Brexit...

[holystove]

Mike, the reason I didn't address your points is that I wasn't quite sure what you meant. The House of Lords are irrelevant. They can give advice and occasionally turf back some issues to the Commons but nothing of a serious nature. On the really important issues they are expected to support the Government. They have no real power. It will cease to exist in its current format in the next 10 years.

Do not understand your point about the civil service? Every government in history has been supported by an administrative base. The EU Commission which consists of 28 members has a support staff of 23,000. So what? Apart from criticism about 'jobs for the boys' it happens everywhere. I repeat, in the last 2 General Elections the government has changed in Britain. In spite of all the problems affecting the EU with the euro and the economies of countries in the south, tell me who has been voted out in the EU. There is not even a procedure for doing it.

 

Every five years there's an election for the EU Parliament? After the elections of 2014 The European People's Party remained the biggest in the EU Parliament and therefor it was a member of their party that became Commission president. (Juncker). If the socialists would have the most votes, it would have been a socialist; etc... Many times the position has switched parties.

The only thing that might be perceived as undemocratic about how the Commission president is chosen, is that the EU member states have a big input; but I assume that's not a problem for you as the British PM has at several times blocked a candidate the UK feared was to progressive.

 

During the 5-year term of a Commission there is Parliamentary oversight; for example in the 90's The Santer Commission was forced to step down by the EU Parliament.

 

 

Not saying you should vote IN, but it seems to me your biggest problems with the EU stem from a lack of knowledge of procedure. I'm happy to clarify other such issues you might have.

[johnh]

 

Every five years there's an election for the EU Parliament? After the elections of 2014 The European People's Party remained the biggest in the EU Parliament and therefor it was a member of their party that became Commission president. (Juncker). If the socialists would have the most votes, it would have been a socialist; etc... Many times the position has switched parties.

The only thing that might be perceived as undemocratic about how the Commission president is chosen, is that the EU member states have a big input; but I assume that's not a problem for you as the British PM has at several times blocked a candidate the UK feared was to progressive.

 

During the 5-year term of a Commission there is Parliamentary oversight; for example in the 90's The Santer Commission was forced to step down by the EU Parliament.

 

 

Not saying you should vote IN, but it seems to me your biggest problems with the EU stem from a lack of knowledge of procedure. I'm happy to clarify other such issues you might have.

 

I'll take you up on that holystove.

 

If I decide that Cameron is a plonker (I do) and the Tories aren't doing a very good job and I don't like their manifesto, at General Election time I go down to my constituency polling station and cast my vote for someone else. By the next morning, I know if the Government has changed.

 

Now please explain how the same procedure works in the EU.

[MikeO]

 

I'll take you up on that holystove.

 

If I decide that Cameron is a plonker (I do) and the Tories aren't doing a very good job and I don't like their manifesto, at General Election time I go down to my constituency polling station and cast my vote for someone else. By the next morning, I know if the Government has changed.

 

Now please explain how the same procedure works in the EU.

 

But your vote has no value whatsoever if you happen to live in a Tory safe seat (as I sadly have done all my life). The government is decided by the few people who live in marginal constituencies; that's not democratic imo.

[StevO]

Global politics needs massive reform. Every country has a case of jobs for the boys and the same elitist people get put in charge by their fathers friends and old school mates. Happens all over the planet, apart from the third world countries where the guy with the biggest artillery takes charge. Maybe after Trump becomes president the USA will change their voting procedures, and possibly we could follow suit after Boris is PM. Start again from scratch, just without anymore wars please.

[Romey 1878]

Global politics needs massive reform. Every country has a case of jobs for the boys and the same elitist people get put in charge by their fathers friends and old school mates. Happens all over the planet, apart from the third world countries where the guy with the biggest artillery takes charge. Maybe after Trump becomes president the USA will change their voting procedures, and possibly we could follow suit after Boris is PM. Start again from scratch, just without anymore wars please.

There won't be a world to reform if Trump and Boris are in charge.

[StevO]

Only one way to find out. Vote Boris!

[Romey 1878]

Only one way to find out. Vote Boris!

I'd rather die.

[johnh]

 

But your vote has no value whatsoever if you happen to live in a Tory safe seat (as I sadly have done all my life). The government is decided by the few people who live in marginal constituencies; that's not democratic imo.

 

I also live in a Tory safe seat, which means that most people who live in the constituency want a Tory government. Isn't that democracy? Since the war there have been about equal governments for Labour and Conservative, which seems democratic to me. The Liberals want proportional representation because they always lose. The electorate don't want them governing the country. The real problem is not the electoral system it is the apathy of the electorate, not enough people vote. Should it be made compulsory?

[MikeO]

 

I also live in a Tory safe seat, which means that most people who live in the constituency want a Tory government. Isn't that democracy? Since the war there have been about equal governments for Labour and Conservative, which seems democratic to me. The Liberals want proportional representation because they always lose. The electorate don't want them governing the country. The real problem is not the electoral system it is the apathy of the electorate, not enough people vote. Should it be made compulsory?

 

Not in my opinion because in any given constituency if 15001 vote Tory, 14999 vote Labour and 14998 vote Liberal and/or other then Tory get 100% of the representation for 50.001% of the vote and 49.999% get ignored; I don't see how that's right.

 

I agree apathy is a problem but I don't think going compulsory is the answer, there's a section of society totally devoid of any knowledge or interest in politics who will never engage at any cost; forcing them to choose would be pointless.

[Cornish Steve]

 

Not in my opinion because in any given constituency if 15001 vote Tory, 14999 vote Labour and 14998 vote Liberal and/or other then Tory get 100% of the representation for 50.001% of the vote and 49.999% get ignored.

 

Actually, they get 100% of the representation for 33.334% of the vote and 66.666% get ignored - and that's assuming there are no minor parties in the election.

 

In one election in the 70s, the Liberals received over 20% of the vote, I believe, and fewer than 1% of MPs. This is why they pushed so strongly for proportional representation of some sort (STV being their preferred option). I was an approved parliamentary candidate for the Liberals at the time, and sometimes you felt it was almost not worth bothering.

[MikeO]

 

Actually, they get 100% of the representation for 33.334% of the vote and 66.666% get ignored - and that's assuming there are no minor parties in the election.

 

In one election in the 70s, the Liberals received over 20% of the vote, I believe, and fewer than 1% of MPs. This is why they pushed so strongly for proportional representation of some sort (STV being their preferred option). I was an approved parliamentary candidate for the Liberals at the time, and sometimes you felt it was almost not worth bothering.

 

True enough, my bad logic but point reinforced even more strongly.

 

Historically the Liberals have suffered massive under-representation for decades given the amount of the electorate who've voted for them.

 

Currently out of favour for the coalition and the concessions they gave in the last parliament, but they'll be back as a third force soon enough imo; UKIP are a passing laughable discrepancy.

[pete0]

http://www.mattoffact.co.uk/defence-system-vote-remain/

[holystove]

 

I'll take you up on that holystove.

 

If I decide that Cameron is a plonker (I do) and the Tories aren't doing a very good job and I don't like their manifesto, at General Election time I go down to my constituency polling station and cast my vote for someone else. By the next morning, I know if the Government has changed.

 

Now please explain how the same procedure works in the EU.

 

Thanks for following up John.

 

First of all, the general direction of the EU and the major issues are decided by the European Council in which every president/prime minister/bundeskanselier/.. is represented.

Secondly you have the Council, which groups ministers/secretaries according to the policy area to be discussed; for example envirmonmental, judicial, interior, ...

 

Who sits in both these Councils is decided by national elections. If you want Corbyn to be in the European Council instead of Cameron, you can vote for Corbyn and hope he becomes prime minister. If the UK government is exclusively Labour, then all the Councils will only have policitians from Labour.

 

Who sits in the EU Parliament, which, together with the Council, is the main decision-making body of the EU, is decided by elections every five years. You can vote directly for your candidate of choice. If the party you vote for wins the election (EU wide), it will be a member of that party who is elected Commission President. The Tories are part of the "European Conservatives and Reformists", Labour is part of the "Socialists and Democrats".

 

As you see, in principle it is quite the same as the situation you described regarding national elections.

Main differences:

- in the EU you are 1 of 500 million, while in the UK you are 1 of 60 million.

- the EU is a supra-national organisation (not a country) therefor you have institutions like the Council whose members are decided by national elections per member state instead of EU wide elections. Hopefully in the not so distant future, members of the Council will be chosen from the European Parliament.

[Matt]

How do you vote directly? Is this something to register for or is the current PM supposedly speaking on your behalf? (I realise I'm asking stupid questions but its Friday and thinking isn't on my mind this morning)

[holystove]

How do you vote directly? Is this something to register for or is the current PM supposedly speaking on your behalf? (I realise I'm asking stupid questions but its Friday and thinking isn't on my mind this morning)

 

By voting directly for the European Parliament, I meant that you can cast a vote for someone who if he or she gets enough votes will be a member of the European Parliament without any input/interference/.. from any national authority... Don't know if it is the correct term in English .

 

I don't know if you have to register to vote for the European Parliament in the UK; it depends on your country. Where I live, voting is compulsory so no registering required for any election (local, regional, federal or european).

[Matt]

 

By voting directly for the European Parliament, I meant that you can cast a vote for someone who if he or she gets enough votes will be a member of the European Parliament without any input/interference/.. from any national authority... Don't know if it is the correct term in English .

 

I don't know if you have to register to vote for the European Parliament in the UK; it depends on your country. Where I live, voting is compulsory so no registering required for any election (local, regional, federal or european).

I'll have a gander then. Currently I can't vote anywhere (neither the UK or Switzerland) so it would be nice if I had some way of voicing my opinion...

[Hafnia]

Lukaku wants us to stay in... so I'm out.

[johnh]

 

Thanks for following up John.

 

First of all, the general direction of the EU and the major issues are decided by the European Council in which every president/prime minister/bundeskanselier/.. is represented.

Secondly you have the Council, which groups ministers/secretaries according to the policy area to be discussed; for example envirmonmental, judicial, interior, ...

 

Who sits in both these Councils is decided by national elections. If you want Corbyn to be in the European Council instead of Cameron, you can vote for Corbyn and hope he becomes prime minister. If the UK government is exclusively Labour, then all the Councils will only have policitians from Labour.

 

Who sits in the EU Parliament, which, together with the Council, is the main decision-making body of the EU, is decided by elections every five years. You can vote directly for your candidate of choice. If the party you vote for wins the election (EU wide), it will be a member of that party who is elected Commission President. The Tories are part of the "European Conservatives and Reformists", Labour is part of the "Socialists and Democrats".

 

As you see, in principle it is quite the same as the situation you described regarding national elections.

Main differences:

- in the EU you are 1 of 500 million, while in the UK you are 1 of 60 million.

- the EU is a supra-national organisation (not a country) therefor you have institutions like the Council whose members are decided by national elections per member state instead of EU wide elections. Hopefully in the not so distant future, members of the Council will be chosen from the European Parliament.

 

holystove, just to recap. I go to the polling station, put an x on my voting slip and look in the paper next morning to see who has won.

Your comment that the EU vote is 'quite the same' is like comparing the Telegraph cryptic crossword to the Quick crossword. You also don't say much about the Commission which has considerable power but is not elected. The system is complex and complexity is a breeding ground for manipulation and for an outfit that has failed to get its accounts signed off by the auditors for many years, I wouldn't trust it not to be manipulative. I am certainly not against the 'principle of an EU but the EU in its current form is a disaster and requires considerable overhaul. We are not going to be able to influence this from within because the 'elite' don't want change. I think Brexit will trigger the overhaul.

[holystove]

 

holystove, just to recap. I go to the polling station, put an x on my voting slip and look in the paper next morning to see who has won.

Your comment that the EU vote is 'quite the same' is like comparing the Telegraph cryptic crossword to the Quick crossword. You also don't say much about the Commission which has considerable power but is not elected. The system is complex and complexity is a breeding ground for manipulation and for an outfit that has failed to get its accounts signed off by the auditors for many years, I wouldn't trust it not to be manipulative. I am certainly not against the 'principle of an EU but the EU in its current form is a disaster and requires considerable overhaul. We are not going to be able to influence this from within because the 'elite' don't want change. I think Brexit will trigger the overhaul.

 

Indeed, the Commission is the main executive branch. But as I wrote, its President is chosen from the biggest political party in the EU Parliament. The President then chooses his various commissionars (one per member state). Also, the Commission doesn't decide policy, they implement what the Council and EP decide.

 

I agree with you about the complexity of it all and the need to overhaul. But as with any consensus between 10+ parties, the end result is not always straight forward. And, as stated above, I wholeheartedly agree that a Brexit offers the best chance for this overhaul (in the way I'd like to see it done). If that's the reason you vote Leave you have my gratitude .

[johnh]

 

Indeed, the Commission is the main executive branch. But as I wrote, its President is chosen from the biggest political party in the EU Parliament. The President then chooses his various commissionars (one per member state). Also, the Commission doesn't decide policy, they implement what the Council and EP decide.

 

I agree with you about the complexity of it all and the need to overhaul. But as with any consensus between 10+ parties, the end result is not always straight forward. And, as stated above, I wholeheartedly agree that a Brexit offers the best chance for this overhaul (in the way I'd like to see it done). If that's the reason you vote Leave you have my gratitude .

holystove, yep, that is the main reason. I had hoped that Cameron would have got the changes in his re-negotiations but he achieved the square root of sod all. I am convinced that Brexit will win and that the EU will come up with a raft of changes (all that Cameron originally asked for, plus some bits and pieces) and ask for another referendum on that. The result of that will be 'remain'.

[MikeO]

holystove, yep, that is the main reason. I had hoped that Cameron would have got the changes in his re-negotiations but he achieved the square root of sod all. I am convinced that Brexit will win and that the EU will come up with a raft of changes (all that Cameron originally asked for, plus some bits and pieces) and ask for another referendum on that. The result of that will be 'remain'.

 

Although I disagree and think (and hope) that remain will win John I think if we vote out we'll stay out. The EU will be happy to be rid of us. as holystove has said several times we're the people holding the union back.

[johnh]

 

Although I disagree and think (and hope) that remain will win John I think if we vote out we'll stay out. The EU will be happy to be rid of us. as holystove has said several times we're the people holding the union back.

 

Mike, with several countries starting to ask questions about EU membership, Brussels are terrified of a UK Brexit. Particularly if we leave and do well. Rather than happy to be rid of us, they will be desperate to keep us in. The no.1 problem is if the 'Remains' win. That is when Brussels will stuff it to us. All the special 'opt-outs' etc will disappear, we will be forced to join the euro and the pace towards a federal state will increase at a rate of knots and we will find that we have no option but to go along with it.

[MikeO]

 

Mike, with several countries starting to ask questions about EU membership, Brussels are terrified of a UK Brexit. Particularly if we leave and do well. Rather than happy to be rid of us, they will be desperate to keep us in. The no.1 problem is if the 'Remains' win. That is when Brussels will stuff it to us. All the special 'opt-outs' etc will disappear, we will be forced to join the euro and the pace towards a federal state will increase at a rate of knots and we will find that we have no option but to go along with it.

 

Respect your opinion John but we'll just have to agree to disagree .

[Cornish Steve]

 

Although I disagree and think (and hope) that remain will win John I think if we vote out we'll stay out. The EU will be happy to be rid of us. as holystove has said several times we're the people holding the union back.

 

You're making the assumption, of course, that the political and banking elites in Britain and Europe will actually do anything if Britons vote for a Brexit. Watch for stalling of epic proportions.

[MikeO]

 

You're making the assumption, of course, that the political and banking elites in Britain and Europe will actually do anything if Britons vote for a Brexit. Watch for stalling of epic proportions.

 

Like I said a bit earlier I think; if we vote out and the government doesn't act on it there'll be Poll Tax style rioting on the streets, they'll have to.

[johnh]

 

Like I said a bit earlier I think; if we vote out and the government doesn't act on it there'll be Poll Tax style rioting on the streets, they'll have to.

 

Well I'll send a strongly worded letter to the Telegraph for a start. :shaking fist:

[MikeO]

 

Well I'll send a strongly worded letter to the Telegraph for a start. :shaking fist:

 

I can see you doing a studs up sliding tackle on Cameron in Downing Street myself John; you'll get more than a red card for it but I'll come and visit you .

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

Apparently we could lose Robles and Delefeou if Britain leaves the EU

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/657049/Brexit-Britain-EU-European-Union-Premier-League

 

 

[Shukes]

We're voting to leave the EU not Europe.

Our passports and European passports are only affected by travel.

 

Or so I'm told by my Dutch friend.

[Makis]

The issue are the work permits. The rules after a Brexit would be the same as for players arriving from outside the EU, i.e. they would either have had to play in 75% of their countries' matches or be considered a special talent.

[Matt]

Nonsense article

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

Nonsense article

Why do you say it's nonsense?

 

 

[Matt]

Why do you say it's nonsense?

 

1) it's the Express

2) only 2 of all our European players are affected?

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

1) it's the Express

2) only 2 of all our European players are affected?

I honestly can't think of any other players in our first team squad that it would effect

 

 

[Matt]

I honestly can't think of any other players in our first team squad that it would effect

 

 

Mirallas? The Irish contingent?

 

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Edited June 12, 2016 by Matt

[markjazzbassist]

Mirallas? The Irish contingent?

 

Or am I misunderstanding something?

So for non eu players currently they have to be involved in 75% of their national team matches to get a work permit.

 

Mirallas lukaku mcgeady Coleman Gibson Mori Oviedo besic tarashaj niasse

 

All those play for their national teams all the time. Gerry and Robles do not which makes sense.

[Matt]

Mirallas hasn't for a while, I'll be surprised if the Swiss lad (nonEU anyway) qualifies under the same ruling

[Makis]

That writer probably didn't even remember Tarashaj.

 

But please tell me, what bollocks about that? That's how things worked before. If the Brexit happens the agreements regarding free movement are off. And if you do want to get rid of the Poles etc. the same rules will apply to footballers as well. If not, then there won't be any change in the immigration laws.

[Lowensda]

Saw this today. (just know that i'm not remain or leave, so this is to just balance the argument)

 

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about June 23rd, and people want to know the facts. Here are some:

You are not voting to leave the EEA or WTO, meaning all of the UK's trade and benefit agreements will remain unchanged should we leave, until such a time that the UK decides to renegotiate them for any reason.

You are not voting to leave NATO, meaning our security agreements remain unchanged. Should we receive an act of hostility from a non-NATO member, then NATO countries are obliged to come to our assistance. This does not change.

You are not voting to leave the UN, G8 or G20, meaning Britain will have the same voice on the world stage as it does today.

You are not voting to leave Europe!! The UK will still, geographically, be part of Europe. Non political organisations aligned to Europe will still extend membership to the UK (I.e. sports governing bodies, and so on).

You are not voting to stop recognising Interpol, Europol and neither are you voting for SIS / MI6 to stop dealing with other intelligence services in the fight against terrorism and global, organised crime.

You are not voting against being able to travel to Europe, contrary to the belief of some fools recently on TV. The UK has always maintained stricter border and passport controls than many EU members. This will not change. You will still use a passport to go on holiday and you will still be allowed entry to countries in Europe. You may even get chance to skip queues by using the non--EU queues at the airport (the only point so far that is my opinion, and not necessarily a fact).

The UK economy will benefit to the tune of £billions in the first year after we leave.

Medical and science research will not simply stop. The UK pays into the EU to then get money back in the form of funding. The UK will now be in control of this money and can choose to fund whatever UK based medical, science, art or other research it chooses.

Farming will not lose money because of EU funding being cut. The UK negotiated a rebate of some monies that the UK pays to the EU, in order to subsidise UK farmers. Instead of asking for our money back, we can give it straight to farmers. No change there.

You are not voting against human rights. The EU Convention on, and European Court of Human Rights are not part of the EU. Until parliament passes a new bill of rights for the UK, these will still apply, as will precedents already passed down to UK courts from Brussels.

You are not voting to kick anyone out of the UK or block access to anyone. Neither are you voting to stop recruiting valuable European workers into things like the NHS. Like my other point about passports for travel, the UK is already outside of the Schengen zone and so migrant workers must enter the UK with a valid passport before and after June 23rd. That will not change. British borders maintain full control of who comes and goes. Should someone have the skills to apply to work in the NHS, then they will still be permitted travel and given an opportunity to apply for a job. Worst case, points based assessment, like the US, Canada and Australia use, will come into effect. The UK is likely to negotiate freedom of labour movement though, in exchange for freedom of goods movement.

You are not voting to move jobs nor production out of the UK! The EU actually helped fund the move of Ford Transit production from the UK to Turkey... Yes, the EU helped give UK jobs to people in Turkey by giving Ford a loan of £80m with very generous terms!

What you are voting for is UK sovereignty. You are voting to stay in or leave a political union of leaders and representatives that you British people did not elect. You are voting against a commission of unelected, elite men that nobody at all voted for and yet they make decisions on our behalf. You are simply voting to bring sovereignty back to Westminster, and that is all. If you worry about that because you don't like the Conservative government, look at the reality. Their majority in parliament is very slim. They have been blocked on big decisions already. You are therefore not giving sovereignty to David Cameron, but to the UK House of elected representatives. Do not be fooled by the fear campaigns that are simply run by the wealthy, who need EU money to thrive! Think about the future, and your family's future

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Lowensda

[Bill]

A good insight to what really goes on, makes a change from all the scaremongering that's being churned out.

[Matt]

From the FT (I can't link the original because I've not got a subscription, so apologies for the picture with the stupid text on top)

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Matt

[Shukes]

The way o see it the EU is mainly to do with trade etc.

We're still in Europe and our passports will still allow us to travel freely in Europe.

 

Or again..that's what I'm told.

[Shukes]

Most of the arguments for leaving seem to be scaremongering rather than factual.

 

But that's just me.

[Matt]

That writer probably didn't even remember Tarashaj.

 

But please tell me, what bollocks about that? That's how things worked before. If the Brexit happens the agreements regarding free movement are off. And if you do want to get rid of the Poles etc. the same rules will apply to footballers as well. If not, then there won't be any change in the immigration laws.

He's Swiss, so already a non-EU citizen and not impacted

[Makis]

He's Swiss, so already a non-EU citizen and not impacted

Switzerland is part of the Schengen agreement. As far I understand that agreement is one of the big issues in the Brexit camp because unless you remove yourself from it, immigration will continue like it has so far.

 

Am I the only one old enough to remember how things were before that agreement in the Premier League?

[MikeO]

Saw this today. (just know that i'm not remain or leave, so this is to just balance the argument)

 

And then you post a political broadcast for the "leave" party .

 

That argument's about as balanced as Donald Trump .

[Lowensda]

 

And then you post a political broadcast for the "leave" party .

 

That argument's about as balanced as Donald Trump .

 

I'm completely undecided. What I meant was, there seems to be significantly more articles and "evidence" to support the Remain party in this thread so I was equaling it out a little.

[Matt]

Switzerland is part of the Schengen agreement. As far I understand that agreement is one of the big issues in the Brexit camp because unless you remove yourself from it, immigration will continue like it has so far.

 

Am I the only one old enough to remember how things were before that agreement in the Premier League?

But where does Schengen come into it? It's weird; Swiss is non-EU but part of Schengen, Britain is EU but not part of Schengen (in terms of travel, apparently is part of the information part of the agreement)

 

The only thing I can gather from all this Brexit talk, is that no one has a clue what will happen, there's no definitive plan of change, and it's about as clear as mud for everyone.

[MikeO]

 

I'm completely undecided. What I meant was, there seems to be significantly more articles and "evidence" to support the Remain party in this thread so I was equaling it out a little.

 

I think there are quite a few more out posts than in personally; certainly leave is winning the vote.

 

Nobody really knows the consequences of leaving; for all the points the article raises remain would have a counter argument which would sound just as convincing.

Single issue decision for me which I've already explained; plus I'd rather jump off a tall building than vote with UKIP.

[Makis]

But where does Schengen come into it? It's weird; Swiss is non-EU but part of Schengen, Britain is EU but not part of Schengen (in terms of travel, apparently is part of the information part of the agreement)

 

The only thing I can gather from all this Brexit talk, is that no one has a clue what will happen, there's no definitive plan of change, and it's about as clear as mud for everyone.

Oh yes, sorry. Freedom of movement for workers is defined in article 45 in the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

 

What are the main points in the Brexit camp? From where I live one of the main points is immigration. Especially the Eastern Europeans working there. That's why I assume England would tighten the immigration laws. Plus not being in the EU would mean TFEU would also not apply, not until an agreement between Britain and the EU can be renegotiated, which would take years. Just dealing with the Brexit would take two years so negotiating all the other treaties would take who knows how many years.

[johnh]

If, after a Brexit, we found we couldn't keep Kone, isn't that enough to vote Brexit?

[Lowensda]

Most of the arguments for leaving seem to be scaremongering rather than factual.

 

But that's just me.

 

Yep. As been pointed out, the Remain campaign have been horrendous in scaremongering. Both seem as bad as each other.

 

As neither a remain or leave voter, i'm not only finding it all really embarrassing but there's nowhere you can go to clear up the pros and cons for both sides. Everything is so strong in favour or against, it's hard to see the facts. Then again, it's all guess work anyway. No one knows for sure how it'll pan out.

[Makis]

As I see it, the difference between the arguments is that the Remain side deals with facts - or at least conjuctures based oh them - while Brexit goes for emotions and every time they are asked if they know what will happen the answer is "I don't know". Brexit's tactic is difficult for the Remain side, because how do you campaign when the other side just ignores facts? Just like what Trump is doing, how can the other candidates respond? Trying to be plain rational just doesn't work with a lot of the voters.

[Matt]

Oh yes, sorry. Freedom of movement for workers is defined in article 45 in the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

 

What are the main points in the Brexit camp? From where I live one of the main points is immigration. Especially the Eastern Europeans working there. That's why I assume England would tighten the immigration laws. Plus not being in the EU would mean TFEU would also not apply, not until an agreement between Britain and the EU can be renegotiated, which would take years. Just dealing with the Brexit would take two years so negotiating all the other treaties would take who knows how many years.

Interesting, thanks for clarifying

[Shukes]

But you don't think the stay party are scaremongering.

They have gone down every avenue to scare people into voting to stay in.

The stay argument seems to be backed up by a few facts though, while the leave party are telling me... I might not be any worse off.

Thinking rather selfishly if I am honest. My life has grown over the last five years.

[MikeO]

Just had a thought while I was in the car; if we vote out does that mean UKIP will be dissolved as their "raison d'être" has been fulfilled?

 

If so, just say no (and don't inhale)...

 

[johnh]

As I see it, the difference between the arguments is that the Remain side deals with facts - or at least conjuctures based oh them - while Brexit goes for emotions and every time they are asked if they know what will happen the answer is "I don't know". Brexit's tactic is difficult for the Remain side, because how do you campaign when the other side just ignores facts? Just like what Trump is doing, how can the other candidates respond? Trying to be plain rational just doesn't work with a lot of the voters.

 

So you believe Cameron when he says Brexit could result in World War 3? And Osborne saying house prices will fall following Brexit when the law of supply and demand will dictate the opposite for years to come.

[Shukes]

Lukaku wants us to stay in... so I'm out.

He is most definitely in the out party. His agent is working on it as we speak.

[Makis]

 

So you believe Cameron when he says Brexit could result in World War 3? And Osborne saying house prices will fall following Brexit when the law of supply and demand will dictate the opposite for years to come.

Er...

[MikeO]

 

So you believe Cameron when he says Brexit could result in World War 3? And Osborne saying house prices will fall following Brexit when the law of supply and demand will dictate the opposite for years to come.

 

First bit I can't find anywhere that he's actually said that, he's said things like..

 

"Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

"I would never be so rash to make that assumption."

....and headline writers have twisted it (unless you can find a quote confirming it, I can't).

Second part if we reduce immigration and therefor population growth demand for houses will inevitably fall; no guarantee whatsoever that house prices will continue to rise, we've had crashes in the past where people have found themselves in negative equity. I think that's likely to happen again if we leave, unless you're lucky enough to be in London/South East.