fine should they get caught. Others just became non-smoking

I want to leave the EU and remain in the EEC and join the EFTA.

I want to leave the EU because I don't want to give the government an excuse to restrict our freedoms because they are too lazy to challenge any EU directive and apply it correctly to the people.

The EU gives our politicians and easy scapegoat. I want the British government to become more accountable, not less.

You can couple the debate for the lack of English national assembly to this too, devolution aswell.

Make our politicians accountable, the end

 

[radamfi]

In places like Germany/Holland, they interpret EU laws differently so that it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of their people. Take the smoking ban:

- the UK said it's banned absolutely everywhere, no exceptions
- Germany set their lawyers to work and created non-smoking bars, smoking bars and bars with smoking rooms.
- Holland, many bars when I lived there had a jar behind the counter where you "made a contribution" to the fine should they get caught. Others just became non-smoking

Eh? Smoking bans aren't up to the EU. It is up to the individual countries to impose their own bans. In the case of Germany it is up to each state, so some states have stricter rules than others.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The EU is an unelected, unaccountable law maker that presides over all sovereign states.

In places like Germany/Holland, they interpret EU laws differently so that it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of their people.

*sigh*

It's this sort of contradictory nonsense that irritates me about the Brexit lot, to be truthful.

If the EU is this all-powerful organisation that imposes its will on all member states, then the law in every member state will be identical.

You've just argued that the laws aren't identical, and that the UK law on smoking is different to that in Germany and the Netherlands.

If member states can interpret things differently, then the EU is not imposing its will on member states. Member states have sovereignty. In this case, the UK has chosen to impose smoking restrictions that are more onerous than in other EU countries. One can safely assume that they would have made the same decision regardless of EU law. This, therefore, has nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with the UK.

I'd agree that the EU have been a convenient scapegoat for politicians for a very long time. Blaming the EU for this seems a little, um, counter-intuitive.

 

[me123]

Smoking bans have absolutely nothing to do with the EU. This is just another example of the poor quality of the debate we are having on the issue - just pick something you don't like and blame it on the EU (either out of your own ignorance, or to deliberately mislead the electorate). The EU did pass a resolution back in 1989 (well over a decade before any such ban was introduced in any part of the UK) supporting a ban on smoking in public places, however it is not legally binding. The fact that different countries have different legislation regarding smoking can be explained by the fact that every country that bans smoking has created its own law independently.

As for the EU being unelected, I'd like to point out that once every four years we elect members to the European Parliament. They're called MEPs, and their job is to represent the interests of their constituents (which, on this scale, represents larger regions of the UK; for example we have six MEPs for Scotland). The majority of our MEPs participate in the parliament. UKIP don't even know which way to face when they're in the chamber.

They're as much the problem as anyone else. They consistently poll their biggest successes in Europe. I accept that they disagree with Europe, but they don't even seem to engage with the parliamentary process. When about a third of your countries MEPs don't do anything... that's an affront to democracy.

 

[ExRes]

The majority of our MEPs participate in the parliament. UKIP don't even know which way to face when they're in the chamber.

They're as much the problem as anyone else. They consistently poll their biggest successes in Europe. I accept that they disagree with Europe, but they don't even seem to engage with the parliamentary process. When about a third of your countries MEPs don't do anything... that's an affront to democracy.

Surely, if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to put your picture into perspective, how many people do you think know the circumstances of the photo you've chosen to show?

 

[dcsprior]

Surely, if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to put your picture into perspective, how many people do you think know the circumstances of the photo you've chosen to show?

I didn't know the circumstances, so googled it.

Apparently they stood up and turned their backs because Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' (the unofficial "anthem" of the EU ) was played to open the session of parliament.

Knowing this is the reason simply confirms to me that they're being daft.

 

[Tetchytyke]

how many people do you think know the circumstances of the photo you've chosen to show?

Probably not many, including those who elected UKIP to make such pointless attention seeking gestures. Anyone would think they were playing Deutschland Uber Alles rather than Ode to Joy.

My secondary school had an official hymn, it doesn't mean it's wanting to turn into a European superstate.

 

[me123]

Surely, if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to put your picture into perspective, how many people do you think know the circumstances of the photo you've chosen to show?

OK. They turned their back in protest. An orchestra was playing Beethoven's "Ode to Joy", which is the unofficial anthem of Europe, and they were expected to stand, so turned their backs as a protest. Here's a video of the sorry charade.

Don't think that story glorifies them. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from a primary school pupil.

By contrast, look at the SNP MPs. I only cautiously compare the two, but but both UKIP MEPs and SNP MPs are members of institutions that they wish to abolish. SNP MPs play a full and active part representing their constituents in Westminster, even though they would vote to abolish the institution. UKIP MEPs behave like children, although it doesn't stop them enjoying an (approximately) £78,444 salary and generous expense account.

 

[crehld]

As for the EU being unelected, I'd like to point out that once every four years...

Five years!

Overall, I am puzzled by the accusation that the EU is somehow undemocratic, particularly when compared to national political systems. You've already pointed to the directly elected parliament, which has direct electoral legitimacy and are one of two EU institutions responsible for deciding the vast majority of EU legislation under the enticingly named "ordinary legislative procedure". The second, of course, is the Council of the EU which is composed of the national ministers of each member state, who of course draw their legitimacy from the governments they represent.

Let us turn our attention to the European Commission. Remember this institution only proposes EU legislation but has no decision making power. Critics say the Commissioners are not directly elected. Of course they're not, this is how the national governments have deliberately designed it to be so they maintain an element of control over the process of European integration. We might also compare the Commissioners to national ministers. I have yet to come across a political system were ministers are directly elected to the positions they hold. In addition there have been many UK cabinets were a number of ministers and others in attendance have not been elected and are rather drawn from the House of the Lords (Baroness Anelay being a current example). We might go one step further and draw comparisons to the US cabinet (land of the free and all that) where not a single member is directly elected, but rather appointed and presented to the Senate for confirmation... a process not dissimilar to how Commissioners are appointed.

So, quite frankly, much of the debate about the EU's democratic credentials and it's so-called 'democratic deficit' is, like much debate on the EU in general, misinformed and over-simplified.

There are some quite significant debates to be had about the 'second order' nature of European Parliamentary elections and the extent to which this jeopardizes the parliament's legitimacy, and the extent to which a democratic political system can successfully represent a contested European 'demos' and or even a contested European identity. And also the role of organized interests in the EU policy process. But I see no appetite for such an intellectual and informed debate, given many critics of the EU are quite content to stick to spouting out misinformation and the media is more than happy to replicate this. That said if anyone wishes to engage with the democracy debate in an informed and analytical way then I can recommend the following reading:

R. Corbett (2015). Democracy in the European Union. In The European Union: How does it Work? 4th Edition. Edited by D. Kenealy, J. Peterson and R. Corbett. Oxford University Press.

R. Bellamy and C. Lord (2012) How Democratic is the EU? In Key Controversies in European Integration. Edited by H. Zimmerman and A. Dur. Palgrave Macmillan.


...As for the anthem, this is a symbol of the Council of Europe, which the EU has unofficially co-opted by the EU, so withdrawing from the EU will mean we will still have an European anthem (and indeed a European flag).

 

[Blamethrower]

Eh? Smoking bans aren't up to the EU. It is up to the individual countries to impose their own bans. In the case of Germany it is up to each state, so some states have stricter rules than others.

It is an "EU directive", it is up to member states to implement it, as many have said. Our country chose to blanket ban it and then blame it on the EU. Other countries, as I have said, implemented it differently so as not to infringe on freedoms of their people
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Five years!

Overall, I am puzzled by the accusation that the EU is somehow undemocratic

When did you last vote for an MEP?
How did they represent you?
What were their policies?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

*sigh*

It's this sort of contradictory nonsense that irritates me about the Brexit lot, to be truthful.

If the EU is this all-powerful organisation that imposes its will on all member states, then the law in every member state will be identical.

You've just argued that the laws aren't identical, and that the UK law on smoking is different to that in Germany and the Netherlands.

If member states can interpret things differently, then the EU is not imposing its will on member states. Member states have sovereignty. In this case, the UK has chosen to impose smoking restrictions that are more onerous than in other EU countries. One can safely assume that they would have made the same decision regardless of EU law. This, therefore, has nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with the UK.

I'd agree that the EU have been a convenient scapegoat for politicians for a very long time. Blaming the EU for this seems a little, um, counter-intuitive.

It seems as you have completely missed the point. Either deliberately or not.

Smoking is an "EU directive" which member states can choose to implement in their own way. In this country we just blanket ban things and blame it on the EU because our politicians are lazy.

" In this case, the UK has chosen to impose smoking restrictions that are more onerous than in other EU countries. One can safely assume that they would have made the same decision regardless of EU law. "

It seems that you are the one talking nonsense. I would like to see where this hypothesis comes from.

I am at least giving examples of an "EU directive", where are your examples?

Again, I want out of EU, not of EC, EEC, EFTA.

EU means nothing other than "directives" to which our government cow-tows to without blinking an eye. THAT is the lack of democracy.

I want our politicians to be accountable for what they do. How is it democratic that there are effectively 2 governments?

I lived in Germany and Holland and they serve their people. As we all know, UK PLC services big business

 

[tony_mac]

It is an "EU directive"

Which number is it?

 

[Steveman]

Lord Rose the leader of the IN campaign who famously didn't know the name of his own organisation 4 times ! has admitted that leaving the EU would increase wage rates for low skilled workers.
Somewhat let the cat out of the bag by saying higher wage rates for low skilled British workers

' is not necessarily a good thing'

How can the labour party in particular think that lower wages for lower skilled British workers is a desirable thing which they must do by wanting an IN vote.

 

[Mvann]

It is an "EU directive", it is up to member states to implement it, as many have said. Our country chose to blanket ban it and then blame it on the EU. Other countries, as I have said, implemented it differently so as not to infringe on freedoms of their people
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


When did you last vote for an MEP?
How did they represent you?
What were their policies?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It seems as you have completely missed the point. Either deliberately or not.

Smoking is an "EU directive" which member states can choose to implement in their own way. In this country we just blanket ban things and blame it on the EU because our politicians are lazy.

" In this case, the UK has chosen to impose smoking restrictions that are more onerous than in other EU countries. One can safely assume that they would have made the same decision regardless of EU law. "

It seems that you are the one talking nonsense. I would like to see where this hypothesis comes from.

I am at least giving examples of an "EU directive", where are your examples?

Again, I want out of EU, not of EC, EEC, EFTA.

EU means nothing other than "directives" to which our government cow-tows to without blinking an eye. THAT is the lack of democracy.

I want our politicians to be accountable for what they do. How is it democratic that there are effectively 2 governments?

I lived in Germany and Holland and they serve their people. As we all know, UK PLC services big business

And by banning smoking inside the pub, the smokers now sit in the beer garden where all the kids play during the summer months. Even the Monster Raving Loony party wouldn't think of a policy like that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Lord Rose the leader of the IN campaign who famously didn't know the name of his own organisation 4 times ! has admitted that leaving the EU would increase wage rates for low skilled workers.
Somewhat let the cat out of the bag by saying higher wage rates for low skilled British workers
How can the labour party in particular think that lower wages for lower skilled British workers is a desirable thing which they must do by wanting an IN vote.

Lord Rose is a Conservative Peer. I have no idea by what logic you can think that the opinions of a Conservative Peer must be opinions of the Labour Party.

I'm sure you are perfectly well aware that Labour Party does NOT think that lower wages for skilled British workers is a desirable thing. Quite the opposite in fact.

Might I suggest that, on the whole, the Labour Party supports the 'In' campaign because - unlike, it seems, most people in the 'out' campaign, the Labour Party has a sufficiently good understanding of how the economy works to realize that leaving the EU would have all sorts of huge side-effects on the economy. Some of those side-effects may be good, some may be bad, but it appears to be extremely unlikely that the aggregate consequence of leaving the EU will be the increase in living standards that the Labour Party, on the whole, wants to see for the British people.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I lived in Germany and Holland and they serve their people. As we all know, UK PLC services big business

And you think that will improve by getting rid of the EU?

The biggest fight that the UK government got into in Europe in recent years was about mobile phone roaming charges. Under significant pressure from Vodafone, the UK government opposed all the changes that the EU forced through.

The idea that, free of the scapegoat "shackles" that the EU supposedly provides, our politicians will suddenly develop a conscience is...optimistic.

EU means nothing other than "directives" to which our government cow-tows to without blinking an eye. THAT is the lack of democracy.

My point is that if the EU were in control the law would be the same throughout the whole of Europe.

Your point appears to be that the UK government are crap, so we should get rid of the EU.

And by banning smoking inside the pub, the smokers now sit in the beer garden where all the kids play during the summer months. Even the Monster Raving Loony party wouldn't think of a policy like that.

As someone with asthma, the smoking ban has made a huge difference to me. I don't get an attack if someone smokes in the open air next to me, unsociable as it is. I did in smoky pubs.

 

[ExRes]

And by banning smoking inside the pub, the smokers now sit in the beer garden where all the kids play during the summer months. Even the Monster Raving Loony party wouldn't think of a policy like that.

As much as I dislike the EU bandwagon I consider indoor smoking bans, assuming the EU was actually responsible for them, to be the best days work they ever did

In my opinion though smokers don't usually sit in the beer garden, they congregate round every door forcing the majority to walk through their smoke and smell

 

[Mvann]

I think that most people would agree with a ban on smoking in pub restaurants and those pubs aimed at the family market. Don't believe it should have been a blanket ban.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Don't believe it should have been a blanket ban.

Pubs (and restaurants, social clubs, etc) should have been allowed to create a smoking room, with proper ventilation, that was separate to the rest of the pub. I'd very much agree with that.

I don't mind other people smoking, I only mind it when it impacts on me. And not being able to go to pubs without having asthma attacks was impacting on me...

 

[furnessvale]

Pubs (and restaurants, social clubs, etc) should have been allowed to create a smoking room, with proper ventilation, that was separate to the rest of the pub. I'd very much agree with that.

Pubs were given that choice.

Before the outright ban there was a voluntary code of practice in place. Pubs were allowed to designate which rooms were smoking or non smoking.

Some may remember the stickers that appeared in pub windows at the time stating that particular pub's policy.

I never saw a sticker that didn't say, "Smoking policy: Smoking allowed throughout".

Pubs had their chance. They blew it.

 

[Steveman]

Lord Rose is a Conservative Peer. I have no idea by what logic you can think that the opinions of a Conservative Peer must be opinions of the Labour Party.

I'm sure you are perfectly well aware that Labour Party does NOT think that lower wages for skilled British workers is a desirable thing. Quite the opposite in fact.

Might I suggest that, on the whole, the Labour Party supports the 'In' campaign because - unlike, it seems, most people in the 'out' campaign, the Labour Party has a sufficiently good understanding of how the economy works to realize that leaving the EU would have all sorts of huge side-effects on the economy. Some of those side-effects may be good, some may be bad, but it appears to be extremely unlikely that the aggregate consequence of leaving the EU will be the increase in living standards that the Labour Party, on the whole, wants to see for the British people.

Has it occurred to you that with tax credits topping up low wages we're simply subsidising massive International companies who arrange their tax affairs to show hardly any taxable profit in the UK.

Has it occurred to you that low wages mean low tax take which means less spending which means a worse economy.

Most sensible people know full well that the Government and big business are welded together and the importation of huge numbers of low skilled eastern European workers is a deliberate and concerted act to bring down wage rates.

I cannot prove that leaving will improve anything but neither can you prove that staying in an EU whose long term economic outlook is poor is the only way to go.

This ermine clad multi milionaire Brussels cheerleader said leaving would have no effect on the economy before he was made head of the IN campaign amazing what a transformation since then.Big business is protecting its vested interests it has no interest in protecting the public's interest
Whichever way you look at it this statement that low wages are a good thing is scandalous and you trying to spin it as generally the right way to go is shameful.
No doubt you approve of TTIP as well.

 

[Mvann]

Don't think I ever saw any stickers. And I'd say nearly all the family areas in the pubs we frequented were non smoking and a good proportion of the pubs had a no smoking area.

 

[radamfi]

It is an "EU directive", it is up to member states to implement it, as many have said. Our country chose to blanket ban it and then blame it on the EU. Other countries, as I have said, implemented it differently so as not to infringe on freedoms of their people

http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_125.pdf

In 1989 the EU adopted a resolution on banning smoking in public places and in all forms of public transport. Resolutions are not binding on member states; they represent a guideline for action.

 

[rf_ioliver]

EU means nothing other than "directives" to which our government cow-tows to without blinking an eye. THAT is the lack of democracy.

So if the UK government cow-tows to a these directives then isn't the problem with the UK government?

t.

Ian

 

[Tetchytyke]

a good proportion of the pubs had a no smoking area.

The stickers were there. Smaller pubs were smoking throughout, some of the bigger ones had a no smoking area. In many cases this was simply one corner of a bigger room, as though the smoke in the rest of the room was able to read the signs. In one pub I used to go to in Durham the no smoking area was a small area right in the centre of an otherwise smoking room. Utterly pointless.

One good benefit of the smoking ban is that beer gardens tend to be a lot nicer these days, with heaters and parasols and posh chairs.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Has it occurred to you that with tax credits topping up low wages we're simply subsidising massive International companies who arrange their tax affairs to show hardly any taxable profit in the UK.

Has it occurred to you that low wages mean low tax take which means less spending which means a worse economy.

Yes, it may surprise you, but I actually am well aware of the problems that low wages cause.

Most sensible people know full well that the Government and big business are welded together and the importation of huge numbers of low skilled eastern European workers is a deliberate and concerted act to bring down wage rates.

Gosh, if you want to present some sensible arguments and have people pay attention to you, then you really should start to try and learn the difference between fact, unproved speculation, and fiction. Your comments about Eastern Europeans in the above paragraph are fiction.

I cannot prove that leaving will improve anything but neither can you prove that staying in an EU whose long term economic outlook is poor is the only way to go.

No, neither of us can prove either way what will happen to our economy, whether we stay or leave. But we can pay attention to what economists are saying, which seems to be broadly that leaving the EU is likely to lower overall living standards (= lower wages if prices stay the same). That would seem to suggest that if your concern is for higher wages, then you're better off arguing to remain in the EU. (Of course there are other reasons why people might want to leave, such as a preference for the UK Government to have more powers, but if you believe that the UK Government is welded together with big business, then it's hard to see why anyone would want that )

This ermine clad multi milionaire Brussels cheerleader said leaving would have no effect on the economy before he was made head of the IN campaign amazing what a transformation since then.Big business is protecting its vested interests it has no interest in protecting the public's interest
Whichever way you look at it this statement that low wages are a good thing is scandalous

I would not agree with a statement that low wages are a good thing in most circumstances, and I have no intention of defending any alleged statement by a Conservative peer to the effect that they are, despite your apparent attempts to make out that I think that.

and you trying to spin it as generally the right way to go is shameful.
No doubt you approve of TTIP as well.

I said nothing of the sort. I did not in any way say or imply that low wages are a good thing. My post merely stated that leaving the EU was unlikely to increase people's standard of living.

As a gentle hint, you might find that reading my posts to check what I actually said might be useful before you reply to them

 

[Steveman]

Head of the British Chamber of Commerce says leaving the EU may well lead to a brighter future for Britain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35716864

The UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU, a business leader has said.

"The dynamism and resilience of the City of London and the UK business sector suggests to me that, in the long run, we have the capacity and capability to create a bright, if not brighter, economic future outside of the EU - just as we would have done had we had the opportunity to stay in a truly reformed Europe," Mr Longworth said.

Not all businessmen talk as much rubbish as the forgetful Lord Rose then.

 

[Oswyntail]

...As a gentle hint, you might find that reading my posts to check what I actually said might be useful before you reply to them

Oh come on! This is an internet forum filled with experts on all subjects. Why should anyone bother to read before contributing.:roll:

 

[miami]

When did you last vote for an MEP?

2014

How did they represent you?

They didn't get in. As only 1 in 200 in my constituency voted for them I wouldn't expect them to get in. 80% of my constituency voted for someone who is now representing them (assuming you call UKIPs presence "representation").

What were their policies?

We have a selection of MEPs representing many sides of the political coin. Now europe doesn't exactly have a lot of say in the day-to-day runnings of the UK, hence there's not a lot of coverage in the media.

The party I voted for have core policies of Freedom of Speech, Privacy, and Copyright/Patent reform. Across the entire of Europe there is one MEP, and she is part of the Greens/EFA group, which has 6 of the 73 seats in the UK (1 in 12), and 50 of the 751 seats in europe (1 in 15).

That group recently has been pushing for more rail, and has highlighted

recent worrying developments in some countries, where for example rail infrastructure such as lines or stations are being closed down even though the EU has been investing huge amounts into these networks

Who did you vote for, and what are their policies?

In this country we just blanket ban things and blame it on the EU because our politicians are lazy.

So you agree we should take more power from lazy UK politicians and put it in to europe?

Again, I want out of EU, not of EC, EEC, EFTA.

Excellent, we won't have a say on EU directives (which don't include smoking), but will still get punished for not applying them quickly enough

http://www.tv2.no/a/3972351

For the first time since the EEA Agreement entered into force in 1994 threatens EU to punish Norway not to follow up the commitments of the agreement.

- There are many in Brussels who are tired of Norway seem to believe that European cooperation is a smorgasbord where you can just pick whatever you want, says the Swedish europaparlamentarikeren Christofer Fjellner from the Christian Democratic European party group EPP, the largest party group in the European Parliament.

That is also the conclusion of the EU's evaluation of Norway. TV 2 has seen a draft of the report coming later this spring. The report is a detailed review of how the EU views the EEA Agreement and the relationship with Norway.
...
- This is the first time the EU seriously threatening to close Norway out of certain parts of the internal market. There should be a frightening signal of Norway. I think Norwegians are aware of how important the internal market is for them, says Christofer Fjellner.

EU means nothing other than "directives" to which our government cow-tows to without blinking an eye. THAT is the lack of democracy.

Again, you're saying our government is undemocratic. Yes, 65% of the electorate voted for the opposition, yes 75% of the electorate has no actual chance of making a change, but saying it's completely undemocratic is a bit far.

Having directives imposed by a parliament that we don't elect, as Norway have to deal with, is undemocratic I agree, a strong reason for staying in europe.

I want our politicians to be accountable for what they do. How is it democratic that there are effectively 2 governments?

Both parliaments are elected from the adult population, via different means, but both are acknowledged as having pros and cons, and are both mostly democratic.

Neither government is elected directly, but instead elected by the representatives of parliament (those representatives in Brussels are more representitive of the voters than the ones in westminster)

I lived in Germany and Holland and they serve their people. As we all know, UK PLC services big business

So you'd agree with the idea that more power for the UK government means more power for big business (leading to things like reduction in workers rights and wages), and more power for the EU means less power for big business, and presumably increased standards of living for workers?

 

[Geezertronic]

I listened to Radio 2 on the drive in and the news reports from Moira Stewart were all very pro-EU. I watched the BBC News channel during breaks as that channel was selected on the works break room TV and the reporting on there is all very pro-EU.

Getting a bit fed up with the bias as well as all the scaremongering reports if I am honest. How am I, an average Joe, supposed to make an informed decision on the basis of what a biased Prime Minister leading a biased BBC says... maybe I'll have to see if Sky News are any better when I get home

 

[Steveman]

I listened to Radio 2 on the drive in and the news reports from Moira Stewart were all very pro-EU. I watched the BBC News channel during breaks as that channel was selected on the works break room TV and the reporting on there is all very pro-EU.

Getting a bit fed up with the bias as well as all the scaremongering reports if I am honest. How am I, an average Joe, supposed to make an informed decision on the basis of what a biased Prime Minister leading a biased BBC says... maybe I'll have to see if Sky News are any better when I get home

The BBC has been given £3m from the EU in the last 3 years for what it calls research and development so it's hardly going to be impartial.
It refused to give the information out willingly it had to be forced to via a F.O.I request from the Spectator, it still refuses to say what the money was spent on.

Sky is pretty impartial and does try to see both sides.