Why Do The Stay In Campaign Have Nothing Good To Say About The Eu?

[ToraToraTora]

On Andrew Marr this morning Nigel Lawson said "There is no campaign to love the EU only to try and scare the pants of those who may vote to leave" - I think he was bang on, so is there any reason to stay in reality?

[naomi24]

Jim, //you asked me to provide a positive reason to stay in the EU.//

But that isn’t a reason at all. By your own admission – and I quote – “all of these projects would still largely survive intact”. I suggest you read New Judge's post above.

[jourdain2]

Well said, NJ. :)

[jim360]

I read NJ's post, and I don't accept his counter-argument. As far as I'm concerned, you're misunderstanding the concept of "reason to stay in the EU". It does provide a benefit in my field -- ask pretty much anyone else in the area -- and therefore provides a reason to stay. It's not the only thing you might want to consider, for sure, but it's not an invalid defence of the EU at all.

[naomi24]

It's a very limited defence, Jim. To my mind one reason to stay isn't enough - especially when it is not essential.

[New Judge]

Yes Jim, but you must ask yourself these questions before becoming too elated:

1. Does it provide a benefit that could not be achieved if the UK were to leave the EU?

2. (More importantly) does that benefit sufficiently outweigh the undoubted costs (some of which I've referred to) which our EU membership incurs?

[jim360]

"To my mind one reason to stay isn't enough..."

Perhaps not, and that's fair enough, but all the same it's at least something good about the EU, which was the main point given the original question in this thread.

"Why Do The Stay In Campaign Have Nothing Good To Say About The Eu?" -- They do, as I've tried to establish, in one context at least, in this thread. If you decide in the end that what is bad about the EU (and certainly it's not too hard to find problems with it) outweighs the good, then while I'd disagree that is still a fair judgement. What is far more frustrating is when people pretend that there is nothing good about it at all.

In terms of NJ's post then, that's come up while I was typing this, I've tried to address his first question: (answer: yes, probably), but not his second, which is more of a judgement call.

[Togo]

//It does provide a benefit in my field//

Jim's only reason to remain in shackles, is purely personal. No regard whatsoever for any one else. Certainly not the future generations of Britain.

[Baldric]

///It does provide a benefit in my field///

Sadly far too young, and blinkered, to understand a grown up point of view.

[Svejk]

Jim, as has been pointed out. If we receive, say, £1 billion for research in this country, it's because they've taken 2 or 3 off us in the first place.
And, I must say, you are being somewhat disingenuous about the nationality of your colleagues. Because, presumably when it suited a different argument, you previously listed their nationalities, it was a veritable smorgasbord of people from the four corners of the earth.

[jim360]

Not meaning to be funny, but with respect to most people on this site I am "the future generations of Britain", or at least rather a lot closer to them. As to this "remain in shackles" -- am I really any better off individually at least outside the EU? My voice is hardly going to be measurably louder.

I genuinely think that remaining in the EU is beneficial not just to my field, but in general, and certainly that things will be not substantially improved, and probably made rather a lot worse, by leaving. Yes there are problems with the EU (although, arguably, the best way to address many of them is by more integration anyway, rather than less). But a magic bullet to all of our problems Brexit is certainly not. If you disagree, fine, but the character assassinations Leave campaigners are determined to apply to anyone arguing to stay are just as unacceptable as saying that anyone who supports leaving is xenophobic, racist, or whatever other nasty adjectives get thrown your way.

[jim360]

In reply to svejk: no, not really -- you are welcome to look up the list again if you like, and you'd discover that most of the nationalities I listed are European.

Baldric: I guess you're just far too old, and set in your ways, to be flexible enough to accept that the world has changed since you were a young lad. Or, if you don't like age-based dismissive arguments, perhaps you'd care to retract that crap you said about me?

[Baldric]

Wrong on both counts Jim, but never mind.

[New Judge]

I'm certainly flexible enough to accept the world has changed, Jim. That's why I think the decision the country made forty years ago needs a rethink. Alas those running the EU (and indeed our own government) do not seem so blessed.

[naomi24]

Jim, I don’t see any character assassinations here. Perhaps you’ll address the point NJ made, the same that Svejk has reiterated.

//If we receive, say, £1 billion for research in this country, it's because they've taken 2 or 3 off us in the first place.//

Where’s the great benefit in that?

//I really any better off individually at least outside the EU?//

Is that all you really care about?

[jim360]

Hopefully it's clear that I was just making a point about Baldric's pathetic personal jibe, as opposed to being serious, NJ.

[Togo]

//Not meaning to be funny, but with respect to most people on this site I am "the future generations of Britain", //

And find myself in a very likeable comfort zone, one not enjoyed or likely to be by millions of indigenous British youngsters...........Unless the are prepared to acquiesce to the machinations of a corrupt and self serving, unelected EUSSR. You only need to ask, who elected you.......how do we un-elect you?

[Baldric]

///about Baldric's pathetic personal jibe///

I very much doubt I'm the only one who thinks that Jim, but that's for them to say.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Baldric: I guess you're just far too old, and set in your ways, to be flexible enough to accept that the world has changed since you were a young lad.//

I’ve no idea how old Baldric is, but I do know that older people are well aware that the world has changed because they have the benefit of experience. They knew this country before the EU and they have known it since – something you can’t claim. For you the world hasn’t changed. You know no different.

[retrocop]

Where you alive jim before we joined the Common Market to later become the EU? Baldric and were and it is not a fearsome step into the unknown and wewill still have foreign boffs without £55 million expense.

[jim360]

I'll address the funding argument separately, once I can fully dissect the figures, although as an obvious counter-point does anyone really expect that the full £10 billion of the UK's contribution to the EU would be pumped instead entirely into science? It would be split up between multiple projects, presumably, leaving the net gain or loss rather harder to determine but probably close to zero.

As to this one:

"// Am I really any better off individually at least outside the EU?//

Is that all you really care about? "

No, I care about a lot more -- but if *I* don't benefit from leaving the EU, I think it's reasonable to think that, on average, few other people will benefit instead. I'm just framing the question individually to start with.

And again, let me reiterate that the comment about "old and blinkered" wasn't seriously meant, but was meant to expose the crassness of Baldric's "young and blinkered" remark. Apparently, people have missed that -- or agree with him, both of which are rather sad to see.