• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

Should We Leave the EU?

Do you believe the UK should stay in or leave the EU?

  • Stay in the EU

    Votes: 229 61.4%
  • Leave the EU

    Votes: 120 32.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 24 6.4%

  • Total voters
    373
Status
Not open for further replies.

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
Using exclamation marks has me really worried. :D

You calling somebody else absurd.............words fail me:lol::lol:

Do you think anybody takes you seriously?

It says a lot that neither of you have any reply and have just resorted to "no you!" ;)

You're a right pair, aren't you? Wailing away, whilst the big boys put you in your place in the debate: at the back, where nobody's listening :)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Clip

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,616
The EU can never be democratic as theres not enough people to hold others accountable and it is this that makes me wonder why the Labour party like it as they believ, like I do in democracy.

It cant work due to so many countries having issues from farming to sitting in the sun doing **** all for nothing which makes it useless.

Even America cant deal with its states individually so who ever thought it would be a good idea here is mental. Apart from the Germans, stan.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,808
Location
Yorks
There was a very interesting interview with Amber Rudd, the energy secretary on the radio this morning. She was pointing out that leaving the EU could potentially cause a massive disruption to the energy market, which on face value is possibly true.

The question that wasn't touched on was why we have an energy market so dependant on foreign supply lines in the first place. Particularly as we are in a position of closing power stations with seemingly not enough generating capacity to replace them. Our comparative lack of natural gas storage, compared to other European countries has been apparent ever since the North sea gas began to run out.

I can't help but wonder whether this great energy market has, over the past two decades allowed our own Governments to neglect developing a suitable energy mix and investment in generating/storage infrastructure. Perhaps a greater degree of self-sufficiency is the answer, rather than becoming more dependant on the international energy market.
 
Last edited:

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
2,799
Location
UK
The IRA were Northern Irish. They may not have wanted to be UK nationals, but they were.

Several were born south of the border, for instance Sean O'Callaghan

The free travel area between Ireland and the UK isn't part of the EU, either.

Correct, however upon brexit how long will Ireland be able to stay out of schengen? That would mean either
* open borders with Europe after leaving the EU
or
* Borders between northern and southern ireland, or borders between northern ireland and the uk

I suspect #1 will be the option chosen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There was a very interesting interview with Amber Rudd, the energy secretary on the radio this morning. She was pointing out that leaving the EU could potentially cause a massive disruption to the energy market, which on face value is possibly true.

The question that wasn't touched on was why we have an energy market so dependant on foreign supply lines in the first place. Particularly as we are in a position of closing power stations with seemingly not enough generating capacity to rely on. Our comparative lack of natural gas storage, compared to other European countries has been apparent ever since the North sea has begun to run out.

I can't help but wonder whether this great energy market has, over the past two decades allowed our own Governments to neglect developing a suitable energy mix, investment in generating/storage infrastructure. Perhaps a greater degree of self-sufficiency is the answer, rather than becoming more dependant on the international energy market.

So you're saying it's more incompetence from westminster government? And you want to leave the democratically elected EU and put more power in the hands of a government which had 65% of the population vote against?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The EU can never be democratic as theres not enough people to hold others accountable and it is this that makes me wonder why the Labour party like it as they believ, like I do in democracy.

Democracy where 100% of the decisions are made by a party that received 34% of the votes?

That's not democratic enough?

Who, specifically, needs to be held more accountable?


It cant work due to so many countries having issues from farming to sitting in the sun doing **** all for nothing which makes it useless.

I agree, that's why the UK can't exist as a single country either. Too many areas that are massively disparate.

Even America cant deal with its states individually so who ever thought it would be a good idea here is mental. Apart from the Germans, stan.

America has 50 states, from Florida to Alaska, with very different needs. Some decisions are taken at a federal level, some at a state level.

Are you proposing the EU, which is a similar size and population to the US, be set up in the same way - a "United States of Europe" as Winston Churchill suggested?
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
The EU can never be democratic as theres not enough people to hold others accountable and it is this that makes me wonder why the Labour party like it as they believ, like I do in democracy.

It cant work due to so many countries having issues from farming to sitting in the sun doing **** all for nothing which makes it useless.

Even America cant deal with its states individually so who ever thought it would be a good idea here is mental. Apart from the Germans, stan.

America's a failed country, is it? It has higher GDP growth than we do!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,808
Location
Yorks
So you're saying it's more incompetence from westminster government? And you want to leave the democratically elected EU and put more power in the hands of a government which had 65% of the population vote against?

Perhaps more of a long term strategic error. The problem as I see it, is that the EU, democratically elected or not, seems to be becoming less likely to tolerate an interference in the common energy market that might help to alleviate the situation.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
There was a very interesting interview with Amber Rudd, the energy secretary on the radio this morning. She was pointing out that leaving the EU could potentially cause a massive disruption to the energy market, which on face value is possibly true.

The question that wasn't touched on was why we have an energy market so dependant on foreign supply lines in the first place. Particularly as we are in a position of closing power stations with seemingly not enough generating capacity to replace them. Our comparative lack of natural gas storage, compared to other European countries has been apparent ever since the North sea gas began to run out.

I can't help but wonder whether this great energy market has, over the past two decades allowed our own Governments to neglect developing a suitable energy mix and investment in generating/storage infrastructure. Perhaps a greater degree of self-sufficiency is the answer, rather than becoming more dependant on the international energy market.

This integration will continue whether we leave or not. HVDC cables are being planned and constructed with numerous other European countries, including Iceland and Norway, neither of which are in the EU.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,808
Location
Yorks
This integration will continue whether we leave or not. HVDC cables are being planned and constructed with numerous other European countries, including Iceland and Norway, neither of which are in the EU.

Well, it's good to have a back-up, and I don't believe we will be entirely energy self-sufficient.

However, I wonder how much such developments are being driven by the strategic/political decision to run down generating capacity rather than visa-versa.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
2,799
Location
UK
Well, it's good to have a back-up, and I don't believe we will be entirely energy self-sufficient.

However, I wonder how much such developments are being driven by the strategic/political decision to run down generating capacity rather than visa-versa.

Tell me how leaving the EU will help make us energy self-sufficient?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,808
Location
Yorks
Tell me how leaving the EU will help make us energy self-sufficient?

If leaving the EU made energy more expensive (I don't claim to know whether this would be the case, but Ms Rudd seemed to be suggesting that it might be), we would be compelled to become more self-sufficient in it, which whilst problematic at first, would make us more secure in the longer term.

Alternatively there might be a workaround within the EU, but our Establishment doesn't seem particularly concerned about self sufficiency, so we probably wouldn't find out.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
...However, I wonder how much such developments are being driven by the strategic/political decision to run down generating capacity rather than visa-versa.
I suspect it might be that there was little hope of any generating facility getting planning approval, given the NIMBY culture that dominates the UK :roll:
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
If leaving the EU made energy more expensive (I don't claim to know whether this would be the case, but Ms Rudd seemed to be suggesting that it might be), we would be compelled to become more self-sufficient in it, which whilst problematic at first, would make us more secure in the longer term.

Alternatively there might be a workaround within the EU, but our Establishment doesn't seem particularly concerned about self sufficiency, so we probably wouldn't find out.

Well what we really want it for is export: we're planning some of the largest wind farms in Europe, if not the world.

There's also meeting our energy targets of 20% renewable by 2020, which will be helped by importing clean energy from countries that are already over the targets (with 2.8GW of cable capacity to Norway planned to be operational by the early 2020s, and a ~1GW cable to Iceland following not long after).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,808
Location
Yorks
Well what we really want it for is export: we're planning some of the largest wind farms in Europe, if not the world.

There's also meeting our energy targets of 20% renewable by 2020, which will be helped by importing clean energy from countries that are already over the targets (with 2.8GW of cable capacity to Norway planned to be operational by the early 2020s, and a ~1GW cable to Iceland following not long after).

It would be brilliant if we could get to a position of having enough electricity to export. I think however that we should aim to be as self sufficient as possible for the base load with the external market for balancing.

I'm not convinced the market as it is, is likely to achieve this.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
When was the last time that a party in power actually received more than 50% of the votes?

1931 when Stanley Baldwin's Conservatives got 55.5%. The closest since then has been when Anthony Eden's Conservatives got 49.7% in 1955. There was also an unusual election result in 1951 where Clement Attlee's Labour got 48.8% of the votes but Atlee lost out to Churchill with 48.0% of the votes due to the Conservatives winning more seats. Another one not far off 50% was in 1966 when Harold Wilson's Labour got 48% after Wilson called an election early due to his small majority of 4 MPs proved unworkable. The Liberal party gaining popularity and then merging with the SDP resulted in smaller majorities at most of the more recent elections.
 
Last edited:

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
It would be brilliant if we could get to a position of having enough electricity to export. I think however that we should aim to be as self sufficient as possible for the base load with the external market for balancing.

I'm not convinced the market as it is, is likely to achieve this.

Why is self-sufficiency important to you? It's essentially impossible in many markets.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,808
Location
Yorks
Why is self-sufficiency important to you? It's essentially impossible in many markets.

Basically, I don't trust the world to give us an easy time. We already spend much more than we earn as an economy, and the longer our supply lines, the more risk there is of disruption that's beyond our control.

George Osborne himself admitted that we're at a greater risk of recession from elsewhere, due to our economy being more open than most. It seems prudent to ensure that we cover our most basic needs as best we can.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
Basically, I don't trust the world to give us an easy time. We already spend much more than we earn as an economy, and the longer our supply lines, the more risk there is of disruption that's beyond our control.

George Osborne himself admitted that we're at a greater risk of recession from elsewhere, due to our economy being more open than most. It seems prudent to ensure that we cover our most basic needs as best we can.

Globalisation is not going to go away. We import enormous quantities of vital goods, like food, and Britain is literally incapable of maintaining its GDP level without enormous amounts of links with the outside world. That ship sailed about 70 years ago. Sorry.

There is no point attempting to work towards self-sufficiency in certain sectors when it hinders our economy in doing so, and won't help in the event of a disaster anyway.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,808
Location
Yorks
Globalisation is not going to go away. We import enormous quantities of vital goods, like food, and Britain is literally incapable of maintaining its GDP level without enormous amounts of links with the outside world. That ship sailed about 70 years ago. Sorry.

There is no point attempting to work towards self-sufficiency in certain sectors when it hinders our economy in doing so, and won't help in the event of a disaster anyway.

And who gets to decide which "certain" sectors are destined to be globalised and which aren't.

And who gets to decide which byproducts of globalisation are detrimental to the economy, or indeed, our way of life, and which aren't?

You can attempt to paint flawed economic strategy as historical inevitability as much as you like, but you're not fooling me.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
And who gets to decide which "certain" sectors are destined to be globalised and which aren't.

And who gets to decide which byproducts of globalisation are detrimental to the economy, or indeed, our way of life, and which aren't?

You can attempt to paint flawed economic strategy as historical inevitability as much as you like, but you're not fooling me.

Nobody "decides", because we're not living in a planned economy. The markets decide, which are a reflection of where demand exists and where supply exists: Britain has a lot to offer the world, but we consume far more than we're capable of producing in many areas, and that's no bad thing unless you want the amount of food available to plummet by 70%, for example. It's historical inevitability because Britain is literally incapable of maintaining anything close to its current economic level without globalisation.

If you look at any product in your house, it will be the product of at least 2 or 3 countries - even the simplest toy made of plastic. That is because raw materials need to be shipped around and combined in factories, and this is done where labour is cheapest. If you look at the electronics you're typing your message on, that will be many, many more: ranging from the large number of different materials required to manufacture it, the manufacturing locations of various components, the locations where they were designed, as well as the companies that shipped all of those goods around at various stages, from all over the world.


Britain's best bet is concentrating on what we do best: high-tech manufacture, pharmaceuticals, research and development, education and services. What *can* be decided by governments is how that shift can occur, and I place the blame squarely on all governments of the last 30 years for failing to do so adequately in areas where traditional industry has declined. Blaming it on globalisation is futile, and it's inevitable because GDP growth and economic integration are good things so long as they're managed properly.

Calling globalisation "flawed economic strategy" is completely ridiculous, and demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of how modern life is even possible. We do not need to fear the world, and unfortunately your veiled xenophobia isn't fooling me either. Withdrawing from organisations like the EU make things *more* uncertain too.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,808
Location
Yorks
Nobody "decides", because we're not living in a planned economy. It's historical inevitability because Britain is literally incapable of maintaining anything close to its current economic level without globalisation.

If you look at any product in your house, it will be the product of at least 2 or 3 countries - even the simplest toy made of plastic. That is because raw materials need to be shipped around and combined in factories, and this is done where labour is cheapest. If you look at the electronics you're typing your message on, that will be many, many more: ranging from the large number of different materials required to manufacture it, the manufacturing locations of various components, the locations where they were designed, as well as the companies that shipped all of those goods around at various stages, from all over the world.


Britain's best bet is concentrating on what we do best: high-tech manufacture, pharmaceuticals, education and services. What *can* be decided by governments is how that shift can occur, and I place the blame squarely on all governments of the last 30 years for failing to do so adequately in areas where traditional industry has declined. Blaming it on globalisation is futile, and it's inevitable because GDP growth and economic integration are good things so long as they're managed properly.

Calling globalisation "flawed economic strategy" is completely ridiculous, and demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of how modern life is even possible.

True perhaps, to an extent, for comparison goods such as washing machines and toasters, where someone else can make it cheaper, and the working class here can at least pocket the dividend, although I'm not in any way convinced that the same applies in terms of basic necessities such as energy.

Even the bit about the working classes has the proviso that they actually have enough money to spend on cheaper goods.

I'm reminded of the American economy, which I read grew between 2001 and 2008, yet average wages went down at the same time. I class economic growth without a corresponding increase in average wages/living standards as worthless.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
True perhaps, to an extent, for comparison goods such as washing machines and toasters, where someone else can make it cheaper, and the working class here can at least pocket the dividend, although I'm not in any way convinced that the same applies in terms of basic necessities such as energy.

Even the bit about the working classes has the proviso that they actually have enough money to spend on cheaper goods.

I'm reminded of the American economy, which I read grew between 2001 and 2008, yet average wages went down at the same time. I class economic growth without a corresponding increase in average wages/living standards as worthless.

Why not? The markets are the markets are the markets. Not all countries can produce energy equally - especially not in today's world of renewables, where the distribution of the resources required to power them are very off-set.

I'm not advocating unequal economic growth, either. Globalisation does not entail inequality, which is a conclusion many come to because many proponents of globalisation are simply proponents of their own wealth, which can itself entail inequality. Like I said: it's about how it's managed.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
2,799
Location
UK
Why not? The markets are the markets are the markets. Not all countries can produce energy equally - especially not in today's world of renewables, where the distribution of the resources required to power them are very off-set.

I'm not advocating unequal economic growth, either. Globalisation does not entail inequality, which is a conclusion many come to because many proponents of globalisation are simply proponents of their own wealth, which can itself entail inequality. Like I said: it's about how it's managed.

I'm a big fan of a seven barage, and tidal schemes in Scotland A Severn barage would be 5 times the output of Hinkley point A, B and C combined - something like a quarter of the UKs energy use. Sadly local politics means these schemes won't happen. Nothing to do with the EU of course, and I'm confused why you'd think it was - it seems the idea is there's a conspiracy by those in power to run down our own energy generation to make us beholden to Europe?
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
2,799
Location
UK
When was the last time that a party in power actually received more than 50% of the votes?

May 7th 2015, when a government made up of mps representing parties that 59.1% of the country voted for was still in power (parliament was desolved a few weeks earlier but I believe technically the government was still in power on May 7th.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,185
Location
Oxford
I'm a big fan of a seven barage, and tidal schemes in Scotland A Severn barage would be 5 times the output of Hinkley point A, B and C combined - something like a quarter of the UKs energy use. Sadly local politics means these schemes won't happen. Nothing to do with the EU of course, and I'm confused why you'd think it was - it seems the idea is there's a conspiracy by those in power to run down our own energy generation to make us beholden to Europe?

I've no idea how you inferred that from what I've said.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
2,799
Location
UK
I've no idea how you inferred that from what I've said.

Not from your statements, from statements like

"However, I wonder how much such developments are being driven by the strategic/political decision to run down generating capacity rather than visa-versa."
 

Steveman

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2016
Messages
405
Even by the legendary standards of European waste this is one of the very worst, what a diabolical and disgusting waste of money and only because of the massive French ego.
Nearly a billion quid wasted over a 7 year European budget cycle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html

It is perhaps the most outlandish of the European Union’s excesses; a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France. MEPs are fed up with the upheaval and cost created by the Strasbourg circus. At the end of last year, they voted for the two-parliament system to be scrapped by a three-to-one majority. But change is unlikely to happen soon.

The problem is simple: the French government, which has a power of veto, will not budge. The French insist on maintaining Strasbourg’s role because of the substantial amount of money the travelling circus brings to the region. Its status is set in stone under a European treaty signed in 1992, which can only be revoked should all member states agree it.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
9,810

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
2,799
Location
UK
Yeah, damn those countries with those vetos. We should get rid of ours as an example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top