Could you provide evidence for that? And if so, I would agree - Goldman Sachs apparently cooked the books so Greece qualified for EU membership, a disaster and they cooked the books so Osbourne et al could flog off our Royal Mail and cost us billions. They are elitist institutions that have zero accountability or morality. (Though remember it was the UK gov that opposed the 'Robin Hood' bank levy which the EU tried to bring about).

One has to decide for herself, I've looked at EU policies (and provided examples here) and along with my general ideas about the world I think we're better off remaining in and working with our European partners to improve the EU. It's no good looking at what Goldman Sachs or Murdoch want, they're only out for their own interests.

But some of my reasons are selfish too - I like being an EU citizen, I like the idea I can move, work, travel and if needed, collect welfare in other EU countries. I like the idea my kids could escape the £9'000k p/a tuition fees. I think more choice is better. I think the UK has done very well from free movement within the EU.

For me no one has been able to point out just why we ought to leave the EU or what is fundamentally wrong with it - honestly I'd like to know, maybe I'm just uninformed!

For me the Brexit argument goes like this; "don't worry we'll have all the benefits of EU membership, free movement, access to the common market, etc but we won't have to pay for it", which makes me question why leave the EU and if this is really a realistic proposition. I think the EU are going to be pretty unforgiving If we leave. Why should we have all the benefits without the costs?

What's more I'm not convinced in the slightest that leaving the EU will solve immigration, or save the NHS (seriously as if men like Gove, Lansely et al give a **** about the NHS) or dampen the looming trans-atlantic trade deal, etc. Things will only get worse, climate change, mass migration, resource wars and middle eastern instability, unprecedented inequality and corporate unaccountability, these won't pass over the UK simply because we back out and walk away from Europe. If anything, I feel we'll be in less of a position to influence them. We're no longer an island.

The only certainty for leaving that I can see is it'll be Boris versus Corbin rather than Osbourne versus Corbin.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

If that is more than just a piece of rhetoric then you really are not reading the narrative that is posted in here, in which case it would be your loss:-

[QUOTE=Walkabout;532389]The above is the short version and provides a start point; much more to come.

__________________
Dave

Me neither.

Feedback is a gift.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

Got this which four clicks on google......not hard to find info on both sides of the argument, you just have to go looking !!

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs fund Britain's pro-Europe referendum group - Business Insider

So bankers are bad. Bankers want remain in the EU. Remaining in the EU is bad. Is that the argument?

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

Undoubtedly, funding of lobbying, formally, informally, secretly, semi-secretly and overtly, is the shape of things nowadays.
So, campaigns are not exempt from this; at 10 weeks out from the date of the referendum the electoral commission will announce the "official" campaign groupings - this is vastly important to them all at present because the designated, favoured, groups will receive public funds for their own particular POV.

As but one more example, here's another case of how funds are allocated to "pressure groups", some of whom are very secret about where the money comes from:-

"This is apparent in the government's review of the balance of competences concerning the environment.807 There, we see the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) expressing the view that the EU's water directives "have been instrumental in delivering improvements in river water quality". The Royal Society also attributed improvements in air quality to EU action and thought that the EU's ambitious climate change targets could provide a competitive advantage over countries which are slower to act.
Yet, nowhere in the entire review is there any indication that the RSPB has been the beneficiary of grants to the value of €14 million from the EU, to support various projects. Nor is there any indication that the international arm of the RSPB, Birdlife International, with offices in Brussels, was lead recipient of funds to the extent of €25,680,683, paid by the European Commission between 2007 and 2012. Furthermore, while the RSPB presents information about itself in the evidence submitted to the review, it makes no reference to its EU funding sources."

Note: this cash came from the European Commission.

__________________
Dave

The EU grant is clearly and separately identified and commented on in the published RSPB Report & Accounts. Are you suggesting that there have not been improvements in air and river water quality? If not, I don't see your point.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

My point was clearly stated in the heading to the posting: lobbying, campaigning etc. - all this in the context of a national referendum.
(as it happens the earlier link referring to GS and JPM shows that there are major players funding both sides of the great debate).

Few people read accounts (the last ones I consulted were for the charity Kids company when that went down the tubes).
In the government review that I referenced the funding of the RSPB in their own lobbying "role" was not clearly identified.
Many NGOs do this; in NZ, at least one major NGO has lost its' charitable status because of their activities.

How you link my post to a questioning of air and water quality when I am referring to lobbying etc is kind of weird.

__________________
Dave

Nope. Not getting it.

The EU grant to the RSPB didn't stop them heavily criticising the European budget deal in 2013. You think they should declare their EU grant status every time they speak or maybe not praise any EU activity because of their status as EU grant recipients?

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

Where did I say that?

The government review is taking evidence from those who have their own agendas.
We all do it; some are paid to say what they say.

__________________
Dave

As Wildman said, it's really no good looking to people or groups whom you usually disagree to make a decision on brexit. Not only is it a logical fallacy, the brexit has split right down party lines. For me I'd either be in bed with Murdoch or Cameron, not exactly moral bed fellows.

Notice you failed to mention that two large hedgefunds are bankrolling the brexit campaign. Talk about cherry picking!

Spoil sport! I saving that one.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand