EU Referendum

[-:Undertaker:-]

First of all, I am entitled to an opinion. Second of all, I said this is one of the reasons to stay in. I didn't say it was an important reason, I said it is a reason.

Yes but you've just been shown that roaming charges has nothing to do with us leaving the EU. From the mouth of a pro-EU minister.

Okay you were perhaps mistaken I am not trying to make you look silly just correct you if you're at least open-minded on the subject.

Third of all, just so others know you're wrong:

Taken from: https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/what...s-if-we-leave/

Travel abroad

Millions of UK citizens travel to Europe each year. The EU has made
this easier and cheaper.

EU reforms in the 1990s have resulted in a drop in fares of over 40%
for lower cost flights.

From next year, mobile phone roaming charges will be abolished
across the EU, saving UK customers up to 38p per minute on calls.

All you've done is copy and paste some very questionable claims from the governments own website.

I've just shown above on the roaming charges point how it has really has very little to do with the European Union. I beg you to read it.

I don't particularly agree with David Cameron and was going to vote Brexit like many other people, but realised to leave to annoy him isn't a good enough reason. Sure, to leave might be the best idea in the long run. But there will be uncertainty.

Exactly my point.

Also, what about all those British nationals who are retired abroad in EU countries? What will they do?

What do you mean what will they do?

Millions of Britons live in non-EU America, Australia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Russia and South Africa.

You don't have to be ruled by another country to live, work and travel between them.

[Cerinacy]

Yes but you've just been shown that roaming charges has nothing to do with us leaving the EU. From the mouth of a pro-EU minister.

Okay you were perhaps mistaken I am not trying to make you look silly just correct you if you're at least open-minded on the subject.



All you've done is copy and paste some very questionable claims from the governments own website.

I've just shown above on the roaming charges point how it has really has very little to do with the European Union. I beg you to read it.



Exactly my point.



What do you mean what will they do?

Millions of Britons live in non-EU America, Australia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Russia and South Africa.

You don't have to be ruled by another country to live, work and travel between them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36027205

Here are the reasons for those wanting to stay in the EU on different areas, and the reasons for leaving the EU. It's all down to what you want and believe in. It says under 'Travelling Abroad', Flights to Europe and using mobile phones on holiday are cheaper thanks to the EU. BBC news website.

For those people who want to leave the EU because of the cost memberships paid, if David Cameron stated that the £350m a week spent on being a part of the EU would be given to the NHS etc. then I am there with you, 100%. The fact is, this government will just use that money for their own sakes or for savings.

What about EU healthcare card? It is likely that travel insurance would increase as it is more expensive anyway now travel insurance wise to visit a non EU country.


Also, have a read of this document: https://4csjs540i3sl474btf1qhbrq-wpe...cedocument.pdf

The European Arrest Warrant has returned over 1,000 criminals to face justice in the UK, that would be lost.

If David Cameron didn't have the special status with the EU then I would agree on exit too.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Firstly a +rep from me for putting your points forward and not engaging in personality attacks as well as seemingly being open minded about this.

Here are the reasons for those wanting to stay in the EU on different areas, and the reasons for leaving the EU. It's all down to what you want and believe in. It says under 'Travelling Abroad', Flights to Europe and using mobile phones on holiday are cheaper thanks to the EU. BBC news website.

How and by what mechanism are they cheaper?

It seems to me to be a baseless claim. Flights to non-EU Turkey, Russia, Egypt, Iceland and Norway are also very cheap.

For those people who want to leave the EU because of the cost memberships paid, if David Cameron stated that the £350m a week spent on being a part of the EU would be given to the NHS etc. then I am there with you, 100%. The fact is, this government will just use that money for their own sakes or for savings.

Then surely in a democracy you could then vote for another party to spend the money how you see fit?

What about EU healthcare card? It is likely that travel insurance would increase as it is more expensive anyway now travel insurance wise to visit a non EU country.

You haven't got to be a member of the EU to take part in the European Healthcare system.

EEA countries and EFTA countries (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein) are all part of the scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...Insurance_Card

The European Arrest Warrant has returned over 1,000 criminals to face justice in the UK, that would be lost.

You can take part in co-operation on justice and crime without being subject to European courts or in the European Union, as the agreements that Norway has show: http://www.eu-norway.org/Policyareas.../#.VyYkq_krLIU

I would question whether you really think the EAW is a good thing however as it means you can be taken off to a country such as Greece without the say of a British judge and left in a cell without being charged or taken to trial for months even years. In Europe they do not have common law like we do so whether you receive a fair trial or not is very shaky. I personally would not take part in the EAW.

Well argued reasons against Britain taking part in the EAW can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...ain-badly.html

If David Cameron didn't have the special status with the EU then I would agree on exit too.

But there is no special status for Britain. The renegotiation he has 'secured' has no legal standing. If Britain had really secured anything meaningful then it would have meant treaty changes would have to be enacted. None of this has happened. They're selling you the same story they told everyone in 1975 that there would be clear red lines and no more powers would go to Brussels... and the total opposite happened.

You sound like you have an open mind on this topic though so I really would urge you to read into the claims made by the government before voting.

[Cerinacy]

Firstly a +rep from me for putting your points forward and not engaging in personality attacks as well as seemingly being open minded about this.



How and by what mechanism are they cheaper?

It seems to me to be a baseless claim. Flights to non-EU Turkey, Russia, Egypt, Iceland and Norway are also very cheap.



Then surely in a democracy you could then vote for another party to spend the money how you see fit?



You haven't got to be a member of the EU to take part in the European Healthcare system.

EEA countries and EFTA countries (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein) are all part of the scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...Insurance_Card

You can take part in co-operation on justice and crime without being subject to European courts or in the European Union, as the agreements that Norway has show: http://www.eu-norway.org/Policyareas.../#.VyYkq_krLIU

I would question whether you really think the EAW is a good thing however as it means you can be taken off to a country such as Greece without the say of a British judge and left in a cell without being charged or taken to trial for months even years. In Europe they do not have common law like we do so whether you receive a fair trial or not is very shaky. I personally would not take part in the EAW.

Well argued reasons against Britain taking part in the EAW can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...ain-badly.html



But there is no special status for Britain. The renegotiation he has 'secured' has no legal standing. If Britain had really secured anything meaningful then it would have meant treaty changes would have to be enacted. None of this has happened. They're selling you the same story they told everyone in 1975 that there would be clear red lines and no more powers would go to Brussels... and the total opposite happened.

You sound like you have an open mind on this topic though so I really would urge you to read into the claims made by the government before voting.

Alright, cheers buddy. Yeah I will have a look at all of this. I guess I do want to exit, but am just worried if that makes sense?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Alright, cheers buddy. Yeah I will have a look at all of this. I guess I do want to exit, but am just worried if that makes sense?

I think most people feel like you do where in their hearts they want out but feel unsure with all the claims being made hence why they're churning out scare story after scare story. But then again if you remember the Conservatives did exactly the same at the last General Election telling us all if Ed Miliband and Labour got in then we'd be bankrupt and Alex Salmond would be running the country. It's what politicians do.

I'd advise just look at the debates and always check up when you hear a claim made or try and compare it to make sure whether what is being claimed is really true? Do we really need to be in the EU to trade with it? Well how come my t-shirt is from Taiwan? Do we really need to be in the EU to have a European healthcare? Well how come non-EU Norway takes part in it? That sort of thing. We have the benefit today in 2016 of the internet to check what they're all claiming, something we never had back in 1975 when we had to rely on what the government and the newspapers said.



You might be interested in this if you're really bored.

The biggest debate so far held on the EU hosted by the Spectator and BBC's Andrew Neil infront of a 2,000+ crowd.

[Cerinacy]

I think most people feel like you do where in their hearts they want out but feel unsure with all the claims being made hence why they're churning out scare story after scare story. But then again if you remember the Conservatives did exactly the same at the last General Election telling us all if Ed Miliband and Labour got in then we'd be bankrupt and Alex Salmond would be running the country. It's what politicians do.

I'd advise just look at the debates and always check up when you hear a claim made or try and compare it to make sure whether what is being claimed is really true? Do we really need to be in the EU to trade with it? Well how come my t-shirt is from Taiwan? Do we really need to be in the EU to have a European healthcare? Well how come non-EU Norway takes part in it? That sort of thing. We have the benefit today in 2016 of the internet to check what they're all claiming, something we never had back in 1975 when we had to rely on what the government and the newspapers said.



You might be interested in this if you're really bored.

The biggest debate so far held on the EU hosted by the Spectator and BBC's Andrew Neil infront of a 2,000+ crowd.

Cheers buddy, just finishing off reading the links! Interesting! So it looks like we won't suffer and will have more freedom.

Will watch that now. Cheers! Woah!

[The Don]

Cheers buddy, just finishing off reading the links! Interesting! So it looks like we won't suffer and will have more freedom.

Will watch that now. Cheers! Woah!

I wouldn't change your vote due to the claims Dan (-:Undertaker:-) makes. He's a nice writer, but more often than not his 'facts' are not backed by truth. I'm clearly biased as well (in favour of staying) so don't let our opinions influence you.

Read through the actual facts here: https://fullfact.org/europe/ from an independent unbiased source and make an opinion on the facts.

The roaming charges does have everything to do with the EU by the way. The UK could have capped them at any point but didn't until the EU brought in legislation.

Here's an excellent post in response to Dan's lies claiming otherwise:

I stopped reading most of your posts as I became bored of the same repetition. You do not debate, you repeat yourself constantly and refuse to admit you have been defeated on any point. For example, here the EU have done something good and you are looking for excuses to trash them? I enjoy good debates, not someone just repeating the same points with IFS, BUTS, COULDS, WOULDS. And more importantly you attack those from the STAY campaign who use the same IFS BUTS WOULD etc. It's pathetic.

Like Akeam said, the UK never abolished the roaming even though it could have, the EU did. So despite how much you hate the EU, give them credit instead of trying to run around looking for excuses and making yourself look like a bigger fool.

from here: https://www.habboxforum.com/showthre...55#post8463555

[-:Undertaker:-]

@The Don;

@Cerinacy; actually debated me above without resorting to personality attacks like you and others have and on being given information that states otherwise to what the government claimed has decided to go and look at it. He's not a closed mind which means if he's confronted with something new in terms of evidence, he'll go and look at it: whether or not he agrees with me in the end who knows that is his decision. If he looks at that thread and the quote you've posted he'll notice that abc makes a personal attack on me and my style of argument and doesn't actually address any of the sources and evidence I have posted just as you have not addressed what the Minister in this area said himself which I posted only a page back. Yet you've not proved me otherwise, why?

You're welcome to debate with me Akeam and reply directly to my post about Ed Vaizey MP saying leaving the EU would not affect this. Prove me otherwise right now. Infact, let's start now and Cerinacy can see the debate in action.

The roaming charges does have everything to do with the EU by the way. The UK could have capped them at any point but didn't until the EU brought in legislation.

Why would the British government bring in legislation of its own in this area when it knew it was coming through on an EU level which of course is supreme in law? In other words, had the government brought the legislation in earlier and drawn it up itself, it would be a complete waste of time as shortly afterwards we would then of had to re-write all the legislation on the matter as EU law would be different. If you knew a law was coming from the EU in two years time that you would have to implement, why would you seek to waste time and introduce that said legislation two years earlier in the full knowledge that it would have to be ripped up?

Here's the truth on mobile roaming charges which Cerinacy will notice nobody in that thread has once replied to because they cannot. Instead they attack me (playing the man and not the ball) and just straight forward ignore it. Well Akeam, now is your chance to debate the cold hard facts what I post with an interested forum member watching us.

The EU can claim very little which is to the direct advantage of ordinary people. So, when it thinks there is something it can use to its advantage, it grabs it with both hands and pushes it for all it's worth.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, to find the Government in its propaganda leaflet bigging up the decision to abolish mobile phone roaming charges across the EU, thereby saving UK customers up to 38p per minute on calls.

Claiming credit for such things, though, is what the EU does – even when it is not the prime mover. As Pete pointed out a little while back, reducing roaming charges is a global initiative in which one of the major players is not the EU but the OECD.

However, if there is any single group that can take the credit for forcing changes, it is an obscure organisation that calls itself the International Telephone Users Group (INTUG). Founded in 1974, a year after the UK joined the then EEC, it is an international association of business users of telecommunications with members and contacts in all five continents and thus claims a global presence.

In 2010, the OECD published its policy recommendations, which put the move to reduce roaming charges on a truly international footing, also pulling in the WTO as part of a globally co-ordinated initiative.

In 2013, effectively it was all over, with the OECD invoking WTO (of which the UK does not have a seat due to EU membership) provisions, stating that "international mobile roaming services are believed to fall under the scope of these provisions" and "more clearly so under section 5 a) of the Annex on Telecommunications".

EU or not, the writing was on the wall. We saw in 2013, India committing to removing roaming charges. African countries followed, alongside Latin America. ASEAN members are set to do likewise. In the United States and the Caribbean, things are also moving in the right direction.

As for the EU, it has been slow to the point of hesitant, its actions marked down as unambitious. Its claim to be looking after consumer interests is hollow, representing nothing more than them taking credit for an unstoppable movement that was going to happen anyway.

The initiative has been a global one not an EU one and other nations have done the same even earlier than the EU. Clear as daylight.

Now why are you all praising the EU as though we couldn't have achieved this by not being members when various other non-EU countries have done the same?

[The Don]

@The Don;
@Cerinacy;

Dan, do you ever stop and wonder why everyone on this forum has either given up getting into discussions with you and have instead resulted to posting one or two lines mocking you, or they just don’t reply? It's because you act as if your opinion is superior to everyone else's. You have this grandiose attitude. Pretty much every post of yours on this forum is you shoving your opinions down other people’s throats. I used to do it too and I’m sure lots of people have done, but for most of us it was a phase and we grew up out of it. With you it has just gotten worse and worse over time. It wouldn’t even be a problem if you kept it to the debates section, but here we are in discuss anything and you just couldn’t help but preach to everyone about how terrible the EU is, or how you’re this underdog speaking the .,-+’#*TRUTH*#’+-,. and everyone else is wrong.

It wouldn’t actually be annoying if you knew how to debate. Instead, you often repeat the same illogical points over and over again until everyone else has abandoned the thread, or you twist what the other person has said into a separate argument and then respond to your own made up point.

Take the roaming charges debate for example. Yes, more and more countries are putting caps on roaming charges thanks to an OECD recommendation (which doesn’t have to be followed). This doesn’t change the fact that the EU was the ones who introduced the caps here in the UK. The fact that other countries were doing it too doesn’t remove credit from the EU as they were the ones that introduced the legislation here. Instead of accepting the fact that the big scary EU did something good for ‘once’, you instead caused a 5-page debate in the current affairs section talking about how the UK would have done it years ago if we had never been in the EU. Pure conjecture. A prime example of how much of a fanatic you are is this thread:

https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=835369

A thread in which you compare our relationship with the US, one of our main allies, as similar-to or worse than the relationship between the US and the USSR during the cold war. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that
you created this thread in response to the video I posted in the EU thread where Obama says we should stay in the EU. The mental gymnastics you’re willing to pull is unreal; you actually used a Trotsky speech from 1925 and a Wikipedia page on manifest destiny to reinforce your argument in some sort of desperate attempt to convince us… what exactly? That we shouldn’t listen to Obama about the EU because he’s the leader of our enemy? I genuinely can’t fathom how you thought that would turn out. Did you genuinely think someone would see your thread and think “well, guess I better vote to leave the EU now since it turns out America’s the enemy and Obama wants us to stay in the EU so we should do the opposite!”

Or look at how ridiculous this exchange is:

Have you replied to any of the arguments yet in the EU thread?

Anyway this old recycled story that gets thrown up every so often, so easy to debunk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36171266



In addition to this, roaming charges are now being abolished across the globe: this isn't unique to the EU or Europe.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/..._we_vote_leave



Even if it was just the EU (it is not) and you had to be in the EU to abolish them (again, not) it wouldn't justify staying in and being governed from abroad.

You haven't debunked anything? All you've done is parrot the rest of the leave camp and said "well we could do this without being in the EU". Just because something could be done outside of the EU doesn't mean it would. They actually did it, so how about giving credit where it's due?

That's called democracy.

What an incredibly well-thought-out and articulate reply.

People don’t resort to personal attack when debating you because you’ve outdone them, they do it because you’re annoying and unwilling to admit when you’re wrong.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again personal attacks below and not engaging properly with the points of debate.

HabboxLive, are you reading this? A live referendum debate show would make a good show and I would love to take Akeam on one-to-one in a verbal debate.

Dan, do you ever stop and wonder why everyone on this forum has either given up getting into discussions with you and have instead resulted to posting one or two lines mocking you, or they just don’t reply? It's because you act as if your opinion is superior to everyone else's. You have this grandiose attitude. Pretty much every post of yours on this forum is you shoving your opinions down other people’s throats. I used to do it too and I’m sure lots of people have done, but for most of us it was a phase and we grew up out of it. With you it has just gotten worse and worse over time. It wouldn’t even be a problem if you kept it to the debates section, but here we are in discuss anything and you just couldn’t help but preach to everyone about how terrible the EU is, or how you’re this underdog speaking the .,-+’#*TRUTH*#’+-,. and everyone else is wrong.

Again personal attacks.

A lot of people on here actually agree with me in private on various topics and will say so to me via VM, reputation, PM or social media but will stay out of the debates because they dislike the personal character attacks you and others will deploy against them. I personally don't care and can brush it off but just because there's a loudmouth group of about three or four of you who will all +rep one another and post snide personal remarks against me doesn't mean you're in the majority or that you speak for the forum, buster.

Now again that's ANOTHER personal route we've gone down. Give it a rest and debate the argument not my style of argument.

It wouldn’t actually be annoying if you knew how to debate. Instead, you often repeat the same illogical points over and over again until everyone else has abandoned the thread, or you twist what the other person has said into a separate argument and then respond to your own made up point.

Again attacking how I debate (or how he imagines I debate) rather than what I have posted. If you believe my points to be so illogical then you should easily be able to show me up as a fool and leave me speechless. But you don't, instead you'll either ignore what I have said completely as with my post about completing the Single Market or just dismiss it as "silly" or "illogical" without actually proving as to why that is the case.

And yet again another paragraph dedicated solely to attacking my style of argument. Why not attack the actual substance of my arguments?

Take the roaming charges debate for example. Yes, more and more countries are putting caps on roaming charges thanks to an OECD recommendation (which doesn’t have to be followed). This doesn’t change the fact that the EU was the ones who introduced the caps here in the UK. The fact that other countries were doing it too doesn’t remove credit from the EU as they were the ones that introduced the legislation here. Instead of accepting the fact that the big scary EU did something good for ‘once’, you instead caused a 5-page debate in the current affairs section talking about how the UK would have done it years ago if we had never been in the EU. Pure conjecture. A prime example of how much of a fanatic you are is this thread:

Finally! We have an answer.

Now you ask me why I won't congratulate the European Union on roaming charges. Firstly because I disagree with them [price caps] as they'll simply push up domestic charges in my eyes as with most price caps. Secondly and most importantly because the legislation has no democratic mandate what so ever as with all EU legislation. Thirdly and finally the legislation is nothing special and has been introduced by various other nations.

abc posted it purely to make political capital out of the issue as though it was something groundbreaking. It simply isn't as I pointed out.

https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=835369

A thread in which you compare our relationship with the US, one of our main allies, as similar-to or worse than the relationship between the US and the USSR during the cold war. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that you created this thread in response to the video I posted in the EU thread where Obama says we should stay in the EU. The mental gymnastics you’re willing to pull is unreal; you actually used a Trotsky speech from 1925 and a Wikipedia page on manifest destiny to reinforce your argument in some sort of desperate attempt to convince us… what exactly? That we shouldn’t listen to Obama about the EU because he’s the leader of our enemy? I genuinely can’t fathom how you thought that would turn out. Did you genuinely think someone would see your thread and think “well, guess I better vote to leave the EU now since it turns out America’s the enemy and Obama wants us to stay in the EU so we should do the opposite!”

Of course I posted it in response. Why ever not?

Britain and America may be allies but we are rivals and have been throughout history. One should not assume that the United States acts in the interests of this country when throughout history, even as allies, they have purposely undermined us when they felt American interests to be threatened.

If Obama wishes to come here and speak: fine. But I can and will remind people that America is looking out for America, not Britain. See the Iraq War.

What an incredibly well-thought-out and articulate reply.

You don't understand what I mean by that?

Do you not understand that I am making the argument that if the British government did not want to implement this legislation then it should not be forced to by an unelected European Commission? And that the decisions our government makes, for good or for bad depending on where you stand, should be accountable to us at election time rather than unaccountable and written up in secret as with the unelected European Commission?

When I say that's called democracy that's because having an elected government make these decisions rather than somebody else is democracy.

People don’t resort to personal attack when debating you because you’ve outdone them, they do it because you’re annoying and unwilling to admit when you’re wrong.

No that is exactly what they do just as I had a death wish from a forum member the other day who couldn't or wouldn't debate me.