Jump to content

Referendum  

50 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24


Recommended Posts

Democracy EU style.

 

Jean-Claude Junker (unelected) has announced that any EU country electing a right wing populist party will be subject to sanctions and will lose voting rights. Currently aimed at Austria and Poland.

 

I googled this because I wanted to know your source. Turns out it's the Sun? I read the article and it's just blatant disinformation.

 

1) He never said any EU country electing a right wing populist party will be subject to sanctions and will lose voting rights because he doens't have the authority to do so. What he (probably) said and what was (intentionally?) misinterpreted by the Sun is that part of the policy put forth by extremist (left or right) parties is in breach of EU law. It is the role of the Commission to make sure every member state upholds EU law. If a member state goes against EU law, the Commission can summon that member state before the European Court of Justice which can impose sanctions or suspend voting rights.

 

2) Junker is Commission President. He was proposed for this position by a consensus among the member states. He then had to be approved by the European Parliament.

 

.

 

It's a shame that people would vote (stay or leave) just because "they can" and thereby cancel out a vote from someone who genuinely thought about it and informed themselves.

 

It's an even bigger shame that people who try to make an informed opinion are confronted with disinformation and lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A google directed me to the Sun website which surprised me as I do not read the Sun. However, if your comment is meant to infer that as its the Sun it must be bollocks, then it is also in the Telegraph today, which I do read. The interpretation by both papers is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A google directed me to the Sun website which surprised me as I do not read the Sun. However, if your comment is meant to infer that as its the Sun it must be bollocks, then it is also in the Telegraph today, which I do read. The interpretation by both papers is the same.

 

Happy to read you don't read the Sun. I was just appalled by the tone and content of the Sun article. (I've read up on Rod Liddle and apparently he's an idiot on a wide variety of topics).

 

But you don't have to be alarmed; both the Telegraph and the Sun are wrong if they write that Juncker himself can sanction any country just because they have an extremist government.

 

Look at Hungary for example; they've had crazy Victor Orban as president for 6 years now; he regularly clashes with Juncker, but as of today: no sanctions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Happy to read you don't read the Sun. I was just appalled by the tone and content of the Sun article. (I've read up on Rod Liddle and apparently he's an idiot on a wide variety of topics).

 

But you don't have to be alarmed; both the Telegraph and the Sun are wrong if they write that Juncker himself can sanction any country just because they have an extremist government.

 

Look at Hungary for example; they've had crazy Victor Orban as president for 6 years now; he regularly clashes with Juncker, but as of today: no sanctions.

 

Its not an issue whether Junker himself can sanction any country because they have an extremist government. Its the fact that he made the statement at the G7. He was also backed up by his chief of staff, Martin Selmayr. Wherever the policy was designed is irrelevant, it exists. As the Telegraph says: 'Mr Selmayr's demand that 'populism' be combated also betrays the EU's instinctive distrust of democracy'. The only option to this is that Junker and Selmayr were making personal statements which do not represent EU policy, but I find that hard to believe. I should also point out that the Telegraph piece wasn't an article it was an Editorial where extra care is taken that facts are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought though, I noticed when I am in here just a moment ago, I am with Bill, Johnh and MikeO. Made me suspect that age has an important effect on the voting. Not which way of course as I want out and Mike wants in. I was curious as to how important folks feel about the subject and the age they are at.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36396710

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its not an issue whether Junker himself can sanction any country because they have an extremist government. Its the fact that he made the statement at the G7. He was also backed up by his chief of staff, Martin Selmayr. Wherever the policy was designed is irrelevant, it exists. As the Telegraph says: 'Mr Selmayr's demand that 'populism' be combated also betrays the EU's instinctive distrust of democracy'. The only option to this is that Junker and Selmayr were making personal statements which do not represent EU policy, but I find that hard to believe. I should also point out that the Telegraph piece wasn't an article it was an Editorial where extra care is taken that facts are correct.

 

Honestly, I would not object to giving younger people a greater say in the country's future. I understand that "older and wiser" is true, because we old fogies have learned some life lessons the hard way; however, the younger generation will be affected more greatly by the outcome of the vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I would not object to giving younger people a greater say in the country's future. I understand that "older and wiser" is true, because we old fogies have learned some life lessons the hard way; however, the younger generation will be affected more greatly by the outcome of the vote.

true, we younger folk have to live with the result of the referendum that that tosspot in charge has forced upon us, but we need the experience of everyone, young and old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make that two of us.

i missed 1 registration (the only one available to me) because I was 19 heading to uni and completely lost at the time. Because of that, I can never again vote on anything to do what affects me.

 

I've said before, that missing out on the vote for parliament is fine; I don't live there, don't intend to live there if it can be helped and I pay no taxes - on the leadership I don't deserve a voice. But this affects me and I should have a voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its not an issue whether Junker himself can sanction any country because they have an extremist government. Its the fact that he made the statement at the G7. He was also backed up by his chief of staff, Martin Selmayr. Wherever the policy was designed is irrelevant, it exists. As the Telegraph says: 'Mr Selmayr's demand that 'populism' be combated also betrays the EU's instinctive distrust of democracy'. The only option to this is that Junker and Selmayr were making personal statements which do not represent EU policy, but I find that hard to believe. I should also point out that the Telegraph piece wasn't an article it was an Editorial where extra care is taken that facts are correct.

 

Missed this post.

 

I'm willing to assume that the Telegraph-journalist genuinely believes that Juncker or his chief of staff said that populism should be combated by sanctions imposed by the Commission. But if he was taking extra care that the facts are correct, he maybe should have investigated if Juncker actually can sanction any country just because they have an extremist government.

 

I also believe populism should be combated, as it exploits the broader (uninformed) public, but that in no way implies that I have an instinctive distrust of democracy. Actually the better informed the public is, the better democracy works.

 

Quite frankly, stating that the EU has an instinctive distrust of democracy is a very populist statement. But as you stated you got your info from an Editorial and you can definitely tell this journalist is leaning towards Leave.

 

In any case, people voting Leave because they dislike Juncker have a very shortsighted view on things. Juncker will be gone in a few years and in no way personifies the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Missed this post.

 

I'm willing to assume that the Telegraph-journalist genuinely believes that Juncker or his chief of staff said that populism should be combated by sanctions imposed by the Commission. But if he was taking extra care that the facts are correct, he maybe should have investigated if Juncker actually can sanction any country just because they have an extremist government.

 

I also believe populism should be combated, as it exploits the broader (uninformed) public, but that in no way implies that I have an instinctive distrust of democracy. Actually the better informed the public is, the better democracy works.

 

Quite frankly, stating that the EU has an instinctive distrust of democracy is a very populist statement. But as you stated you got your info from an Editorial and you can definitely tell this journalist is leaning towards Leave.

 

In any case, people voting Leave because they dislike Juncker have a very shortsighted view on things. Juncker will be gone in a few years and in no way personifies the EU.

The same could be said about any leader, but it is the damage they can do while in power that is the problem, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The European Union may not be a democratic as we would like, but lets not forget that we elect MEP's and the government of the day chooses their representatives on the commission.

 

How democratic is the House of Lords, or the High Court, or any of the QUANGO's that can set regulations and standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I saw this in the comments section of the FT some weeks ago and it made me smile.
'Leaving the EU should not be feared or overcomplicated :-
It's very simple - There will be NO negotiating. The UK simply sends the EU bureaucrats and the heads of state of Germany and France our biggest trading partners a single A4 sheet. On it is written, thank you for the recent cooperation - now that the UK has left the EU, we wanted to show our appreciation for past endeavours and set out the future which should be a smooth interaction on trade.
The UK will trade with all EU member states on the same terms as before.
The trade is on goods and services and clearly there will be no further discussions regarding immigration, legal matters, foreign policy, climate change or anything regarding fiscal or internal economic policy, as these are matters for the British government and the people of Britain.
We don't expect that any of these omissions will affect trade, as equal trade terms are in the best interest of all EU nations concerned and Britain.
Should barriers to trade be erected by any state, then a reciprocation will take place, but clearly this is in no one's interests.
We wish you all well with your continued EU experiment.'
There are idiots on both sides of the campaign who you never think you'd align yourself with.

 

 

I think you're forgetting that import tarifs aren't the only thing that can inhibit trade. British products exported to the EU would still have to comply with EU regulation. A common European market can only be achieved if European countries accept uniform regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you're forgetting that import tarifs aren't the only thing that can inhibit trade. British products exported to the EU would still have to comply with EU regulation. A common European market can only be achieved if European countries accept uniform regulation.

 

Uniform regulation on what? The comment from the FT suggests all trade agreements stay in place. What regulation on 'immigration, legal matters, foreign policy, climate change or anything regarding fiscal or internal economic policy' would we need to comply with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 reasons to vote 'leave' and 3 reasons to vote 'remain' - from the local pub.

 

Leave:

1. Winston (Winnie) Churchill always gave two fingers to Europe. (His nickname 'Winnie' didn't mean he was gay as there were no such thing as gays then).

2. In the 1960's when Harold Wilson devalued the pound, he said that this doesn't mean the value of the pound in your pocket is devalued. This proves that our pound is magic and we should keep out of the euro.

3. We have never won the World Cup since we have been in the EU.

 

Remain:

1. If aliens invade from space then we don't want to be fighting them alone. We need back-up from countries like Brussels.

2. We will still be able to enter the Eurovision Song Contest.

3. Since we have been in the EU an English team has won the League and FA Cup every year. (except one year when Wigan won the cup).

 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uniform regulation on what? The comment from the FT suggests all trade agreements stay in place. What regulation on 'immigration, legal matters, foreign policy, climate change or anything regarding fiscal or internal economic policy' would we need to comply with?

 

Sorry, I interpreted the comment wrong. I thought it simply meant that there should be no trade tariffs or that they would be countered. But if you're fine with that trade-off (complying with EU regulation on goods and services without getting any say in what that regulation is in order to achieve autonomy on immigration etc.) then that's fine.

 

I think that's how Switzerland and Norway operate as well, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, I interpreted the comment wrong. I thought it simply meant that there should be no trade tariffs or that they would be countered. But if you're fine with that trade-off (complying with EU regulation on goods and services without getting any say in what that regulation is in order to achieve autonomy on immigration etc.) then that's fine.

 

I think that's how Switzerland and Norway operate as well, isn't it?

 

Come to think of it, no, it isn't, right? Because they also comply with EU laws on free movement. And really, isn't that necessary in order to optimalise access to the EU internal market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Come to think of it, no, it isn't, right? Because they also comply with EU laws on free movement. And really, isn't that necessary in order to optimalise access to the EU internal market?

is that not linked with the Schengin agreement, which the UK isn't part of. Or am I mixing things up here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is that not linked with the Schengin agreement, which the UK isn't part of. Or am I mixing things up here?

 

Free movement of workers is part of EU legislation and I believe part of the argument for a Brexit is that it would erase the favoured position EU workers have in terms of migration to the UK, isn't it? Here's an article on the issue btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still in two minds about this, and it seems much of the population is. I understand the strategic benefits of remaining in the EU and the importance of strong ties with neighboring countries. The idea of war within Europe these days is almost unthinkable, for example. EU countries constitute a large percentage of our trade as well. We're all free countries, and our values are shared.

 

But security would not be a threat should we leave. Trade would increase with Commonwealth countries, an asset we retain that others don't. The quagmire of bureaucracy and regulation is becoming a huge drag on the economy. Free migration within the EU is a source of significant problems, and no-one has been honest about numbers (always underestimated). There's no doubt that the EU is moving toward a United States of Europe, and I for one don't want that. And you have to worry about the power of the propaganda machine that's trying to convince everyone to stay: What does that say about our future?

 

My principal concern, which is clearly very much a minority issue, is that, without the EU, the English will once again walk all over the other British nations. The EU has recognized the Cornish people as an official minority, something the English would never have done, but Westminster cut all funding for the Cornish language initiative. Surely the same concern would exist for the Scottish and the Welsh: The more Europe is involved, the more respect and autonomy they could expect. For Scotland and Wales, though, they could realistically break from England and rejoin the EU, meaning that it actually makes sense for them to vote to leave: Cornwall doesn't have that option.

 

It must seem odd to many that an issue like this would tip the balance. With all else being equal, though, it's an important factor for me.

 

How will this play out? I think it might depend on what happens between now and the vote. We know the EU is planning to issue a report, just days in advance, that will try to terrify everyone about the financial impact on Britain should we leave. Will voters take that seriously or view it as propaganda? Will the striking workers in France do something obnoxious that could influence the electorate's thinking? Might ISIS carry out its threat against the Euros in France, leading to a backlash against more EU migrants entering Britain? The outcome of the vote might well depend on something unexpected happening in the next few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still in two minds about this, and it seems much of the population is. I understand the strategic benefits of remaining in the EU and the importance of strong ties with neighboring countries. The idea of war within Europe these days is almost unthinkable, for example. EU countries constitute a large percentage of our trade as well. We're all free countries, and our values are shared.

 

But security would not be a threat should we leave. Trade would increase with Commonwealth countries, an asset we retain that others don't. The quagmire of bureaucracy and regulation is becoming a huge drag on the economy. Free migration within the EU is a source of significant problems, and no-one has been honest about numbers (always underestimated). There's no doubt that the EU is moving toward a United States of Europe, and I for one don't want that. And you have to worry about the power of the propaganda machine that's trying to convince everyone to stay: What does that say about our future?

 

My principal concern, which is clearly very much a minority issue, is that, without the EU, the English will once again walk all over the other British nations. The EU has recognized the Cornish people as an official minority, something the English would never have done, but Westminster cut all funding for the Cornish language initiative. Surely the same concern would exist for the Scottish and the Welsh: The more Europe is involved, the more respect and autonomy they could expect. For Scotland and Wales, though, they could realistically break from England and rejoin the EU, meaning that it actually makes sense for them to vote to leave: Cornwall doesn't have that option.

 

It must seem odd to many that an issue like this would tip the balance. With all else being equal, though, it's an important factor for me.

 

How will this play out? I think it might depend on what happens between now and the vote. We know the EU is planning to issue a report, just days in advance, that will try to terrify everyone about the financial impact on Britain should we leave. Will voters take that seriously or view it as propaganda? Will the striking workers in France do something obnoxious that could influence the electorate's thinking? Might ISIS carry out its threat against the Euros in France, leading to a backlash against more EU migrants entering Britain? The outcome of the vote might well depend on something unexpected happening in the next few weeks.

 

 

Why would trade with other Commonwealth countries increase after a Brexit? Is consumer demand (for British products) in those countries suddenly going to rise after a Brexit or is EU membership inhibiting British trade with Commonwealth countries?

 

Also, there is a reason for EU regulation: to replace 28 sets of rules with harmonised ones, allowing companies to trade throughout the EU, so it's not exactly a drag on the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why would trade with other Commonwealth countries increase after a Brexit? Is consumer demand (for British products) in those countries suddenly going to rise after a Brexit or is EU membership inhibiting British trade with Commonwealth countries?

 

Because trade right now is negatively impacted due to EU bickering and regulation - as mentioned here and elsewhere.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, there is a reason for EU regulation: to replace 28 sets of rules with harmonised ones, allowing companies to trade throughout the EU, so it's not exactly a drag on the economy.

 

There's a difference between standards and regulation. The GSM standard, for example, allowed us to use cellphones around the world. That's good. But defining in minute detail what constitutes this, or what can or cannot be done in combination of that, and requiring reams of documents, which no one will ever read, to prove it, is a huge drag on the economy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because trade right now is negatively impacted due to EU bickering and regulation - as mentioned here and elsewhere.

 

 

To trade with the EU our goods and services would still have to meet EU standards, and we trade more with them that we do with the Commonwealth. Unless you are saying firms should have multiple production lines for different countries?

 

 

 

There's a difference between standards and regulation. The GSM standard, for example, allowed us to use cellphones around the world. That's good. But defining in minute detail what constitutes this, or what can or cannot be done in combination of that, and requiring reams of documents, which no one will ever read, to prove it, is a huge drag on the economy.

 

In order to ensure quality there needs to be agreement on what constitutes each item, otherwise you end up with products that are not fit for purpose. Its not a drag on the economy, far from it, imagine the cost to the economy of numerous law suits because items people bought were not what people expected them to be.

 

Using the Euro Sausage for example allot of farmers use high quality meat and nothing but great ingredients, imagine their anger if any old company then created a product with bear hardly any meat and lots of water and it also able to be called a sausage!

 

I'm not saying there isn't excessive regulation and that everything they use is perfect, its not. It is not however an excessive burden, just look at the success of European companies like BMW, Rolls Royce, and Renault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To trade with the EU our goods and services would still have to meet EU standards, and we trade more with them that we do with the Commonwealth. Unless you are saying firms should have multiple production lines for different countries?

 

 

In order to ensure quality there needs to be agreement on what constitutes each item, otherwise you end up with products that are not fit for purpose. Its not a drag on the economy, far from it, imagine the cost to the economy of numerous law suits because items people bought were not what people expected them to be.

 

Using the Euro Sausage for example allot of farmers use high quality meat and nothing but great ingredients, imagine their anger if any old company then created a product with bear hardly any meat and lots of water and it also able to be called a sausage!

 

I'm not saying there isn't excessive regulation and that everything they use is perfect, its not. It is not however an excessive burden, just look at the success of European companies like BMW, Rolls Royce, and Renault.

 

And VW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To trade with the EU our goods and services would still have to meet EU standards, and we trade more with them that we do with the Commonwealth. Unless you are saying firms should have multiple production lines for different countries?

 

 

In order to ensure quality there needs to be agreement on what constitutes each item, otherwise you end up with products that are not fit for purpose. Its not a drag on the economy, far from it, imagine the cost to the economy of numerous law suits because items people bought were not what people expected them to be.

 

Using the Euro Sausage for example allot of farmers use high quality meat and nothing but great ingredients, imagine their anger if any old company then created a product with bear hardly any meat and lots of water and it also able to be called a sausage!

 

I'm not saying there isn't excessive regulation and that everything they use is perfect, its not. It is not however an excessive burden, just look at the success of European companies like BMW, Rolls Royce, and Renault.

 

Companies are great because they know what customers want. BMW are crap right now (unreliability ratings), so their sales are plummeting in the US. Renault are so crap they don't even try to sell in the US (they used to, but the cars were terrible). And economies thrive when upstarts challenge the status quo. Small business owners will tell you just how much of a handicap excessive regulations can be. They can't afford the cost of lawyers and document writers. The big companies can and, once small innovative companies are pushed aside, get away with producing crap products. Regulations push up prices and thwart competition. (Again, standards are something different.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulations can and do push up standards and help create a level playing field.

 

US car market is very different to Europes, yet BMW, Mercedes, Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Aston Martin etc trade successfully around the world, both suffering now due to VW's emission scandal, but that will fade.

 

Small companies can and do compete with larger ones in some markets, depending on the barriers of entry to that market. Its easier for a small innovative company to compete in markets where they can out maneuver bigger competitors, in industries as diverse as software, renewable energy, finance, food shopping, fashion and communication. Where they struggle to compete are in industries like pharmaceuticals and car production where there are huge barriers to entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we've heard them all before, but here are some typical outlandish EU regulations - some of which were withdrawn after the understandable outcry:

 

- Eggs cannot be sold by the dozen. They must be sold by the kilogram.

- Cucumbers cannot be sold if their curvature exceeds 10mm for every 10cm in length.

- The angle on bananas cannot exceed a prescribed maximum.

- A jam with less than 50% sugar must be called a preserve.

- Producers of bottled water cannot claim that it helps prevent dehydration.

- Sellers of prunes cannot claim they promote bowel movement.

- A swede cannot be labled a turnip - unless it's in a Cornish pasty.

- Those suffering from diabetes may not drive.

- A child under 8 cannot blow up a balloon without adult supervision.

- Horses may be eaten, but not pet horses.

- It's illegal to use barley straw to clear garden ponds of algae.

- Restaurants cannot serve customers with dishes of olive oil for their bread.

- A child under 14 cannot use blow-out party poppers.

- A kiwi fruit cannot be sold if it weighs less than 62 pgrams.

 

How can anyone justify this level of regulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President of the European Council - Donald Tusk has warned the European Union leaders in the bluntest terms that their 'utopian' illusions are tearing Europe apart, and that any attempt to seize on Brexit to force through yet more integration would be a grave mistake.

In a passionate plea to the continent's leading conservatives, he accused the EU elites of living in a fool's paradise and provoking the Eurosceptic revolt now erupting in a string of countries. 'It is us who today are responsible' he said. 'Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm'....................

He called on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, and other leaders, to change strategy and abandon their reflexive push for an ever more centralised Europe.

 

Telegraph today. At last some sense coming out of Europe. They are terrified of a Brexit and is our best way of getting major reforms to the 'European project'. We can think about rejoining when its all sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we've heard them all before, but here are some typical outlandish EU regulations - some of which were withdrawn after the understandable outcry:

 

- Eggs cannot be sold by the dozen. They must be sold by the kilogram.

- Cucumbers cannot be sold if their curvature exceeds 10mm for every 10cm in length.

- The angle on bananas cannot exceed a prescribed maximum.

- A jam with less than 50% sugar must be called a preserve.

- Producers of bottled water cannot claim that it helps prevent dehydration.

- Sellers of prunes cannot claim they promote bowel movement.

- A swede cannot be labled a turnip - unless it's in a Cornish pasty.

- Those suffering from diabetes may not drive.

- A child under 8 cannot blow up a balloon without adult supervision.

- Horses may be eaten, but not pet horses.

- It's illegal to use barley straw to clear garden ponds of algae.

- Restaurants cannot serve customers with dishes of olive oil for their bread.

- A child under 14 cannot use blow-out party poppers.

- A kiwi fruit cannot be sold if it weighs less than 62 pgrams.

 

How can anyone justify this level of regulation?

Well the system works (a bit) if some were withdrawn, some make sense.

 

The EU has given us allot, Money for the areas devastated by unemployment, like the coal mining ares in Wales, supported the UK space technology industry which is now worth over 1 billion pounds a year, made Liverpool European City of Culture, created the worlds largest free trade area.

 

If we leave what does it look like, whats the plan, how will we manage things, that is something nobody from the Brexit side has been able to provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the system works (a bit) if some were withdrawn, some make sense.

 

The EU has given us allot, Money for the areas devastated by unemployment, like the coal mining ares in Wales, supported the UK space technology industry which is now worth over 1 billion pounds a year, made Liverpool European City of Culture, created the worlds largest free trade area.

 

If we leave what does it look like, whats the plan, how will we manage things, that is something nobody from the Brexit side has been able to provide.

 

Maybe we could have invested 1 billion pounds ourselves and kept the other 12+ billion a year net that we send the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we forget, I think, is that, if Britain chooses to leave, the EU would bend over backwards to win us back. We'd win all kinds of concessions. Europe does as much business with us as we do with them. Britain leaving will very much hurt their pocket books. I can't see leaders throwing a hissy fit and refusing to trade with us - quite the opposite, in fact. Plus, we'd be free to do deals with other parts of the world that are currently being blocked because of EU policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe we could have invested 1 billion pounds ourselves and kept the other 12+ billion a year net that we send the EU.

Its actually about 8.5 Billion when you take into account the re-bait and the money that the EU gives to the UK.

 

What we actually get for our money is worth far more, British business has access to the largest single market in the world, with a clearly defined set of trading rules and regulations that are enforced to protect companies and consumers. This has enabled UK companies to build up solid relationships with EU companies and become entwined in various supply chains. 2/3 of all UK exports to the EU are goods and not services.

 

If we were to leave the EU those goods that we sell would be disrupted and potentially made un-competitive depending on the trading relationship we end up having with the EU.

 

What we forget, I think, is that, if Britain chooses to leave, the EU would bend over backwards to win us back. We'd win all kinds of concessions. Europe does as much business with us as we do with them. Britain leaving will very much hurt their pocket books. I can't see leaders throwing a hissy fit and refusing to trade with us - quite the opposite, in fact. Plus, we'd be free to do deals with other parts of the world that are currently being blocked because of EU policies.

Yes the EU sells more to us than we do to them, but when you look at the EU's whole trade world wide we are not the be all or end all. The EU will not bend over backwards to keep us. If we vote to leave then that is it we are out. The EU will not go on bended knee asking us to stay. They existed before we joined and they can continue after we leave, although they will be weaker. They will do no extra deals with us, because if they do then what is to stop other countries pulling the same stunt? No as they have said if we vote out we are out.

 

Individual countries in the EU are not allowed to have trade deals with other countries, as we are in a single market every treaty has to be negotiated as the EU. Together we have greater bargaining power than individual states, because we offer access to the the worlds largest single market, so we can get better terms. As President Obama and even China have said they want to deal with big blocks of countries, and not on a country by country basis.

 

If we leave what is the end game, how will this work, will we do what Norway does and PAY to get access to the EU's market, if we do will still have to follow all the rules and regulations, but have no say in how the rules are made, oh and we have to allow the free movement of people.

 

Perhaps we wont do that we will use the WTO, even then we still have to follow all the rules and regulations, but have no say in how the rules are made, there is no free movement of people, but our goods and services can be subject to tariffs and trade restrictions.

 

Either way it will take at least 2 years to disentangle ourselves, and then we would have to re-negotiate trade agreements from scratch with every country. Then what happens to the millions of UK citizens who live in the EU, not to mention when we go the EU, if we fall ill we can use the EU Health scheme, we wont be able to any more.

 

So which one will it be and how will it work out, how does it all fit together? Nobody in the out camp can say.

 

How will this affect UK economy, well the World Bank, IMF, OECD, The Bank of England, top companies and financial institutions all say it will damage the UK economy, as well as the EU, with whom we do so much trade. In effect we then damage ourselves twice over.

 

The large financial and legal companies that dominate our private sector would in all likelihood move to Paris so they could still operate in the EU without impediment. That's not me talking that's the heads of these companies themselves saying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm not too concerned about the economics. There will be adjustments, but we've always been a strong trading nation. Plus, we'll have a cushion of many billions a year to help out given we'll no longer contribute to the EU. I simply don't trust politicians; President Obama will say what he's told to say, and the big bankers simply see less money under their control. They'll kick and scream, and no doubt come out with increasingly apocalyptic predictions, but there comes a point when their remonstrations lose credibility.

 

I'm more concerned about the rise of anti-immigrant groups and the intolerant UKIP after a Brexit. Their rantings and hyperbole and intimidations could lead to social strife, from which it would take many years to recover. And, as I mentioned before, the English will once more run rampant over other British cultures.

 

I'm still on the fence (not that it matters since I'm barred from voting). It's interesting to see the polls, though, beginning to turn in favour of leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually about 8.5 Billion when you take into account the re-bait and the money that the EU gives to the UK.

 

What we actually get for our money is worth far more, British business has access to the largest single market in the world, with a clearly defined set of trading rules and regulations that are enforced to protect companies and consumers. This has enabled UK companies to build up solid relationships with EU companies and become entwined in various supply chains. 2/3 of all UK exports to the EU are goods and not services.

 

If we were to leave the EU those goods that we sell would be disrupted and potentially made un-competitive depending on the trading relationship we end up having with the EU.

 

Yes the EU sells more to us than we do to them, but when you look at the EU's whole trade world wide we are not the be all or end all. The EU will not bend over backwards to keep us. If we vote to leave then that is it we are out. The EU will not go on bended knee asking us to stay. They existed before we joined and they can continue after we leave, although they will be weaker. They will do no extra deals with us, because if they do then what is to stop other countries pulling the same stunt? No as they have said if we vote out we are out.

 

Individual countries in the EU are not allowed to have trade deals with other countries, as we are in a single market every treaty has to be negotiated as the EU. Together we have greater bargaining power than individual states, because we offer access to the the worlds largest single market, so we can get better terms. As President Obama and even China have said they want to deal with big blocks of countries, and not on a country by country basis.

 

If we leave what is the end game, how will this work, will we do what Norway does and PAY to get access to the EU's market, if we do will still have to follow all the rules and regulations, but have no say in how the rules are made, oh and we have to allow the free movement of people.

 

Perhaps we wont do that we will use the WTO, even then we still have to follow all the rules and regulations, but have no say in how the rules are made, there is no free movement of people, but our goods and services can be subject to tariffs and trade restrictions.

 

Either way it will take at least 2 years to disentangle ourselves, and then we would have to re-negotiate trade agreements from scratch with every country. Then what happens to the millions of UK citizens who live in the EU, not to mention when we go the EU, if we fall ill we can use the EU Health scheme, we wont be able to any more.

 

So which one will it be and how will it work out, how does it all fit together? Nobody in the out camp can say.

 

How will this affect UK economy, well the World Bank, IMF, OECD, The Bank of England, top companies and financial institutions all say it will damage the UK economy, as well as the EU, with whom we do so much trade. In effect we then damage ourselves twice over.

 

The large financial and legal companies that dominate our private sector would in all likelihood move to Paris so they could still operate in the EU without impediment. That's not me talking that's the heads of these companies themselves saying it.

 

Good post.

 

Still hoping Leave wins it, primarily for the reasons explained in this article by a London School of Economics professor : https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/02/why-the-european-union-will-benefit-from-brexit/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a professor friend of mine doing coverage on the Brexit from an expat living in Switzerland point of view...

 

I was at a talk by the Swiss Banking Association's chairman yesterday and here are a few things I didn't know before.

 

1. Since the introduction of immigration caps on EU citizens in 2014, Swiss banks are not permitted to provide banking services to European clients directly.

 

2. Latest figures show that the UK is the single largest exporter of financial services in the world, correct as of 2014.

 

The main conclusion I draw from this is that, if the UK leaves the EU, it will, under no circumstance, put immigration caps on EU citizens because that would decimate the UK economy in fell swoop.

 

The central corollary is, if you want to leave the EU because you're worried about immigration from the EU, you're going to need another reason.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a professor friend of mine doing coverage on the Brexit from an expat living in Switzerland point of view...

 

 

And (let's be honest here), the number one reason people will vote leave is immigration. I'm not suggesting that's the case with all the out camp; John and others on here and many around the country will have given it deep thought and come to the conclusion that out is best, I respect that.

 

But there are huge numbers in the, "Bloody Poles taking our jobs/sponging off benefits" camp for who that's the only consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And (let's be honest here), the number one reason people will vote leave is immigration. I'm not suggesting that's the case with all the out camp; John and others on here and many around the country will have given it deep thought and come to the conclusion that out is best, I respect that.

 

But there are huge numbers in the, "Bloody Poles taking our jobs/sponging off benefits" camp for who that's the only consideration.

 

Immigration is way down my list, though while I don't think you should ban it, it certainly needs controlling. At the moment, no one has a clue what is happening, least of all the Government. Top of my list is the fact that the EU is undemocratic and the more it develops the more undemocratic it will become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Immigration is way down my list, though while I don't think you should ban it, it certainly needs controlling. At the moment, no one has a clue what is happening, least of all the Government. Top of my list is the fact that the EU is undemocratic and the more it develops the more undemocratic it will become.

 

wait john you don't want angela merkel telling you what to do? :rofl:

 

to be honest as an outsider it's interesting to me and i see value in both sides of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And (let's be honest here), the number one reason people will vote leave is immigration. I'm not suggesting that's the case with all the out camp; John and others on here and many around the country will have given it deep thought and come to the conclusion that out is best, I respect that.

 

But there are huge numbers in the, "Bloody Poles taking our jobs/sponging off benefits" camp for who that's the only consideration.

I think the out campaign plays on the ill founded fears that "Immigrants take our jobs and our benefits"

 

They do compete for jobs and there are some problems, especially in the agricultural area of agencies only advertising jobs abroad that need to be tackled. In truth though without them the NHS, Agricultural and production sectors would not be able to cope.

 

As for benefits there is a surprisingly good article in the Telegraph that show the low take up of benefits by EU immigrants.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11255425/How-much-do-immigrants-really-claim-in-benefits.html

 

There was a good routine done by Stewart Lee on this subject.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft338yltVLE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's going to be really funny is when the results come in, it's a narrow win for Leave and then the whole Parliament turn round and say "well we are your elected representatives, we have taken your opinion into consideration and decided it is wrong"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tory peer Lord Astor, who is Samantha Camerons stepfather, forecast there would not be a House of Commons majority to revoke the European Communities Act 1972 supporting the UKs membership.

 

An exit from the EU is actually not deliverable, he said, adding: The referendum is merely advisory it has no legal standing to force an exit. Parliament is still sovereign.

 

And there you have it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tory peer Lord Astor, who is Samantha Camerons stepfather, forecast there would not be a House of Commons majority to revoke the European Communities Act 1972 supporting the UKs membership.

 

An exit from the EU is actually not deliverable, he said, adding: The referendum is merely advisory it has no legal standing to force an exit. Parliament is still sovereign.

 

And there you have it!

 

Wouldn't happen, there'd be riots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like we have learned a lot about democracy from the EU.

 

For me John the fundamental flaw in your logic is that you believe the UK's legislative institutions are democratically elected while the EU's are not. It's just not the case; firstly we have an undemocratic electoral system that never gives us a house of commons that represents the views of the people. Then we have the totally unelected house of lords as an "upper" house. Not to mention the civil service.

 

We are no more democratic than the EU is imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Neill destroying George Osborne here.... fookin awesome display.

 

It's easy for any intelligent journo to destroy anyone from either side in reality, because neither side has any "facts" or idea of the consequences either way, they're all guessing. Watched a couple of minutes of someone from the out camp having his pants pulled down last night, it's like shooting fish in a barrel for them.

 

Bored shitless with it in all honesty, wish it was over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's easy for any intelligent journo to destroy anyone from either side in reality, because neither side has any "facts" or idea of the consequences either way, they're all guessing. Watched a couple of minutes of someone from the out camp having his pants pulled down last night, it's like shooting fish in a barrel for them.

 

Bored shitless with it in all honesty, wish it was over.

I must say Osborne looks a particularly snide smarmy twat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For me John the fundamental flaw in your logic is that you believe the UK's legislative institutions are democratically elected while the EU's are not. It's just not the case; firstly we have an undemocratic electoral system that never gives us a house of commons that represents the views of the people. Then we have the totally unelected house of lords as an "upper" house. Not to mention the civil service.

 

We are no more democratic than the EU is imo.

Well, tell that to any of the Prime Ministers and MP's who have been voted out of office over the years and I don't think they'd agree with you. On the other hand there is no way that the EU elite can be voted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, tell that to any of the Prime Ministers and MP's who have been voted out of office over the years and I don't think they'd agree with you. On the other hand there is no way that the EU elite can be voted out.

 

You're not really addressing my points but never mind.

 

There's also no way top level civil servants or house of lords members can be voted out.

 

The EU "elite" are appointed by the people we (as part of Europe) vote for.

 

The UK elite are appointed by the people we (as UK citizens) vote for.

 

Where's the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my view on this and personally I'm an out voter.

 

I'm disgusted that the government has used tax payers money to publish their views on the In vote. If they were being fair and open they should have been publishing both sides. To run a referendum but spend money on the PMs view, and not the view of parliament on the whole, I find immoral.

 

I'm not really going to go into my reasons for wanting out, but it's business minded anyway. The one thing from all of the scare tactics is the idea that the NHS will fold without the EU.

The NHS has never been run by the EU, it hasn't been funded by the EU. It is a British institution, if the government wanted to privatise it they can with or without the EU. Obviously there would be huge back lash if that happened, but voting out will not shut down the NHS or handover the keys to Bupa.

 

Should the out vote go ahead it needs to be a phased exit. Maybe over three years or so, give the country chance to get a strategy together, negotiate new deals or keep existing ones where they suit. Just take the time to get it right. Either way we will all be fine.

 

Strangely I was at a company meeting tonight. We were told by our CEO that his view is to be in. He didn't want to tell us his reasons why, he didn't want to influence us, and he asked us all to vote with our own thoughts rather than his. But he also told us that our company has a contingency plan ready to go should we vote out. I just found it weird, I inow they have to plan for these things, but I work for a company based in the UK, but owned outright by a company in Hong Kong, and our suppliers are in Germany. Our company expect no loss or trade with our German supplier either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw parts of the Cameron - Farage debate.

 

Cameron wants to stay in so he can block further integration and so he can scale back where integration has already been achieved - he calls this reform. (this reaffirms my point that if Britain votes to stay in, the rest of Europe should get a vote on whether Britain should be allowed to stay in).

If he's only going to talk about everything that is wrong in Brussels, ofcourse people are going to say "then we should just leave".. some campaigner this guy.

 

Farage wants out because he doesn't want it to say EU on his passport, it should say Britain ...

 

 

 

 

 

I do wonder about how the EU leaders (or the EU elite if you will ) will respond to a Brexit? Will they be petty and take protectionist measures? Will they aim at making sure it was (economically) the wrong decision to warn other eurosceptic governments? What if Scotland is hit very hard (economically) by a Brexit? Will a Brexit lead to a break-up of the UK, seeing how the Scots would like to stay in the EU?

 

You'd almost want a Brexit to happen solely for academic purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...