Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 09, 2015, 08:07:02 PM
-
The result of the EU referendum is a foregone conclusion: Stay in and come out.
If the general election result was due to a desire for the status quo then We will vote to stay in.
On the other hand if it was due to English nationalism then we will vote to come out.
-
I agree that it's a foregone conclusion: I believe that the result would be to leave the EU, because majority popular sentiment leans that way.
Unfortunately this is based on the majority of the population having little to no clue of any serious, sober, thoughtful cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. The vast majority of people have absolutely no idea of what the positives and negatives of membership actually entail and fill that vacuum by falling back on popular press sloganeering, vague half-formed ideas and everybody's favourite, gut instinct. A referendum held tomorrow or next week or next month would on that basis be a landslide "No" vote. The only remote possibility of changing this state of affairs would be if the government were to produce, in the form of a leaflet or some such, something which could educate the public in clear, simple, jargon-free language an impartial, disinterested, neutrally-couched explanation of what EU membership means and what exit would mean, delivered to every household in the realm as has been done before on occasion.
Staying in may well be the best option. Coming out may well be the best option. But for Christ's sake, let's have an informed populace capable of making a truly informed decision.
-
I agree that it's a foregone conclusion: I believe that the result would be to leave the EU, because majority popular sentiment leans that way.
Unfortunately this is based on the majority of the population having little to no clue of any serious, sober, thoughtful cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. The vast majority of people have absolutely no idea of what the positives and negatives of membership actually entail and fill that vacuum by falling back on popular press sloganeering, vague half-formed ideas and everybody's favourite, gut instinct. A referendum held tomorrow or next week or next month would on that basis be a landslide "No" vote. The only remote possibility of changing this state of affairs would be if the government were to produce, in the form of a leaflet or some such, something which could educate the public in clear, simple, jargon-free language an impartial, disinterested, neutrally-couched explanation of what EU membership means and what exit would mean, delivered to every household in the realm as has been done before on occasion.
Staying in may well be the best option. Coming out may well be the best option. But for Christ's sake, let's have an informed populace capable of making a truly informed decision.
My observation is different from yours. I suppose it may just be the company I keep, but most of the people I know are horrified at the prospect of leaving the EU.
We don't need a jargon-free leaflet. It would just go in the recycling. We need a national open debate. We need projections into the future to see what the long term effect is on employment and national wealth.
Of course, the only reason we are going to have a referendum is because an insecure prime minister considered it to be the only thing which would silence a small minority of right-wing trouble makers in his party. Cameron doesn't really want it but he is stuck with it.
It's the same reason Harold Wilson had for the earlier referendum - to shut the troublemakers (in his case Tony Benn et al) up!
-
My observation is different from yours. I suppose it may just be the company I keep, but most of the people I know are horrified at the prospect of leaving the EU.
We don't need a jargon-free leaflet. It would just go in the recycling. We need a national open debate. We need projections into the future to see what the long term effect is on employment and national wealth.
I don't doubt that that we may move in different circles! :D
But I don't think we're arguing at cross purposes either: what we both apparently want is for no debate to take place without an informed populace who know what they're discussing.
-
My observation is different from yours. I suppose it may just be the company I keep, but most of the people I know are horrified at the prospect of leaving the EU.
We don't need a jargon-free leaflet. It would just go in the recycling. We need a national open debate. We need projections into the future to see what the long term effect is on employment and national wealth.
I don't doubt that that we may move in different circles! :D
But I don't think we're arguing at cross purposes either: what we both apparently want is for no debate to take place without an informed populace who know what they're discussing.
. . . an informed populace?
Informed by whom? By politicians and businessmen with their own interests foremost in their minds.
Information required:
Just how much do we put into the EU?
Just how much do we get out of it?
Just how much of "British" industry is ownbed by EU counties other than the UK - like power companies, the airportds sold off be BAA?
When are we gioing to get a few laws passed that do not specifically or by omission affect only the UK?
How much are the various MEP's a bureaucrats fiddling out of the budget and what is being dome to stop this? ( If recent hoistory is anything to go by the answer will be Sweet Bugger All)
The chances of truthful answers? Probably near to zero.
-
My observation is different from yours. I suppose it may just be the company I keep, but most of the people I know are horrified at the prospect of leaving the EU.
We don't need a jargon-free leaflet. It would just go in the recycling. We need a national open debate. We need projections into the future to see what the long term effect is on employment and national wealth.
I don't doubt that that we may move in different circles! :D
But I don't think we're arguing at cross purposes either: what we both apparently want is for no debate to take place without an informed populace who know what they're discussing.
. . . an informed populace?
Informed by whom? By politicians and businessmen with their own interests foremost in their minds.
Information required:
Just how much do we put into the EU?
Just how much do we get out of it?
Just how much of "British" industry is ownbed by EU counties other than the UK - like power companies, the airportds sold off be BAA?
When are we gioing to get a few laws passed that do not specifically or by omission affect only the UK?
How much are the various MEP's a bureaucrats fiddling out of the budget and what is being dome to stop this? ( If recent hoistory is anything to go by the answer will be Sweet Bugger All)
The chances of truthful answers? Probably near to zero.
I love it when somebody on this forum posts an opinion and then somebody else confirms it. Your questions speak to an uninformed position probably gleaned by reading the anti-Europe press.
-
My observation is different from yours. I suppose it may just be the company I keep, but most of the people I know are horrified at the prospect of leaving the EU.
We don't need a jargon-free leaflet. It would just go in the recycling. We need a national open debate. We need projections into the future to see what the long term effect is on employment and national wealth.
I don't doubt that that we may move in different circles! :D
But I don't think we're arguing at cross purposes either: what we both apparently want is for no debate to take place without an informed populace who know what they're discussing.
. . . an informed populace?
Informed by whom? By politicians and businessmen with their own interests foremost in their minds.
Information required:
Just how much do we put into the EU?
Just how much do we get out of it?
Just how much of "British" industry is ownbed by EU counties other than the UK - like power companies, the airportds sold off be BAA?
When are we gioing to get a few laws passed that do not specifically or by omission affect only the UK?
How much are the various MEP's a bureaucrats fiddling out of the budget and what is being dome to stop this? ( If recent hoistory is anything to go by the answer will be Sweet Bugger All)
The chances of truthful answers? Probably near to zero.
I love it when somebody on this forum posts an opinion and then somebody else confirms it. Your questions speak to an uninformed position probably gleaned by reading the anti-Europe press.
And who is going to do the informing - you?
Your comment shows you to be as biased as you alledge that i am!
-
I see John Redwood recommends some kind of 'consensus' with Labour and UKIP over the referendum whatever that means....
or maybe he just wants a kind of coalition like that in the Scottish referendum and General election where the other parties can ''Lightning Rod'' for the conservatives.
-
I agree that it's a foregone conclusion: I believe that the result would be to leave the EU, because majority popular sentiment leans that way.
Unfortunately this is based on the majority of the population having little to no clue of any serious, sober, thoughtful cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. The vast majority of people have absolutely no idea of what the positives and negatives of membership actually entail and fill that vacuum by falling back on popular press sloganeering, vague half-formed ideas and everybody's favourite, gut instinct. A referendum held tomorrow or next week or next month would on that basis be a landslide "No" vote. The only remote possibility of changing this state of affairs would be if the government were to produce, in the form of a leaflet or some such, something which could educate the public in clear, simple, jargon-free language an impartial, disinterested, neutrally-couched explanation of what EU membership means and what exit would mean, delivered to every household in the realm as has been done before on occasion.
Staying in may well be the best option. Coming out may well be the best option. But for Christ's sake, let's have an informed populace capable of making a truly informed decision.
That's never going to happen, about this issue, or any other - Ever!
-
Farage's pitch will be 'vote no to the EU, if we leave Scotland are certain to fuck off!' :)
-
I agree that it's a foregone conclusion: I believe that the result would be to leave the EU, because majority popular sentiment leans that way.
Shaker, I'd say that only about 5% of the people I know believe that the UK ought to leave the EU. I have had this debate in staffrooms and classrooms at schools, youth clubs at church, the railway I'm involved with, and a whole host of other contexts. I would put my circle of friends (ie those whose names and addresses I have listed in address books, at about 300) and acquaintances (ie those people I know but at a lesser degree at another 3-400). OK, not quite a statistical sample numerically, but statistical in their spread of political allegiances, 'class' status, etc.
I believ that the pro-EU vote in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will more or less counter-balance the anti-EU vote across the UK, leaving the vast majority of English votes as the balance of a 'stay-in' result. That could then have a major impact on whether Scotland leaves both Unions by becoming independent.
-
Farage's pitch will be 'vote no to the EU, if we leave Scotland are certain to fuck off!' :)
Many here would be happy to do so :)
The scenario of England (not so much Wales in terms of size) voting to leave the EU, in line with the increase in Tory support south of the border we've just seen, makes that outcome possible I suppose. If I were an English Tory I'd want to get rid of Scotland before Labour had even the chance to rebuild here, such as if the SNP wiped out Labour in the Holyrood election next year, since in that case I reckon Labour in its current form will be finished here - and, if so, surely the Tories would see a permanent majority in England and Wales without any further possibility of there being any Scottish Labour seats.
The other interesting scenario would be if all parts of the current UK voted to stay in the EU - would that not risk the Tory party tearing itself to pieces to the extent that UKIP (or a replacement for UKIP) might then emerge and would split the existing Tory support in England?
Interesting times still then!
-
I believ that the pro-EU vote in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will more or less counter-balance the anti-EU vote across the UK, leaving the vast majority of English votes as the balance of a 'stay-in' result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union
Opinion polls have mostly been in favour.
-
The other interesting scenario would be if all parts of the current UK voted to stay in the EU - would that not risk the Tory party tearing itself to pieces to the extent that UKIP (or a replacement for UKIP) might then emerge and would split the existing Tory support in England?
Interesting times still then!
It might, Goron, but there would still only be two major right-of-centre parties, as opposed to the 4 or 5 left-of-centre parties.
That said, I think that the nature of UKIP would still be as a minority (Lib-Dem-esque?) party.
-
Most immediate piece of interest is if nww Justice Secretary Red Mike tries to get rid of Human Rights legislation as there are issues with devolution across the board on ittt. Interestingly one of the areas they could struggle with is NI
-
Farage's pitch will be 'vote no to the EU, if we leave Scotland are certain to fuck off!' :)
Many here would be happy to do so :)
Yes 45% according to last count.
The scenario of England (not so much Wales in terms of size) voting to leave the EU, in line with the increase in Tory support south of the border we've just seen, makes that outcome possible I suppose.
I think Cameron is pretty clearly pro-EU so not sure I follow the logic.
If I were an English Tory I'd want to get rid of Scotland before Labour had even the chance to rebuild here, such as if the SNP wiped out Labour in the Holyrood election next year, since in that case I reckon Labour in its current form will be finished here - and, if so, surely the Tories would see a permanent majority in England and Wales without any further possibility of there being any Scottish Labour seats.
No I think the mainstream view is that the Union works but unless powers are devolved quickly it won't work much longer. If you watch Marr this morning you'll see both Labour & Tories take that view. In terms of further devolution the Tories and SNP are on the same side, in fact I think the Tories will want to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is responsible and accountable as fast as possible.
The other interesting scenario would be if all parts of the current UK voted to stay in the EU - would that not risk the Tory party tearing itself to pieces to the extent that UKIP (or a replacement for UKIP) might then emerge and would split the existing Tory support in England?
Interesting times still then!
I think the uncertainty over a neverendum means that once its done it will be done for 20 years+. I think most likely we'll see regional but allied parties emerge.
-
Dear Shaker,
Correct, I would class myself as one of the totally uneducated when it comes to politics and the EU.
What do I know about the EU, it allows freedom of movement and they like food mountains, yes lesson for today, find out how the EU affects me.
Gonnagle.
-
I think we would be CRAZY to leave the EU. The UK is too small to stand alone in this day and age, imo.
-
And who is going to do the informing - you?
No. You need to find a source more trustworthy than the ant-EU newspapers.
Your comment shows you to be as biased as you alledge that i am!
I don't see how you can say that since I didn't express an opinion about the EU itself. However, let's take one of your questions:
Just how much of "British" industry is ownbed by EU counties other than the UK - like power companies, the airportds sold off be BAA?
If companies in other countries are buying up British companies, it's nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with our own law. Companies from countries outside of the EU are also able to buy British companies c.f. Kraft and Cadbury.
-
Farage's pitch will be 'vote no to the EU, if we leave Scotland are certain to fuck off!' :)
UKIP policy is to keep Scotland in the Union. Seems a bit hypocritical, but there you go.
-
Good blog on the Human Rights Act issue
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/scotland-and-human-rights-act-abolition.html
-
If I were an English Tory I'd want to get rid of Scotland before Labour had even the chance to rebuild here, such as if the SNP wiped out Labour in the Holyrood election next year, since in that case I reckon Labour in its current form will be finished here - and, if so, surely the Tories would see a permanent majority in England and Wales without any further possibility of there being any Scottish Labour seats.
I don't think English Tories generally want to ditch Scotland. In their view, the Union has always been a Good Thing. Furthermore, this idea that there would be a permanent Tory majority in E&W is a myth. The last three Labour majorities would still have been Labour majorities without Scotland.
The other interesting scenario would be if all parts of the current UK voted to stay in the EU - would that not risk the Tory party tearing itself to pieces to the extent that UKIP (or a replacement for UKIP) might then emerge and would split the existing Tory support in England?
No. What would happen is that the Euro sceptics would have to shut up.
-
I think we would be CRAZY to leave the EU. The UK is too small to stand alone in this day and age, imo.
Too small? Sixth largest economy in the world?
-
I think we would be CRAZY to leave the EU. The UK is too small to stand alone in this day and age, imo.
Too small? Sixth largest economy in the world?
EU supporters would argue that that's because we're in the EU. There's no fair comparison to make - a UK in the EU next to a UK out - to see if the economy would be the same. (Or better. Or worse).
-
I think we would be CRAZY to leave the EU. The UK is too small to stand alone in this day and age, imo.
Too small? Sixth largest economy in the world?
The EU is the worlds second greatest economic region (neck and neck with China and America) and likewise one of the most significant markets in the world. The UK would have to be CRAZY to give-up unrestricted access to such a market.
-
I think we would be CRAZY to leave the EU. The UK is too small to stand alone in this day and age, imo.
Too small? Sixth largest economy in the world?
The EU is the worlds second greatest economic region (neck and neck with China and America) and likewise one of the most significant markets in the world. The UK would have to be CRAZY to give-up unrestricted access to such a market.
Totally agree. I don't know why people don't get this.
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme, designed to make the well-off richer and keep the less well-off in their place. The UK leaving the EU would therefore be a good thing in the hope that it would mean the beginning of the end of the EU.
-
The EU is jst part of the neo-liberal globalust scheme, designed to make the well-off richer and kerp the less well-off in their place. The UK leaving the EU would therefore be a good thing in the hope that it would mean the beginning of the enx of the EU.
I assume that you mean 'a good thing' in terms of making most of us a lot less rich?
-
ONS figures:
"Exports to China were up by 11 per cent over the last three months to average more than £1billion a month. Those to the US increased by seven per cent over the same period. But a trend of falling exports to EU countries since autumn 2011 has continued. The ONS monthly update said: “The deficit on trade with other EU countries rose by £1.5billion to £15.4billion in the last three months while the deficit with the rest of the world was £1billion lower.”
Over the 12 months to last April, UK exports to non-EU countries rose by £1.3billion to £13.1billion a month. During the same period, exports to the EU fell by nearly £0.3billion to £16.8billion. Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
We seem to be managing well enough with our trade outside the EU, and our trade with China, Brazil, India, etc, are blossoming. We would manage well enough without the restrictions, and interference of Brussels, not to mention the millstone of such partners as Greece.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
-
ONS figures:
"Exports to China were up by 11 per cent over the last three months to average more than £1billion a month. Those to the US increased by seven per cent over the same period. But a trend of falling exports to EU countries since autumn 2011 has continued. The ONS monthly update said: “The deficit on trade with other EU countries rose by £1.5billion to £15.4billion in the last three months while the deficit with the rest of the world was £1billion lower.”
Over the 12 months to last April, UK exports to non-EU countries rose by £1.3billion to £13.1billion a month. During the same period, exports to the EU fell by nearly £0.3billion to £16.8billion. Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
We seem to be managing well enough with our trade outside the EU, and our trade with China, Brazil, India, etc, are blossoming. We would manage well enough without the restrictions, and interference of Brussels, not to mention the millstone of such partners as Greece.
You seem to be suggesting that it would be fine to put half of our exports in jeopardy?
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
-
The EU is jst part of the neo-liberal globalust scheme, designed to make the well-off richer and kerp the less well-off in their place. The UK leaving the EU would therefore be a good thing in the hope that it would mean the beginning of the enx of the EU.
I assume that you mean 'a good thing' in terms of making most of us a lot less rich?
Right! If you mean the elite, then yes, but most, no. The EU has bought in to the austerity myth and most are suffering.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
That won't necessarily remain the case.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
That won't necessarily remain the case.
The ONS statistics suggest it will be.
-
The EU is jst part of the neo-liberal globalust scheme, designed to make the well-off richer and kerp the less well-off in their place. The UK leaving the EU would therefore be a good thing in the hope that it would mean the beginning of the enx of the EU.
I assume that you mean 'a good thing' in terms of making most of us a lot less rich?
Right! If you mean the elite, then yes, but most, no. The EU has bought in to the austerity myth and most are suffering.
Elite can be a relative word. Those 'poor' EU citizens who are 'suffering' from austerity might be regarded as doing very nicely by many of those outside of the EU.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all exports to EU countries would cease if we left, but we would no longer have unrestricted access and might well face new tariff barriers.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all exports to EU countries would cease if we left, but we would no longer have unrestricted access and might well face new tariff barriers.
But trade with us will remain crucial to the EU countries, and ways round such restrictions would be found, would have to be found, for the benefit of all concerned.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all exports to EU countries would cease if we left, but we would no longer have unrestricted access and might well face new tariff barriers.
But trade with us will remain crucial to the EU countries, and ways round such restrictions would be found, would have to be found, for the benefit of all concerned.
That's a very complacent attitude. particularly in the present economic climate. You can be pretty certain that if we leave there will be calls for protectionism.
Why buy British goods if you can save EU jobs by buying EU goods?
-
Can't discuss leaving the EU without this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30493297
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all exports to EU countries would cease if we left, but we would no longer have unrestricted access and might well face new tariff barriers.
But trade with us will remain crucial to the EU countries, and ways round such restrictions would be found, would have to be found, for the benefit of all concerned.
That's a very complacent attitude. particularly in the present economic climate. You can be pretty certain that if we leave there will be calls for protectionism.
Why buy British goods if you can save EU jobs by buying EU goods?
You buy goods that you need and what is in demand. Any business will buy and sell to increase their profits, not to help out their workers
-
I agree that it's a foregone conclusion: I believe that the result would be to leave the EU, because majority popular sentiment leans that way.
Unfortunately this is based on the majority of the population having little to no clue of any serious, sober, thoughtful cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. The vast majority of people have absolutely no idea of what the positives and negatives of membership actually entail and fill that vacuum by falling back on popular press sloganeering, vague half-formed ideas and everybody's favourite, gut instinct. A referendum held tomorrow or next week or next month would on that basis be a landslide "No" vote. The only remote possibility of changing this state of affairs would be if the government were to produce, in the form of a leaflet or some such, something which could educate the public in clear, simple, jargon-free language an impartial, disinterested, neutrally-couched explanation of what EU membership means and what exit would mean, delivered to every household in the realm as has been done before on occasion.
Staying in may well be the best option. Coming out may well be the best option. But for Christ's sake, let's have an informed populace capable of making a truly informed decision.
Well my plonker is plonkerised Shaker has an opinion and he can write.
So Shaker are you in or are you out.
~TW~
-
Once TTIP is in place any European country outside that will face economic tariffs on steroids. Plus the U.S./ EU regulatory harmony will mean a much restricted market for anything that doesn't comply.
I think some Scandanavian countries are economic partners to the EU without being EU members but I don't see the USA allowing the UK in on those terms. And as we know, economic union often leads to political union.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all exports to EU countries would cease if we left, but we would no longer have unrestricted access and might well face new tariff barriers.
But trade with us will remain crucial to the EU countries, and ways round such restrictions would be found, would have to be found, for the benefit of all concerned.
That's a very complacent attitude. particularly in the present economic climate. You can be pretty certain that if we leave there will be calls for protectionism.
Why buy British goods if you can save EU jobs by buying EU goods?
You buy goods that you need and what is in demand. Any business will buy and sell to increase their profits, not to help out their workers
You have a very limited understanding of commerce Bashful, we don't live in a Soviet style command economy. Every supplier has a struggle to get market share. The customer is King and that customer is generally quite fickle. If EU customers find it cheaper or more convenient to switch from a British supplier to an EU supplier, they will do so.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all exports to EU countries would cease if we left, but we would no longer have unrestricted access and might well face new tariff barriers.
But trade with us will remain crucial to the EU countries, and ways round such restrictions would be found, would have to be found, for the benefit of all concerned.
That's a very complacent attitude. particularly in the present economic climate. You can be pretty certain that if we leave there will be calls for protectionism.
Why buy British goods if you can save EU jobs by buying EU goods?
You buy goods that you need and what is in demand. Any business will buy and sell to increase their profits, not to help out their workers
You have a very limited understanding of commerce Bashful, we don't live in a Soviet style command economy. Every supplier has a struggle to get market share. The customer is King and that customer is generally quite fickle. If EU customers find it cheaper or more convenient to switch from a British supplier to an EU supplier, they will do so.
That may be; but look again at the ONS figures. It seems that we are getting an increasing share of the market, and the trend is for that to continue. That seems to me to be the relevant argument. As well as that, out of the EU we would be free to make stronger trade deals with other nations, and we would be free to spend the huge UK resources presently levied through EU membership to the advantage of our citizens. All this would leave us free to improve the British economy and generate more jobs, which we are quite capable of doing. All the other negative aspects of membership would be no longer issues either.
-
The EU is jst part of the neo-liberal globalust scheme, designed to make the well-off richer and kerp the less well-off in their place. The UK leaving the EU would therefore be a good thing in the hope that it would mean the beginning of the enx of the EU.
I assume that you mean 'a good thing' in terms of making most of us a lot less rich?
Right! If you mean the elite, then yes, but most, no. The EU has bought in to the austerity myth and most are suffering.
Elite can be a relative word. Those 'poor' EU citizens who are 'suffering' from austerity might be regarded as doing very nicely by many of those outside of the EU.
Yes, I'm sure that's of much comfort to those who are losing lost their jobs or those who are seeing the welfare state gradually being eroded away.
-
That may be; but look again at the ONS figures. It seems that we are getting an increasing share of the market, and the trend is for that to continue. That seems to me to be the relevant argument. As well as that, out of the EU we would be free to make stronger trade deals with other nations, and we would be free to spend the huge UK resources presently levied through EU membership to the advantage of our citizens. All this would leave us free to improve the British economy and generate more jobs, which we are quite capable of doing. All the other negative aspects of membership would be no longer issues either.
Replace British with Scottish/EU with UK and that could have been written by the SNP.
I work for a company that imports, factories in China have limited capacity and are looking for long term stable relationships with companies. One set of rules to export into the EU another for independents.
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme, designed to make the well-off richer and keep the less well-off in their place.
Have you not heard of The conservatives ? They have been in the news rather a lot lately.
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
Evidence please.
-
Once trade in services is taken into account, about half UK exports go outside the EU."
So about 1/2 is within the EU.
Would it be right and prudent to forego the favourable trading terms we have?
It would be vital for EU countries to trade with us; we are more successful than they: they need us. But if our overseas trade continues to develop as it is, we would be better off in the long term anyway.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all exports to EU countries would cease if we left, but we would no longer have unrestricted access and might well face new tariff barriers.
This, which nobody seerms to have mentioned, works vice versa, we would not have to grant unrestricted access and special pricing to Germany, France etc.
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
Evidence please.
The current economic crisis proves that it is. What does it advocate? Austerity, erosion of workers right, privasitation and cutting back the welfare state, it does nothing to ensure that multinationals actually pay taxes to the countries in which they operate etc. The EU is designed by and solely for the self-serving politicians and multinationals who take all the cream from the top.
-
I think that austerity has been one of the key economic measures used in the EU, to deal with the crash, and it tends to slow economies down. The US has used more traditional Keynesian measures (stimulus).
However, neoliberal politicians also do this; for example, Osborne realized after a couple of years that he had stalled the economy, and began some stimulus injection of his own, so for example, we now have house price inflation, big projects in the south east and so on. However, the commitment to neoliberalism is also ideological - small state, privatization, sell off of companies (e.g. ICI), cuts to welfare, wage control, high bonuses. Enjoy!
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
Evidence please.
The current economic crisis proves that it is. What does it advocate? Austerity, erosion of workers right, privasitation and cutting back the welfare state, it does nothing to ensure that multinationals actually pay taxes to the countries in which they operate etc. The EU is designed by and solely for the self-serving politicians and multinationals who take all the cream from the top.
Bring back the glory days of the Soviet State?
-
... sell off of companies (e.g. ICI) ...
So who sold off ICI? Not the government. It was a public company, not a nationalised company.
If I recall correctly, ICI collapsed, the victim of incompetent management. It ended up being reduced to its component parts with each being sold to anyone who would buy it. Capitalism at its most naked.
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
Evidence please.
The current economic crisis proves that it is. What does it advocate? Austerity, erosion of workers right, privasitation and cutting back the welfare state, it does nothing to ensure that multinationals actually pay taxes to the countries in which they operate etc. The EU is designed by and solely for the self-serving politicians and multinationals who take all the cream from the top.
Bring back the glory days of the Soviet State?
Well, you're just being silly now. Who said anything about Soviet state? Unless you're trying to argue that a strong public sector, the welfare state, workers' rights and curbing the unethical practices of multinationals are peculiar to "the Soviet State"?
-
... sell off of companies (e.g. ICI) ...
So who sold off ICI? It was a public company, not a nationalised company.
If I recall correctly, ICI collapsed, the victim of incompetent management. It ended up being reduced to its component parts with each being sold to anyone who would buy it. Capitalism at its most naked.
I wasn't saying that the state sold off ICI, but that in a neoliberal system it's more likely that such sales will happen, as certain companies prowl the world economy, looking for assets to strip. Even under Thatcher, ICI was seen as a national treasure. This is seen as sentimental under neoliberalism - who cares if your water company is owned by a global company, the shareholders love it.
-
... sell off of companies (e.g. ICI) ...
So who sold off ICI? It was a public company, not a nationalised company.
If I recall correctly, ICI collapsed, the victim of incompetent management. It ended up being reduced to its component parts with each being sold to anyone who would buy it. Capitalism at its most naked.
I wasn't saying that the state sold off ICI, but that in a neoliberal system it's more likely that such sales will happen, as certain companies prowl the world economy, looking for assets to strip. Even under Thatcher, ICI was seen as a national treasure. This is seen as sentimental under neoliberalism - who cares if your water company is owned by a global company, the shareholders love it.
OK - I stand corrected.
I agree about the public perception of ICI. Not only the company but its chairman, John Harvey Jones was seen as a national treasure. At least, he was not responsible for its catastrophic decline.
-
Also, I think this happened under Labour, who went hell for leather for neoliberal policies, and they are still reaping the rewards!
-
Going back to Osborne, another amusing story is that Balls consistently predicted that the cuts would stall the economy, which duly happened. Of course, no way in hell was Osborne going to agree that plan A wasn't working, but he began to introduce stimulus measures, as Balls had recommended, while denying it like mad. This is politics for you, Osborne triumphant, Balls watching daytime TV.
-
Osborne is a wanker.
Just saying...
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
Evidence please.
The current economic crisis proves that it is. What does it advocate? Austerity, erosion of workers right, privasitation and cutting back the welfare state, it does nothing to ensure that multinationals actually pay taxes to the countries in which they operate etc. The EU is designed by and solely for the self-serving politicians and multinationals who take all the cream from the top.
Bring back the glory days of the Soviet State?
Well, you're just being silly now. Who said anything about Soviet state? Unless you're trying to argue that a strong public sector, the welfare state, workers' rights and curbing the unethical practices of multinationals are peculiar to "the Soviet State"?
Yes I'm the one being silly, all a neo-liberal conspiracy.
-
Sorry, are you American? From the stupidity of your answer one can only infer that you are.
-
Sorry, are you American? From the stupidity of your answer one can only infer that you are.
I don't think I'm going to have a reasoned discussion with someone who takes the view 'The EU is designed by and solely for the self-serving politicians and multinationals who take all the cream from the top', sorry.
-
Dear Wigs,
who cares if your water company is owned by a global company, the shareholders love it.
Water, shareholders, people actually making profit out of water.
Or is it just me, where I go wrong is in thinking I can invade Poland with flowers in my hair, your gonna meet some gentle people there. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wigs,
who cares if your water company is owned by a global company, the shareholders love it.
Water, shareholders, people actually making profit out of water.
Or is it just me, where I go wrong is in thinking I can invade Poland with flowers in my hair, your gonna meet some gentle people there. >:(
Gonnagle.
No, what they actually make a profit from is taking your waste away, cleaning it, testing it and delivering it back to you in drinkable form.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to keep our water safe from bio terrorists?
-
Balls watching daytime TV.
... a phrase which continues to work on other levels if you rearrange the words, curiously enough.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
You can paint it anyway you want to, simple fact is that we all need water to survive, I don't mind paying to have water piped to my home, paying someone to clean it and protect it, what I mind is someone profiting from doing it, but I am open to having my mind changed, argue that it is okay to make profit from supplying water.
Gonnagle.
-
My argument would be that companies supplying water don't know what changes lie ahead so they need to plan for drought, flood, terrorism etc. That needs a profit to invest if we dint want a tax increase or increase in costs.
What makes me uncomfortable is that these companies are not UK based. But that might be irrational.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
I don't know what kind of territory we are straying into here, but my thinking is that companies run especially for shareholders, but again I could be wrong.
Gonnagle.
-
Yes they are. But if they screw up they get sued, their company's worthless and their profits go down the swanny. Or governments intervene. Therefore planning on running a company well, including maintaining supply and customer safety, is essential. There's no profit in a husiness that can't supply what it sells.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Sorry but your arguments are not working, and I am not saying you are wrong, just makes no sense to me.
My thinking, we all baulk at any privatization of the NHS, a very basic commodity like water and we allow it to be in the hands of profiteers.
I am not against someone making a profit, but water :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
The EU is jst part of the neo-liberal globalust scheme, designed to make the well-off richer and kerp the less well-off in their place. The UK leaving the EU would therefore be a good thing in the hope that it would mean the beginning of the enx of the EU.
I assume that you mean 'a good thing' in terms of making most of us a lot less rich?
Right! If you mean the elite, then yes, but most, no. The EU has bought in to the austerity myth and most are suffering.
Elite can be a relative word. Those 'poor' EU citizens who are 'suffering' from austerity might be regarded as doing very nicely by many of those outside of the EU.
Yes, I'm sure that's of much comfort to those who are losing lost their jobs or those who are seeing the welfare state gradually being eroded away.
I think that it could be could argued that the current depressed state of the EU is due to the socialist policies being pursued by some governments, and maybe that could be an argument for UK withdrawal.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Sorry but your arguments are not working, and I am not saying you are wrong, just makes no sense to me.
My thinking, we all baulk at any privatization of the NHS, a very basic commodity like water and we allow it to be in the hands of profiteers.
I am not against someone making a profit, but water :o :o
Gonnagle.
One of my kids did a trip to a water company and the security was akin to that at a nuclear power plant. The state pays, or the company pays out of its profits.
The NHS is can't cope. Are you suggesting we burden the state with supplying our water as well?
-
we all baulk at any privatization of the NHS,
Do we?
I did hear one Doctor claim 40% of the care provided by the NHS comes from the private sector.
GP's are private.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Burden the state!! Yes, and yes the company does pay out of their profits, is that before or after the shareholders are sorted out.
Gonnagle.
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
Evidence please.
The current economic crisis proves that it is.
How?
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
Evidence please.
The current economic crisis proves that it is.
How?
In the same post I explain why I think so, but you didn't bother quotng that part.
-
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
Evidence please.
The current economic crisis proves that it is.
How?
In the same post I explain why I think so, but you didn't bother quotng that part.
But your explanation was just more assertions from you. You saying something doesn't make it true.
-
Let's examine your assertions in a little more detail
This is the original assertion.
The EU is just part of the neo-liberal globalist scheme,
This is the post claimed to be proof
The current economic crisis proves that it is. What does it advocate? Austerity, erosion of workers right, privasitation and cutting back the welfare state, it does nothing to ensure that multinationals actually pay taxes to the countries in which they operate etc. The EU is designed by and solely for the self-serving politicians and multinationals who take all the cream from the top.
Austerity, erosion of workers right, privasitation and cutting back the welfare state
Funny, I thought these were ideas advocated by the current British government. The EU is perceived (in the UK, at least) as going the other way.
it does nothing to ensure that multinationals actually pay taxes to the countries in which they operate etc.
The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over individual countries' tax law. Even so, I think you'll find that many companies do pay taxes in at least one EU country.
The EU is designed by and solely for the self-serving politicians and multinationals who take all the cream from the top.
Citation needed.
-
Just look at what it's asking Greece to do, as just one example, and it's all those things I mention. Neo liberal economics, as plain as plain can be. With any lick the English will vote to leave and that will be the beginning of the end of the EU.
-
Surely, there are different types of neo-liberalism. For example, for many Tories, the EU is too favourable to workers' rights, but the EU still favours privatization and austerity, as do the World Bank and IMF. In fact, you will struggle to find people rejecting neo-liberalism - the Labour party supports it. Maybe Obama is more Keynesian. Scandinavia was always cited as classic social democracy, but haven't they also gone towards neo-liberalism?
-
Dear Wigs,
DEFINITION of 'Keynesian Economics'
An economic theory of total spending in the economy and its effects on output and inflation. Keynesian economics was developed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s in an attempt to understand the Great Depression. Keynes advocated increased government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand and pull the global economy out of the Depression. Subsequently, the term “Keynesian economics” was used to refer to the concept that optimal economic performance could be achieved – and economic slumps prevented – by influencing aggregate demand through activist stabilization and economic intervention policies by the government. Keynesian economics is considered to be a “demand-side” theory that focuses on changes in the economy over the short run.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp#ixzz3a1jjKPGL
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter
In a nutshell for us brain cell deficient, Government spends more and keeps taxes lower?
Gonnagle.
-
Surely, there are different types of neo-liberalism. For example, for many Tories, the EU is too favourable to workers' rights, but the EU still favours privatization and austerity, as do the World Bank and IMF. In fact, you will struggle to find people rejecting neo-liberalism - the Labour party supports it. Maybe Obama is more Keynesian. Scandinavia was always cited as classic social democracy, but haven't they also gone towards neo-liberalism?
Economic liberalism? Does the EU favor privatization and austerity?
-
Surely, there are different types of neo-liberalism. For example, for many Tories, the EU is too favourable to workers' rights, but the EU still favours privatization and austerity, as do the World Bank and IMF. In fact, you will struggle to find people rejecting neo-liberalism - the Labour party supports it. Maybe Obama is more Keynesian. Scandinavia was always cited as classic social democracy, but haven't they also gone towards neo-liberalism?
The Nordic countries were models of social democracies but not so much anymore. Here in Finland at the moment it's cut, cut, cut. The only thing preventing allout austerity is that Finns Party is now in government. As for workers' rights, the EU are eroding that to. The code word is "a more flexible, mobile worforce" or something similar to that. What it really means is making it easier to sack people, making it harder to get permanent fulltime contracts and getting cheap labour from abroad.
-
Dear Wigs,
DEFINITION of 'Keynesian Economics'
An economic theory of total spending in the economy and its effects on output and inflation. Keynesian economics was developed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s in an attempt to understand the Great Depression. Keynes advocated increased government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand and pull the global economy out of the Depression. Subsequently, the term “Keynesian economics” was used to refer to the concept that optimal economic performance could be achieved – and economic slumps prevented – by influencing aggregate demand through activist stabilization and economic intervention policies by the government. Keynesian economics is considered to be a “demand-side” theory that focuses on changes in the economy over the short run.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp#ixzz3a1jjKPGL
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter
In a nutshell for us brain cell deficient, Government spends more and keeps taxes lower?
Gonnagle.
Definitely govt spending, I think taxes vary. The classic case is the US in the 30s, when Roosevelt tried public works (roads, dams), subsidies to farmers, with mixed results.
But all govts do this to an extent, Osborne did it quietly, hoping nobody would see it as plan B, plan A being austerity. But I think Keynes said that too much austerity leads to stagnation, e.g. Japan for 20 years, I think, as there is no money sloshing around. One solution is quantitative easing, but cynics say that the banks just pocket billions, thank you very much.
Another point is that K argued that running a deficit in govt is not unfortunate, but a necessity, to get out of recession, but others disagree!
-
Surely, there are different types of neo-liberalism. For example, for many Tories, the EU is too favourable to workers' rights, but the EU still favours privatization and austerity, as do the World Bank and IMF. In fact, you will struggle to find people rejecting neo-liberalism - the Labour party supports it. Maybe Obama is more Keynesian. Scandinavia was always cited as classic social democracy, but haven't they also gone towards neo-liberalism?
The Nordic countries were models of social democracies but not so much anymore. Here in Finland at the moment it's cut, cut, cut. The only thing preventing allout austerity is that Finns Party is now in government. As for workers' rights, the EU are eroding that to. The code word is "a more flexible, mobile worforce" or something similar to that. What it really means is making it easier to sack people, making it harder to get permanent fulltime contracts and getting cheap labour from abroad.
It's ironic that neo-liberalism, in the form of a financialized capitalism, led to the biggest economic crisis since the 30s, and the solution is said to be - more neo-liberalism. This requires the hollowing out of the welfare state, increasing inequality, and the sell-off of anything valuable to global companies, who will maximize profits, and screw the customer. Well, good luck to us all!
-
Just look at what it's asking Greece to do, as just one example, and it's all those things I mention. Neo liberal economics, as plain as plain can be. With any lick the English will vote to leave and that will be the beginning of the end of the EU.
Greece is in a position equivalent to a person on the basic minimum wage whose bank have inadvertently given him a £100,000 credit limit and they have blown the lot! Even at the time, plenty of people pointed out that the Greek economy was not ready to enter the Eurozone, but they joined anyway and went on a spending spree.
Like the indebted individual, I suspect that the only solution is voluntary bankruptcy (or it's equivalent)
-
Another point is that K argued that running a deficit in govt is not unfortunate, but a necessity, to get out of recession, but others disagree!
Absolutely and you can do that if you run a surplus at times of growth. Labour were running a deficit when the recession hit.
-
Another point is that K argued that running a deficit in govt is not unfortunate, but a necessity, to get out of recession, but others disagree!
Absolutely and you can do that if you run a surplus at times of growth. Labour were running a deficit when the recession hit.
Though they had reduced the deficit below any percentage it has been for thirty years at that stage. The Tories increased the deficit in % terms by three fold between 79 and 92
-
Another point is that K argued that running a deficit in govt is not unfortunate, but a necessity, to get out of recession, but others disagree!
Absolutely and you can do that if you run a surplus at times of growth. Labour were running a deficit when the recession hit.
Though they had reduced the deficit below any percentage it has been for thirty years at that stage. The Tories increased the deficit in % terms by three fold between 79 and 92
Here is the full picture.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data
The point stands if Labour hadn't run a deficit prior to the crash then austerity needn't have been at the levels it was if at all.
-
Another point is that K argued that running a deficit in govt is not unfortunate, but a necessity, to get out of recession, but others disagree!
Absolutely and you can do that if you run a surplus at times of growth. Labour were running a deficit when the recession hit.
Though they had reduced the deficit below any percentage it has been for thirty years at that stage. The Tories increased the deficit in % terms by three fold between 79 and 92
Here is the full picture.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data
The point stands if Labour hadn't run a deficit prior to the crash then austerity needn't have been at the levels it was if at all.
Bollocks, since Austerity depressed wages as a device to make capital richer.
I hear the French are bouncing back economically. If they did this without L'Austerite then that puts ''Plan A'' under ther microscope.
-
UKIP is interesting in relation to neo-liberalism, as they seem to be in favour of it in some respects, e.g.privatizing things, but against it in others, e.g. free movement of labour, or cheap labour if you like. But maybe all parties are inconsistent in the same way.
-
Another point is that K argued that running a deficit in govt is not unfortunate, but a necessity, to get out of recession, but others disagree!
Absolutely and you can do that if you run a surplus at times of growth. Labour were running a deficit when the recession hit.
Though they had reduced the deficit below any percentage it has been for thirty years at that stage. The Tories increased the deficit in % terms by three fold between 79 and 92
Here is the full picture.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data
The point stands if Labour hadn't run a deficit prior to the crash then austerity needn't have been at the levels it was if at all.
Bollocks, since Austerity depressed wages as a device to make capital richer.
I hear the French are bouncing back economically. If they did this without L'Austerite then that puts ''Plan A'' under ther microscope.
If all else fails fart out a conspiracy theory.
-
Yeah, right! The policies speak for themselves which we've already gone through. When they start doing something to make multnational corporations pay their fair share of tax to the countries in which they operate instead of first cutting back on the welare state, raising the retirement age, compromsing job security, all of the things which affect those on the lowest end of the wage scale the most then, and only then, might I change my mind that it's not all one big scheme by the richest to scape every last bit of creme from the top for themselves. It's an old boys club, I'm all right Jack, fuck the rest.
-
Just look at what it's asking Greece to do,
What? Tell an economic basket case to get its house in order. Greece's problems are not the fault of the EU - well, not the current EU. There's a good case to be made that the one of 15 years ago was grossly negligent in admitting Greece into the Euro.
and it's all those things I mention.
As long as it's just you making unsubstantiated assertions, you've got nothing.
-
Bury your head in the sand then.
-
Yeah, right! The policies speak for themselves which we've already gone through.
When you say gone through you mean you ranted about them. I know this might come as a shock but your views don't count as arguments.
When they start doing something to:-
1. make multnational corporations pay their fair share of tax to the countries in which they operate then, and only then, might I change my mind that it's not all one big scheme by the richest to scape every last bit of creme from the top for themselves.
In the upcoming negotiations that is on the the Tories wish list and met with approval on Newsnight from an EU commentator.
Although that rather buggers things up for Ireland.
-
I don't think we have to worry to much about the EU ref.
The majority of 'business' tories, Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP don't want out and I would 'think' that public had enough sense to stay in as well except of course the 4 million numpties that voted for UKIP!!!
Good to see that the tories have a minute bit of sense and are expected to revolt against the insane scrapping of the human rights act.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-faces-tory-backbench-rebellion-over-plans-to-scrap-the-human-rights-act-10248313.html
Wont' belong now before there are protests in the streets with these idiots in charge.... You heard it here first ;)
-
Details of the proposed electoral register for referendum
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32872211?SThisFB
-
The jerrymandered rules of the referendum will exclude a Member of the Scottish Parliament from voting in it, but will allow an Irish or Maltese?
And we're supposed to respect the criminals in Westminster?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/french-born-snp-msp-its-a-democratic-disgrace-that-i-cant-vote-in-eu-refe.1432560308
-
The jerrymandered rules of the referendum will exclude a Member of the Scottish Parliament from voting in it, but will allow an Irish or Maltese?
And we're supposed to respect the criminals in Westminster?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/french-born-snp-msp-its-a-democratic-disgrace-that-i-cant-vote-in-eu-refe.1432560308
That it is the GE electoral roll is not gerrymandering, it is a valid choice, just may not be the right or sensible one
-
The jerrymandered rules of the referendum will exclude a Member of the Scottish Parliament from voting in it, but will allow an Irish or Maltese?
And we're supposed to respect the criminals in Westminster?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/french-born-snp-msp-its-a-democratic-disgrace-that-i-cant-vote-in-eu-refe.1432560308
I'd have more respect for you, if you didn't frame every point using ridiculous inflammatory language that tries to blame evil Westminster. Yes we get that you hate the English, please shut up about it now.
Calling this "jerrymandered" [sic] is nonsense. They are saying the rules for the electorate will be broadly in line with the rules for General Elections. I happen to agree that the rules are wrong, anybody over 18 who pays taxes to the UK government (as your French born MSP does) should certainly be allowed to vote. But this really isn't an evil plot.
-
But, jeremy, this has nothing to do with the English.
Last time I looked, Westminster was capital of a collection of nations called the United Kingdom.
Am I mistaken in this?
Please point out any post I have ever made on this forum which is anti-English.
I can point out hundreds which are anti-Westminster.
The two are not synonymous.
By the way, here's another anti -Westminsrter rant for you.
If these daft referendum rules are put in place, my newly elected MP's wife will not be allowed to vote in it...even though she's been married to him for over ten years.
-
And of course Christian Allard who is an MSP isn't allowed to vote. It makes sense to me to have the same electoral roll as for European elections but then I would be happier if we had a consistent electoral roll for elections
-
But, jeremy, this has nothing to do with the English.
Last time I looked, Westminster was capital of a collection of nations called the United Kingdom.
Of course it is and it has its share of Scottish MPs. But you seem to take every opportunity to diss it.
If these daft referendum rules are put in place, my newly elected MP's wife will not be allowed to vote in it...even though she's been married to him for over ten years.
It is the same as the general election rules. She wasn't allowed to vote in those either. I agree that the rule is wrong, but this is not an attempt to bias the result.
-
So, unable to find any evidence for your assertion that I 'hate the English', jeremyP?
I'll happily own up to a healthy disrespect to all things Westminster, though.
The rUK wanted us Scots there....they'll have to live with the disrespect, disdain and derision we heap upon their tradition bound absurdity.
-
So, unable to find any evidence for your assertion that I 'hate the English', jeremyP?
I'll happily own up to a healthy disrespect to all things Westminster, though.
The rUK wanted us Scots there....they'll have to live with the disrespect, disdain and derision we heap upon their tradition bound absurdity.
Apparently our Scottish friends in the new Parliament, or rather some of them, have been behaving with something less than suitable decorum. I guess it was only to be expected, with the above mind-set. However, I would have thought they might have represented their constituents, who voted to be part of the UK, with a little more maturity.
-
So, unable to find any evidence for your assertion that I 'hate the English', jeremyP?
I'll happily own up to a healthy disrespect to all things Westminster, though.
The rUK wanted us Scots there....they'll have to live with the disrespect, disdain and derision we heap upon their tradition bound absurdity.
Apparently our Scottish friends in the new Parliament, or rather some of them, have been behaving with something less than suitable decorum. I guess it was only to be expected, with the above mind-set. However, I would have thought they might have represented their constituents, who voted to be part of the UK, with a little more maturity.
Ah reading the Daily Mail again
-
So, unable to find any evidence for your assertion that I 'hate the English', jeremyP?
I'll happily own up to a healthy disrespect to all things Westminster, though.
The rUK wanted us Scots there....they'll have to live with the disrespect, disdain and derision we heap upon their tradition bound absurdity.
Apparently our Scottish friends in the new Parliament, or rather some of them, have been behaving with something less than suitable decorum. I guess it was only to be expected, with the above mind-set. However, I would have thought they might have represented their constituents, who voted to be part of the UK, with a little more maturity.
Ah reading the Daily Mail again
No, it was related in detail on Yahoo. But there are several other sources: the Telegraph is one:
www.theguardian.com/.../sir-gerald-kaufman-labour-snp-mps-goons- commons-behaviour
-
So, unable to find any evidence for your assertion that I 'hate the English', jeremyP?
I'll happily own up to a healthy disrespect to all things Westminster, though.
The rUK wanted us Scots there....they'll have to live with the disrespect, disdain and derision we heap upon their tradition bound absurdity.
Apparently our Scottish friends in the new Parliament, or rather some of them, have been behaving with something less than suitable decorum. I guess it was only to be expected, with the above mind-set. However, I would have thought they might have represented their constituents, who voted to be part of the UK, with a little more maturity.
Ah reading the Daily Mail again
No, it was related in detail on Yahoo.
And pray tell us all of the dreadful behaviour
-
So, unable to find any evidence for your assertion that I 'hate the English', jeremyP?
I'll happily own up to a healthy disrespect to all things Westminster, though.
The rUK wanted us Scots there....they'll have to live with the disrespect, disdain and derision we heap upon their tradition bound absurdity.
See, above link.
Apparently our Scottish friends in the new Parliament, or rather some of them, have been behaving with something less than suitable decorum. I guess it was only to be expected, with the above mind-set. However, I would have thought they might have represented their constituents, who voted to be part of the UK, with a little more maturity.
Ah reading the Daily Mail again
No, it was related in detail on Yahoo.
And pray tell us all of the dreadful behaviour
-
What's wrong with treating the whole tradition bound absurdity with the disdain it deserves, BA?
When self-confessed liars such as Carmichael are addressed as r;right honourable gentlemen' when they are nothing of the sort, or 650 members try to plant their backsides in a leather clad playpen designed in 1945 to be too small for them, why shouldn't we treat the whole farce with contempt?
-
Ah yes dear old Gerald, Diane Abbott thinks he was wrong on this. But then, discourse, the standards of behaviour in the Commons is always so grown up and respectful.
-
Anyway, what about the electoral roll?
-
What's wrong with treating the whole tradition bound absurdity with the disdain it deserves, BA?
When self-confessed liars such as Carmichael are addressed as r;right honourable gentlemen' when they are nothing of the sort, or 650 members try to plant their backsides in a leather clad playpen designed in 1945 to be too small for them, why shouldn't we treat the whole farce with contempt?
Parliament is their to represent the people. To treat it with derision is to deride the people. If the SNP, in it's minority, considers it absurd, then they are free to use their democratically held mandate to campaign for change. Their reported conduct is infantile and disrespectful to this country as a whole.
-
What's wrong with treating the whole tradition bound absurdity with the disdain it deserves, BA?
When self-confessed liars such as Carmichael are addressed as r;right honourable gentlemen' when they are nothing of the sort, or 650 members try to plant their backsides in a leather clad playpen designed in 1945 to be too small for them, why shouldn't we treat the whole farce with contempt?
Parliament is their to represent the people. To treat it with derision is to deride the people. If the SNP, in it's minority, considers it absurd, then they are free to use their democratically held mandate to campaign for change. Their reported conduct is infantile and disrespectful to this country as a whole.
I think in a democracy its fine, just replace Westminster with Brussels in every AM rant and the same POV will be aired when in comes to the EU referendum.
-
BA:
Are you seriously suggesting that we treat a parliament whose traditions harp back to a pre-existing legislature of one of the component parts of this so-called UK, while ignoring the other pre-existing legislatures, with anything other than contempt?
Here's stuff from the Torygraph which illustrates my point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10223664/Traditions-of-the-House-of-Commons.html
On Thursday, the puppet show which has NOTHING to do with a United Kingdom will take place. Black rod will summon the plebs to meet the champagne charlies in their tinsel clad reception area for coffin dodgers.
Lizzie will do her ventriloquist dummy act wearing a bit of bling on her bonce, etc.
That has absolutely no connection with events after the so-called "Act of Union" of 1707.
Why should cash be wasted on it today?
-
BA:
Are you seriously suggesting that we treat a parliament whose traditions harp back to a pre-existing legislature of one of the component parts of this so-called UK, while ignoring the other pre-existing legislatures, with anything other than contempt?
Here's stuff from the Torygraph which illustrates my point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10223664/Traditions-of-the-House-of-Commons.html
On Thursday, the puppet show which has NOTHING to do with a United Kingdom will take place. Black rod will summon the plebs to meet the champagne charlies in their tinsel clad reception area for coffin dodgers.
Lizzie will do her ventriloquist dummy act wearing a bit of bling on her bonce, etc.
That has absolutely no connection with events after the so-called "Act of Union" of 1707.
Why should cash be wasted on it today?
Your answer is silly and immature. How would you feel if a bunch of MP's from England went up to your Parliament and made fun of it's procedures? Those SNP Members were simply cocking a snook at England, and succeeded only in making themselves look like 6th formers, if that's not an insult to the average 6th former!
-
It is our parliament as well. Anyway the electoral roll?
-
'cocking a snook' at the English?
Er.....you do know that three of those SNP MP's are English by birth, don't you, BA?
Were the SNP deriding an English parliament or English institution, it would be contemptible and totally wrong.
As far as I am aware, though, there is no English parliament....though I believe there should be.
Therefore the members are within their right to poke fun at a system long bereft of dignity and relevance.
-
The result of the EU referendum is a foregone conclusion: Stay in and come out.
If the general election result was due to a desire for the status quo then We will vote to stay in.
On the other hand if it was due to English nationalism then we will vote to come out.
Not necessarily, Vlad. If the result is due to English nationalism, it might well be to stay in but under policies that better serve the people of Europe, rather than just the people of Germany and France.
-
'cocking a snook' at the English?
Er.....you do know that three of those SNP MP's are English by birth, don't you, BA?
Were the SNP deriding an English parliament or English institution, it would be contemptible and totally wrong.
As far as I am aware, though, there is no English parliament....though I believe there should be.
Therefore the members are within their right to poke fun at a system long bereft of dignity and relevance.
Jim, is the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd or Stormont of any relevance to those parts of the UK that aren't run by those authorities? Are you telling us that those places have no tradition - even 17 short years after their establishment?
-
Were the SNP deriding an English parliament or English institution, it would be contemptible and totally wrong.
Why?
Therefore the members are within their right to poke fun at a system long bereft of dignity and relevance.
Sadly it still has relevance because it has power.
-
Dunno about Walse, Hope;
However the procedures for administering the Scots Parliament were enshrined in the Scotland Act 1999, and the chamber is run without the flourishes, flummery, daft courtesy titles and other rubbish which infests Westminster. Liz has visited the parliament on four occasions, one of which was when it vacated its' then temporary home to make way for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (who owned the building).
On the three occasions when Liz opened Parliament as queen of Scots, the only things which remained in common were the fact that the honours of Scotland (the Scots crown, which Liz has never worn) were present, and the monarch sat on a level, or slightly below, those elected by the people.
That was a hark back invented by Donald Dewar, to show that the Scots parliament regarded the sovriegn as one among equals (as it did pre 1605) rather than as one to be exalted or set apart.
As for the rest?
The opening is usually finished with a song...and I well remember the very first song sung in 1999 - my friend folk singer Sheena Wellington singing "A man's a man for a; that", whicch ridicules the aristocracy, monarchy and states that
"The man o independant mind
he looks, and laughs at a that!"
-
The opening is usually finished with a song...and I well remember the very first song sung in 1999 - my friend folk singer Sheena Wellington singing "A man's a man for a; that", whicch ridicules the aristocracy, monarchy and states that
"The man o independant mind
he looks, and laughs at a that!"
Sounds like a puppet show.
-
Sounds like a puppet show.
Clearly not a particularly serious body ;)
-
The opening is usually finished with a song...and I well remember the very first song sung in 1999 - my friend folk singer Sheena Wellington singing "A man's a man for a; that", whicch ridicules the aristocracy, monarchy and states that
"The man o independant mind
he looks, and laughs at a that!"
Sounds like a puppet show.
I thought the Punch and Judy bit was PMQs at Westminster?
-
Dear Sane,
Punch and Judy, House of Commons, very apt.
That's the way to do it!! or not as the case may be.
Our Jim talking about independent minds, yes to many politicians are towing the party line instead of voicing their own thoughts.
There was a speaker at the general assembly last week who said a private poll had been conducted asking all politicians standing in the election what their views were on trident, the majority voted to scrap it, wonder if our Jim could throw some light on this.
Gonnagle.
-
The opening is usually finished with a song...and I well remember the very first song sung in 1999 - my friend folk singer Sheena Wellington singing "A man's a man for a; that", whicch ridicules the aristocracy, monarchy and states that
"The man o independant mind
he looks, and laughs at a that!"
Sounds like a puppet show.
I thought the Punch and Judy bit was PMQs at Westminster?
I think all politics has elements of a Puppet Show, Newzoids!
-
Didn't hear about the poll, Gonzo, but assuming it was Scottish candidates only, wouldn't surprise me. You could mark almost certainly all Green and SNP candidates down as anti Trident, probably a majority of Lib Dems, possibly 50/50 on Labour, and then nearly all the Tories and UKIP for it.
Some Tories might have been against it, notes Michael Portillo is now anti renewal. The one Labour MP, Ian Murray, would have been against it, though as noted elsewhere he may now vote for it as being Shadow Sec of State he is bound by collective responsibility
-
Moderator:
Since this subject of this thread is likely to be relevant for some time it has been 'stickied'.
-
The opening is usually finished with a song...and I well remember the very first song sung in 1999 - my friend folk singer Sheena Wellington singing "A man's a man for a; that", whicch ridicules the aristocracy, monarchy and states that
"The man o independant mind
he looks, and laughs at a that!"
Sounds like a puppet show.
I thought the Punch and Judy bit was PMQs at Westminster?
When the blessed Cameron became our beloved PM, he said he wanted to do away with the Punch and Judy aspect of PM's Questions. As it is, he is the most vigorous exponent of the "style!" Another lie, then.
-
What's wrong with treating the whole tradition bound absurdity with the disdain it deserves, BA?
When self-confessed liars such as Carmichael are addressed as r;right honourable gentlemen' when they are nothing of the sort, or 650 members try to plant their backsides in a leather clad playpen designed in 1945 to be too small for them, why shouldn't we treat the whole farce with contempt?
Parliament is their to represent the people. To treat it with derision is to deride the people. If the SNP, in it's minority, considers it absurd, then they are free to use their democratically held mandate to campaign for change. Their reported conduct is infantile and disrespectful to this country as a whole.
In terms of the charges of being infantile, worth listening to this, the first maiden speech of the new parliament by Brendan O'Hara, MP for Argyll and Bute, and to Jacob Rees Mogg's comments at the end.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f4NObZwYJDk&feature=youtu.be
-
What's wrong with treating the whole tradition bound absurdity with the disdain it deserves, BA?
When self-confessed liars such as Carmichael are addressed as r;right honourable gentlemen' when they are nothing of the sort, or 650 members try to plant their backsides in a leather clad playpen designed in 1945 to be too small for them, why shouldn't we treat the whole farce with contempt?
Parliament is their to represent the people. To treat it with derision is to deride the people. If the SNP, in it's minority, considers it absurd, then they are free to use their democratically held mandate to campaign for change. Their reported conduct is infantile and disrespectful to this country as a whole.
In terms of the charges of being infantile, worth listening to this, the first maiden speech of the new parliament by Brendan O'Hara, MP for Argyll and Bute, and to Jacob Rees Mogg's comments at the end.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f4NObZwYJDk&feature=youtu.be
I think Rees Mogg must have been out of the Chamber earlier when Speaker Bercow had to reprimand the SNP Members for clapping their fellow's speech, which is was strictly against Parliamentary etiquette
-
Parliament is their to represent the people. To treat it with derision is to deride the people. If the SNP, in it's minority, considers it absurd, then they are free to use their democratically held mandate to campaign for change. Their reported conduct is infantile and disrespectful to this country as a whole.
No, this doesn't even begin to get off the ground as a serious argument. We live in a representative democracy - we elect people who are supposed to do our collective bidding.
In practice however MPs so rarely do represent the will of the people that to deride MPs is not anywhere near the same as deriding the people. It simply doesn't follow that to mock, deride and belittle MPs is to mock, deride and belittle those who elected them, because I believe that the vast majority of people who bother to vote do so out of sincere, even noble, if unrealistically idealistic, motives: it's not their fault if their hopes are dashed by a bunch of ultimately self-serving career politicians.
-
Parliament is their to represent the people. To treat it with derision is to deride the people. If the SNP, in it's minority, considers it absurd, then they are free to use their democratically held mandate to campaign for change. Their reported conduct is infantile and disrespectful to this country as a whole.
No, this doesn't even begin to get off the ground as a serious argument. We live in a representative democracy - we elect people who are supposed to do our collective bidding.
In practice however MPs so rarely do represent the will of the people that to deride MPs is not anywhere near the same as deriding the people. It simply doesn't follow that to mock, deride and belittle MPs is to mock, deride and belittle those who elected them, because I believe that the vast majority of people who bother to vote do so out of sincere, even noble, if unrealistically idealistic, motives: it's not their fault if their hopes are dashed by a bunch of ultimately self-serving career politicians.
However self-serving and disreputable many MP's are, it was not they that the childish SNP's were mocking: it was Parliament itself, representing the people of this land, and in particular the English who they see as the "enemy." It was silly, pointless and in the end unproductive.
I see, Shaky, that your grasp of politics and what is happening at present, is as tenuous as your grasp of the education system.
-
And pray tell us all of the dreadful behaviour
You'll be shocked when you hear what they did... they clapped a speech by their leader!!!!!!!!!
Yes, exactly.
-
How can Cameron get all the member states to have referendum or pass legislation changing their European treaty legislation so that he can have a referendum in the UK. Hammond has already said the speed of this is down to other states. There isn't going to be a referendum any time soon unless Cameron's demands are less than that.
-
How can Cameron get all the member states to have referendum or pass legislation changing their European treaty legislation so that he can have a referendum in the UK. Hammond has already said the speed of this is down to other states. There isn't going to be a referendum any time soon unless Cameron's demands are less than that.
Cameron's demands are never going to be met. The best he can hope for is a cobbled package of nothing in particular, and then try and claim he has succeeded.
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
That, of course, is their modus operandi, in this Parliament.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Threatening!! where?
Or is it simply the case that you and many others fell for the Tory ploy of using the SNP as a reason not to vote for Labour.
Gonnagle.
-
Threatening!! where?
Or is it simply the case that you and many others fell for the Tory ploy of using the SNP as a reason not to vote for Labour.
I'm a LibDem so I didn't fall for the tory ploy.
-
I've been criticising the SNP, freely; but this afternoon I watched Philippa Whitford speaking on the NHS in Parliament. She is a surgeon, who has spent time working in Gaza, and spoke with great common sense on the functions and needs of the NHS. I was most impressed. She is the kind of c, however talented an individual may be
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.
By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.
By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?
(a) no, they don't
(b) what conclusion did this high powered think tank come to?
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.
By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?
(a) no, they don't
(b) what conclusion did this high powered think tank come to?
And you know this how?
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.
By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?
(a) no, they don't
(b) what conclusion did this high powered think tank come to?
And you know this how?
I know them. I know many of the MPs. It is clear policy to stay in Europe. Perhaps ask why Hope thinks it isn't, since he is the one touting the extremely complex conspiracy theory.
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.
By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?
Not seeing that they like the European Union not the Union with England.
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.
By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?
(a) no, they don't
(b) what conclusion did this high powered think tank come to?
And you know this how?
Do you remember the referendum debate? How Alex Salmond was insisting that Scotland would more or less automatically join the EU after independence and everybody else including senior EU people were pointing out that it wouldn't be the case. The SNP wants independence only from the English not from overlords in general.
-
It is quite clear that the SNP wishes Scotland to be in the EU if it becomes independent.
Any statement to the contrary is just bollocks.
-
Though only God knows why.
-
The problem I have with the EU is the language barrier. I feel comfortable with France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc, as we all learn one or more of their languages anyway at school. When it comes to the Slavic languages, however, I have doubts about giving countries whose languages most of us can't understand such unlimited access to Britain.
-
The thought formers in this country will be happy to leave Europe because.
1) They will gain personally
2) Fellow countrymen will be in the shit thus improving the chances of cheap labour.
3) Non EU migrants are cheaper to hire....better for the cheap labour.
There in a nutshell is the no campaign
When are you guys going to learn the real meaning of Cameron's alleged 'failure' to reduce immigration?
-
Steve Baker MP leader of new Conservative party pressure group for gross repatriation of powers has stated that British people do not want a cap on immigration as much as wanting immigration decided in London.
-
Well, it won't be on 6th May 2016, if we find out date by ruling dates out it may take some time
-
It is quite clear that the SNP wishes Scotland to be in the EU if it becomes independent.
Any statement to the contrary is just bollocks.
I think the problem is that whatever the SNP wants is unlikely to match reality, if EU rules are adhered to - and from my experience of the EU, they usually are unless you are France or Germany when they are occasionally 'overlooked'. In other words, a vote for Scottish Independence will initially see Scotland having to leave the EU, apply for admission as with any other country - and there is no guarantee that that application would be successful.
-
It is quite clear that the SNP wishes Scotland to be in the EU if it becomes independent.
Any statement to the contrary is just bollocks.
I think the problem is that whatever the SNP wants is unlikely to match reality, if EU rules are adhered to - and from my experience of the EU, they usually are unless you are France or Germany when they are occasionally 'overlooked'.
Before we get onto this argument are you now accepting that when you stated they wanted to leave, you were wrong?
-
And for when we do get onto the discussion, the post below is s good starting point in terms of the rules rather then the politics. It's a little old but the actual rules haven't changed.
http://tinyurl.com/c5lm5ke
-
And o have posted this before but it is a good clear look at the issues and politics.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/independent-scotland-eu-2/
-
Before we get onto this argument are you now accepting that when you stated they wanted to leave, you were wrong?
NS, I have never stated that they wanted to leave; I have stated that their policy for independence is tantamount to wanting to leave - as the policy would require them to do so. I have tried to make the distinction clear every time I've dealt with the issue.
-
And for when we do get onto the discussion, the post below is s good starting point in terms of the rules rather then the politics. It's a little old but the actual rules haven't changed.
http://tinyurl.com/c5lm5ke
The problem, as I see it, is that if Scotland were to opt for independence, they would be withdrawing from an existing EU member state. As such, they would be choosing to withdraw themselves from any international treaty/ies that they were part of as members of the UK. As such, they would have to negotiate re-entry into those treaties. If the boot were to be on the other foot, and the 'rUK' was to vote to effectively expel them from the United Kingdom, then I think that a better case could be found for allowing them to remain within those treaties.
I have to admit that I hadn't really thought about the possibility that Scottish Independence might effectively see both elements 'outside' the treaties, as David suggests - or at least implies could happen - might occur.
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.
By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?
See comment above that the SNP leadership quite clearly secretly want out of the EU
-
:-[
And for when we do get onto the discussion, the post below is s good starting point in terms of the rules rather then the politics. It's a little old but the actual rules haven't changed.
http://tinyurl.com/c5lm5ke
The problem, as I see it, is that if Scotland were to opt for independence, they would be withdrawing from an existing EU member state. As such, they would be choosing to withdraw themselves from any international treaty/ies that they were part of as members of the UK. As such, they would have to negotiate re-entry into those treaties. If the boot were to be on the other foot, and the 'rUK' was to vote to effectively expel them from the United Kingdom, then I think that a better case could be found for allowing them to remain within those treaties.
I have to admit that I hadn't really thought about the possibility that Scottish Independence might effectively see both elements 'outside' the treaties, as David suggests - or at least implies could happen - might occur.
Do you know David Edward? I have to admit that having only met him once, I wouldn't feel comfortable referring to him as David. As he points out, while treaties need renegotiated the assumption from his point of view is that this would take place prior to separation. It does call into question the timescales put forward but not the feasibility. Further since you are disagreeing with his position, can you out up your legal qualifications?
-
I see that Labour have abstained on the amendment to reinforce govt purdah on run up to referendum. With the Tory rebels and SNP and others they could have got it introduced.
-
It is quite clear that the SNP wishes Scotland to be in the EU if it becomes independent.
Any statement to the contrary is just bollocks.
I think the problem is that whatever the SNP wants is unlikely to match reality, if EU rules are adhered to - and from my experience of the EU, they usually are unless you are France or Germany when they are occasionally 'overlooked'. In other words, a vote for Scottish Independence will initially see Scotland having to leave the EU, apply for admission as with any other country - and there is no guarantee that that application would be successful.
Highly unlikely they would be turned down.
-
Highly unlikely they would be turned down.
That's not what Barroso (iirc) suggested prior to the September 2014 referendum.
-
Do you know David Edward? I have to admit that having only met him once, I wouldn't feel comfortable referring to him as David.
Not that this is particularly relevant but I called him David because I thought the article referred to him as Edward David: I may have been wrong.
Regarding his point about treaties having to be renegotiated, I understand that such a process can take some time, especially when there are so many countries who such renegotiations have to be agreed by. I suspect that the 2 year limit he refers to might well be breached.
-
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.
I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.
By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?
See comment above that the SNP leadership quite clearly secretly want out of the EU
I thought that I'd put a smiley emoticon after that comment. Obviously I didn't. My apologies.
-
Do you know David Edward? I have to admit that having only met him once, I wouldn't feel comfortable referring to him as David.
Not that this is particularly relevant but I called him David because I thought the article referred to him as Edward David: I may have been wrong.
Regarding his point about treaties having to be renegotiated, I understand that such a process can take some time, especially when there are so many countries who such renegotiations have to be agreed by. I suspect that the 2 year limit he refers to might well be breached.
Well we will just out your getting his name wrong to a misreading, but why cut out the bit in my post where I mentioned the issue with timescales?
Oh and on Barroso, he did suggest it would be difficult if not impossible for Scotland to join/continue membership on the basis of Spain being likely to object which subsequently to that the Spanish govt denied.
-
Oh and on Barroso, he did suggest it would be difficult if not impossible for Scotland to join/continue membership on the basis of Spain being likely to object which subsequently to that the Spanish govt denied.
I didn't hear or read the bit about Spain objecting. I'd actually understood him to have referenced some of the newer, ex-Eastern Bloc nations.
-
Oh and on Barroso, he did suggest it would be difficult if not impossible for Scotland to join/continue membership on the basis of Spain being likely to object which subsequently to that the Spanish govt denied.
I didn't hear or read the bit about Spain objecting. I'd actually understood him to have referenced some of the newer, ex-Eastern Bloc nations.
Only in relation to Spanish objection see link, which also includes a dissenting opinion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26278237
-
Highly unlikely they would be turned down.
That's not what Barroso (iirc) suggested prior to the September 2014 referendum.
Scare tactics. people spout Bollocks and sometimes people swallow it. George Osborne is particularly gifted at it. In fact I can envisage a time when they lumpen yeomen realise that he is billying them but string along within because the love him.
-
At a complete loss with this argument on the electorate and franchise
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/letting-teenagers-vote-make-vulnerable-5905830
-
And the amendment to change electoral role to allow 16/17 year olds to vote is defeated 310- 265
-
And the amendment to change electoral role to allow 16/17 year olds to vote is defeated 310- 265
I must say, while I have no deep opposition to lowering the voting age, I haven't seen a compelling case put forward as to why it should be done, and why it should be set at 16 if it were done.
-
And the amendment to change electoral role to allow 16/17 year olds to vote is defeated 310- 265
I must say, while I have no deep opposition to lowering the voting age,
I do. They're children.
-
And the amendment to change electoral role to allow 16/17 year olds to vote is defeated 310- 265
I must say, while I have no deep opposition to lowering the voting age,
I do. They're children.
Quite so.
-
I think lowering the voting age would be a silly mistake, many kids of that age are not informed, or interested enough, to make a sensible decision.
-
I think lowering the voting age would be a silly mistake, many kids of that age are not informed, or interested enough, to make a sensible decision.
I find the attitude of the Labour Party to youngsters to be bizarre. When in power, they turned sixteen & seventeen year olds back into schoolchildren by making them stay at school, & denying them the adult right to have sex with whom they wanted. Now in opposition, they want to give them the vote.
-
I think lowering the voting age would be a silly mistake, many kids of that age are not informed, or interested enough, to make a sensible decision.
I find the attitude of the Labour Party to youngsters to be bizarre. When in power, they turned sixteen & seventeen year olds back into schoolchildren by making them stay at school, & denying them the adult right to have sex with whom they wanted. Now in opposition, they want to give them the vote.
As far as I know they signed a united nations charter primarily designed to stop kids in the third world who are desperate for an eduction being denied it and being instead being coopted into becoming Child soldiers.
I can't see the Conservatives wanting to change it since Youth Unemployment figures would Skyrocket.
-
I think lowering the voting age would be a silly mistake, many kids of that age are not informed, or interested enough, to make a sensible decision.
I find the attitude of the Labour Party to youngsters to be bizarre. When in power, they turned sixteen & seventeen year olds back into schoolchildren by making them stay at school, & denying them the adult right to have sex with whom they wanted. Now in opposition, they want to give them the vote.
As far as I know they signed a united nations charter primarily designed to stop kids in the third world who are desperate for an eduction being denied it and being instead being coopted into becoming Child soldiers.
I can't see the Conservatives wanting to change it since Youth Unemployment figures would Skyrocket.
Yes but that was not the way they presented it, Alan Johnson came out with some guff about "Nobody should be denied a proper education". As for the sex bit that was Harpy in her clumsy way trying obtain more rape convictions.
You are of course spot on with your final line.
-
A case put forward for having an EFTA option for the UK in the referendum, as this is the most favoured by the British public or the one that many would feel is a good option, even by those who want out.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/efta-self-government-winning-with-european-allies/
"The EU has been able to take away so much of self-government, by having collaborators in each country, mainly in the areas of big party politicians, big business, big finance and big media. These cartels are not in favour of democracy and prosperity for the many."
-
And the amendment to change electoral role to allow 16/17 year olds to vote is defeated 310- 265
I must say, while I have no deep opposition to lowering the voting age,
I do. They're children.
Which would be fair enough if they weren't being taxed on their earnings, having to pay full-fare on transport, being taxed on their clothing, allowed to join the army and die for their country...
If we're going to set an arbitrary age at which we deem people to be 'adults' (and I don't see any other way of running things than just setting an arbitrary age) it needs to be consistently applied for everything.
Why are people adults at 14 for train fare, 16 for joining the army or having sex, but 18 for buying cigarettes or voting?
O.
-
If we're going to set an arbitrary age at which we deem people to be 'adults' (and I don't see any other way of running things than just setting an arbitrary age) it needs to be consistently applied for everything.
Why are people adults at 14 for train fare, 16 for joining the army or having sex, but 18 for buying cigarettes or voting?
O, I'd agree. As such, I'd have it higher than lower. Whilst I accept that sex isn't only for procreation, it is the only natural way of procreation so the issue has to be considered when looking at the matter. In the late 1990s, the World Health Organisation stated that, globally, whilst girls were often mature enough to conceive as young as 12 the average age at which their bodies are strong enough to give birth safely was nearer 18. I doubt whether that age will have dropped by more than a year, and therefore this could be used as a marker.
-
Scare tactics. people spout Bollocks and sometimes people swallow it. George Osborne is particularly gifted at it. In fact I can envisage a time when they lumpen yeomen realise that he is billying them but string along within because the love him.
No, not scare tactics, Vlad. There are several EU nations who have movements within their own citizens who would like independence - eg the Basques and the Catalans in Spain; the Basques in France; Sardinian and Sicilian separatists in Italy; the Kurds in Turkey. They fear that, if Scotland becomes independent of the UK and is granted EU membership it will encourage the separatist hopes of these and other movements.
-
Latest EU polls in Scotland, apparently on the UK view this is at 52-36 stay in in this poll.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1332757-support-among-scots-to-remain-in-eu-at-strongest-yet-poll-finds/
-
And now overall polls putting it neck and neck - one 42-41 stay, other 40-42 go. Ladbrokes now has BrExit at .4 which is a new high up from .23 in August.
-
And now overall polls putting it neck and neck - one 42-41 stay, other 40-42 go. Ladbrokes now has BrExit at .4 which is a new high up from .23 in August.
I bet the EU think they can buy the UK off the same way they bought the stupid Irish and have now put them into serfdom. My main fear is that the British voters are just as stupid.
I reckon the reason why the renegotiations result has been put off till February is so that the EU can push the Brits as far as they can, that is annoy them, to see how much they need to give away to keep the UK in the EU. That may be why there is only one stumbling block so they can focus on that and come up with the prearranged solution to fit the annoyance level, and give Cameron the big paper waving victory....? ::)
But this whole process has made Cameron look like a real pillock, and he has totally misjudged things!!!
-
Responding to a comment made earlier in the thread, sixteen year olds are allowed to join the army but do not go overseas to fight until they are eighteen so they will not die for their country.
-
Interesting that there will be a free vote for Tories, and I suspect Labour as well. While it allows open dissent, it also increases the chance of a split post result.
-
Sturgeon
There are lots of jobs and investment in Scotland dependent on our membership of the Union.
According to the SNP this is true if the Union is EU.
-
Hi everyone,
The draft EU reforms are substantial says Cameron.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35467479
*************
David Cameron has said a draft deal on his reform demands delivers the "substantial change" he wants to see to the UK's relationship with the EU.
But the UK prime minister said there was "detail to be worked on" before a crunch summit on 18-19 February.
The deal, published by European Council President Donald Tusk, allows for an "emergency brake" on migrant benefits.
The BBC's Norman Smith said the document was hugely controversial and would be resisted by the PM's critics.
Mr Cameron's proposed four year ban on in-work benefits for EU migrant workers could come into force immediately if the UK votes to remain in the Union.
But it would have to be agreed by other EU nations and it would be "graduated", with more money from tax credits paid to migrants the longer they remain in the UK.
It says Mr Cameron's demand to exempt Britain from the EU principle of "ever closer union" between member states would be written into a future treaty.
There are also measures relating to protection for non-euro countries in the EU, a new way for member states to club together to block some new EU laws and on business regulations.
Mr Cameron will visit Poland and Denmark on Friday, as he embarks on a whirlwind charm offensive to persuade the other 27 EU leaders to sign up to the Tusk package in Brussels on February 18-19.
If Mr Cameron can get an agreement in February, he is expected to hold a referendum in June on whether Britain should remain in the EU.
*************
Any views?
Sriram
-
Dear Sriram,
as he embarks on a whirlwind charm offensive
HA HA HA HO HO HO HO HA HA HA, stop it you are killing me ;D
There has been some wonderful banter on the forum today but that takes the biscuit :P
Gonnagle.
-
The emphasis has now moved to refugees from outside the EU.
I shall vote to stay in, as far as I am concerned this referendum is a pointless waste of money.
-
Gonners
Do I detect a hint, nay a soupçon of disbelief in your post.
-
Dear Trent,
Sorry old son but I still have a huge smile on my face, if we have to rely on that man's charm, oh God!!
Gonnagle.
PS: No that is not Blasphemy, it is a heart felt plea.
-
Dear Trent,
Sorry old son but I still have a huge smile on my face, if we have to rely on that man's charm, oh God!!
Gonnagle.
PS: No that is not Blasphemy, it is a heart felt plea.
I know - I can see the leaders all over Europe really looking forward to the pig lover turning up on their doorsteps.
-
Moderator:
Just to say that I've merged the posts from the thread that Sriram started earlier into this established sticky thread (minus the posts that pointed out there was an existing thread on this subject).
-
I'm for out currently, don't see a reason to stay in.
-
I think we would be CRAZY to leave the EU. The UK is too small to stand alone in this day and age, imo.
Agreed. The far and away most important reason to remain a member of the EU is peace. The history of the 20th century should teach that.
Political, economic, etc problems must be solved through negotiation, however difficult that may be, not by war.
ETA I didn't notice date of OP until I'd posted. I very seldom join political threads.
-
It's a stickied thread, Susan. This one will run and run until the referendum. Lots to discuss before then.
-
Hi everyone,
The draft EU reforms are substantial says Cameron.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35467479
*************
David Cameron has said a draft deal on his reform demands delivers the "substantial change" he wants to see to the UK's relationship with the EU.
But the UK prime minister said there was "detail to be worked on" before a crunch summit on 18-19 February.
The deal, published by European Council President Donald Tusk, allows for an "emergency brake" on migrant benefits.
The BBC's Norman Smith said the document was hugely controversial and would be resisted by the PM's critics.
Mr Cameron's proposed four year ban on in-work benefits for EU migrant workers could come into force immediately if the UK votes to remain in the Union.
But it would have to be agreed by other EU nations and it would be "graduated", with more money from tax credits paid to migrants the longer they remain in the UK.
It says Mr Cameron's demand to exempt Britain from the EU principle of "ever closer union" between member states would be written into a future treaty.
There are also measures relating to protection for non-euro countries in the EU, a new way for member states to club together to block some new EU laws and on business regulations.
Mr Cameron will visit Poland and Denmark on Friday, as he embarks on a whirlwind charm offensive to persuade the other 27 EU leaders to sign up to the Tusk package in Brussels on February 18-19.
If Mr Cameron can get an agreement in February, he is expected to hold a referendum in June on whether Britain should remain in the EU.
*************
Any views?
Sriram
Yes, it's total crap and a sham, the joke of the decade!!!
-
Agreed. The far and away most important reason to remain a member of the EU is peace. The history of the 20th century should teach that.
Political, economic, etc problems must be solved through negotiation, however difficult that may be, not by war.
ETA I didn't notice date of OP until I'd posted. I very seldom join political threads.
Rubbish. Look at how Greece was treated. It is now a class war.
Nearly no one in the EU and Brussels says that things are good and there is no need for change. But the problem is because of this class war there will be no agreement on how things should change and there will be a massive internal battle and bad feelings will cause people to drift apart. Better to leave now and avoid this chaos.
-
For me, the only thing we can do is stay in
Whether we are in or out, we are going to be influenced and controlled, at least to some degree, by Europe, as we are by the US, China and other parts of the world. We can't survive as a single entity unless we want to steadily drop down all the global league tables - something that, as an aging post-industrial nation we will do anyway, but just not as fast as we would if we were to go it alone. By aging, I mean in terms of both our population and status as the 'original' industrial nation.
We would do better to be in the Union, albeit not tied as closely as some are, and work to improve and develop that Union from within.
-
For me, the only thing we can do is stay in
Whether we are in or out, we are going to be influenced and controlled, at least to some degree, by Europe, as we are by the US, China and other parts of the world. We can't survive as a single entity unless we want to steadily drop down all the global league tables - something that, as an aging post-industrial nation we will do anyway, but just not as fast as we would if we were to go it alone. By aging, I mean in terms of both our population and status as the 'original' industrial nation.
We would do better to be in the Union, albeit not tied as closely as some are, and work to improve and develop that Union from within.
Oh dear, so much wrong with that. You need to smell the coffee Hope and realise that what you wish for in your post just isn't possible.
-
Agreed. The far and away most important reason to remain a member of the EU is peace. The history of the 20th century should teach that.
Political, economic, etc problems must be solved through negotiation, however difficult that may be, not by war.
ETA I didn't notice date of OP until I'd posted. I very seldom join political threads.
So if we leave the EU we'll stop negotiating and just declare war on everyone?
-
For me, the only thing we can do is stay in
Well that literally is not true.
Whether we are in or out, we are going to be influenced and controlled, at least to some degree, by Europe, as we are by the US, China and other parts of the world. We can't survive as a single entity unless we want to steadily drop down all the global league tables - something that, as an aging post-industrial nation we will do anyway, but just not as fast as we would if we were to go it alone. By aging, I mean in terms of both our population and status as the 'original' industrial nation.
So we shouldn't leave because we are going to drop down league tables which we will even if we stay.
We would do better to be in the Union, albeit not tied as closely as some are, and work to improve and develop that Union from within.
Its too big to change, Cameron has tried to change it, he can't.
-
Rubbish. Look at how Greece was treated. It is now a class war.
Nearly no one in the EU and Brussels says that things are good and there is no need for change. But the problem is because of this class war there will be no agreement on how things should change and there will be a massive internal battle and bad feelings will cause people to drift apart. Better to leave now and avoid this chaos.
But, as I have heard quite a few speakers say regarding trident for instance, the future is too unpredictable to take the chance of voluntarily removing ourselves from the EU just now.
Note to self: Do not read any more of this topic!!!
-
But, as I have heard quite a few speakers say regarding trident for instance, the future is too unpredictable to take the chance of voluntarily removing ourselves from the EU just now.
Trident is about NATO not the EU. God help us all for people like this that have the vote!!!
-
Trident is about NATO not the EU. God help us all for people like this that have the vote!!!
I hope it is obvious that although I mentioned NATO I am fully aware that it is not ppart of EU.
-
Well that literally is not true.
It is for me. I believe that we will suffer far more by leaving the EU than by staying in.
So we shouldn't leave because we are going to drop down league tables which we will even if we stay.
I wondered how quickly someone would misrepresent waht I wrote!! I believe that Europe's time as a 'big-hitter' is on the wane, and the UK's in particular. We already see nations like China and Brazil, India and Japan outstripping us. However, if the European nations work together, that wane will be slowed and the impact oin the already poor will be reduced - provided that we get good governance both as individual nations and as a Union. The latter is a problem, I accept, especially as so much EU legislaton still seems to put German and French priorities at its centre
Its too big to change, Cameron has tried to change it, he can't.
Yetr, it changes ever time a new member joins. It's rather like these organisations who run special deals to draw in new members and then ignores their needs once they've joined. Unfortunately, in a sense, it will never change for those already in except by those within kicking up a fuss.
-
I wondered how quickly someone would misrepresent waht I wrote!! I believe that Europe's time as a 'big-hitter' is on the wane, and the UK's in particular. We already see nations like China and Brazil, India and Japan outstripping us. However, if the European nations work together, that wane will be slowed and the impact oin the already poor will be reduced - provided that we get good governance both as individual nations and as a Union. The latter is a problem, I accept, especially as so much EU legislaton still seems to put German and French priorities at its centre
The only person misrepresenting you is yourself, I congratulate you now you have better explained your position.
In what way does Brazil and China outstrip us and why should we care?
I do care about the standards of living that people in this country enjoy, I don't give a dam if China are catching up, in fact quite I see that as a good thing.
The already poor in the EU are not mainly located in the UK but elesewhere.
Yetr, it changes ever time a new member joins. It's rather like these organisations who run special deals to draw in new members and then ignores their needs once they've joined. Unfortunately, in a sense, it will never change for those already in except by those within kicking up a fuss.
Are you saying the EU has changed, if so in which way?
-
I must say, I feel deeply resentful that Cameron is trying to bind together the Tory party via this referendum. So I am being asked to vote, so that his own Euro-skeptics can be neutralized? What a load of smoke and mirrors.
-
I must say, I feel deeply resentful that Cameron is trying to bind together the Tory party via this referendum. So I am being asked to vote, so that his own Euro-skeptics can be neutralized? What a load of smoke and mirrors.
Yes, that is definitely a part of it. That and hoping to see UKIP dead in the water. All about domestic politics rather than wanting reform, whether it's needed or not.
-
And the 'negotiations' are a con-trick. Cameron obviously has not obtained what he wanted, so he is using a kind of cosmetic gloss to spin them. On the other hand, I suppose this is what politicians do - I think Harold Wilson was a master of this, I'm thinking of the last referendum on Europe.
-
And the 'negotiations' are a con-trick. Cameron obviously has not obtained what he wanted, so he is using a kind of cosmetic gloss to spin them. On the other hand, I suppose this is what politicians do - I think Harold Wilson was a master of this, I'm thinking of the last referendum on Europe.
Whatever he's got will be watered down to nothingness in the following weeks by the other member states anyway.
-
I hope it is obvious that although I mentioned NATO I am fully aware that it is not ppart of EU.
Susan put your reading glasses on and reread the post of yours I replied to.
You did also say you weren't coming back to this thread.
-
I must say, I feel deeply resentful that Cameron is trying to bind together the Tory party via this referendum. So I am being asked to vote, so that his own Euro-skeptics can be neutralized? What a load of smoke and mirrors.
Then vote to leave.
-
Then vote to leave.
Vote to leave the EU because you want to stick one on Cameron?
This is why we shouldn't have referendums: people have all sorts of stupid reasons that cause them to make the wrong decision.
-
Vote to leave the EU because you want to stick one on Cameron?
This is why we shouldn't have referendums: people have all sorts of stupid reasons that cause them to make the wrong decision.
No. Vote to leave because it is the right thing to do.
-
No. Vote to leave because it is the right thing to do.
You told somebody to vote to leave just because they wanted to stick one on David Cameron. Surely you recognise that is bad advice.
People should vote based on the evidence of whether it would be a good idea to leave or not, economically and socially. They should not vote to leave based on hatred of one politician and your advice that they should is reprehensible to say the least.
-
You told somebody to vote to leave just because they wanted to stick one on David Cameron. Surely you recognise that is bad advice.
People should vote based on the evidence of whether it would be a good idea to leave or not, economically and socially. They should not vote to leave based on hatred of one politician and your advice that they should is reprehensible to say the least.
I was just trying to help you in the right direction. If you had to mention Cameron in the way that you did then quite obviously you haven't done your homework for if you had then whether you were voting on the same team as someone who you don't like wouldn't be an issue. You would be just pleased within yourself on the matter.
-
When is the leader of the opposition going to speak strongly on this issue?
-
When is the leader of the opposition going to speak strongly on this issue?
Nice argument that it is not the perpetrators but those who fail to stop them who are really responsible.
Typically Conservative though...thinking you are an oppressed minority when in fact you are the Government and the people wot vote them in.
-
I was just trying to help you in the right direction.
No you weren't. You told Wiginhall to vote based on his dislike of Cameron.
If you had to mention Cameron in the way that you did
It wasn't me that brought him up.
-
When is the leader of the opposition going to speak strongly on this issue?
Good question. As he holds different views to his PLP etc., at the moment, he tends to splutter on many issues. Guess he's waiting for when he's got the power of the Labour party under his flag. That's the Red one.
-
No you weren't. You told Wiginhall to vote based on his dislike of Cameron.
Still counts as trying to help the blind in the right direction.
It wasn't me that brought him up.
That's the problem of this new system of only allowing the last quote to figure. And of people butting in without indicating they are doing so on the behalf of the blind.
-
Nice argument that it is not the perpetrators but those who fail to stop them who are really responsible.
Typically Conservative though...thinking you are an oppressed minority when in fact you are the Government and the people wot vote them in.
Didn't make an argument but ask a question.
Not a conservative neither do I think I'm oppressed or the government.
Can you have a go at writing a sentence that isn't totally wrong?
-
Still counts as trying to help the blind in the right direction.
It counts as dishonesty.
-
It counts as dishonesty.
If it is doing the right thing then it is not. It is the aims and goals that count.
-
If it is doing the right thing then it is not.
It's not doing the right thing. Telling somebody to vote based on revenge on some politician instead of the issues and what is better for themselves and their country is not doing the right thing.
-
It's not doing the right thing. Telling somebody to vote based on revenge on some politician instead of the issues and what is better for themselves and their country is not doing the right thing.
But voting to leave is better for themselves and for the country and the issues show this to be the case.
-
But voting to leave is better for themselves and for the country and the issues show this to be the case.
No they don't. If they did, you would be using them instead of telling people it's a good way to spite a politician they don't like.
-
What I want to know is:
Expats like Leonard, presumably they will continue to get their pension ( or will they?) but what about if they need medical treatment?
At the moment we are covered by that EU card, which entitles us to some free treatment.
But if we left the eu, what happens about expats medical bills?
In theory they would lose the cover, wouldn't they?
Anyone know?
I've not seen it discussed as a possible consequence.
There are lots of retired people in Spain etc who it might affect.
Maybe even our own Len.
🌹
-
Omg!
referendum, two million British citizens could possibly lose their residency, employment and pension rights overnight – but no one is talking about it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/12151896/Expats-are-being-frozen-out-on-Europe.html
That doesn't sound too good :(
-
What I want to know is:
Expats like Leonard, presumably they will continue to get their pension ( or will they?) but what about if they need medical treatment?
At the moment we are covered by that EU card, which entitles us to some free treatment.
But if we left the eu, what happens about expats medical bills?
In theory they would lose the cover, wouldn't they?
Anyone know?
I've not seen it discussed as a possible consequence.
There are lots of retired people in Spain etc who it might affect.
Maybe even our own Len.
🌹
Oh dearie me, I hope not, having got to the age when I most need them!
-
Oh dearie me, I hope not, having got to the age when I most need them!
Well hopefully it won't happen.
:)
-
No they don't. If they did, you would be using them instead of telling people it's a good way to spite a politician they don't like.
Yes they do!!!
I would but its complicated so to make it easier for the permanently baffled I just use want I can to help them.
-
Yes they do!!!
I would but its complicated so to make it easier for the permanently baffled I just use want I can to help them.
It doesn't sound like you've got anything more than prejudice against Johnny Foreigner.
-
http://newsthump.com/2016/02/19/eu-summit-david-cameron-secures-changes-to-eurovision-voting/
-
It doesn't sound like you've got anything more than prejudice against Johnny Foreigner.
It doesn't sound like you've got anything more than naked and rude assertions about what your puny little brain thinks is my position on the matter.
-
No they don't. If they did, you would be using them instead of telling people it's a good way to spite a politician they don't like.
I don't think I was saying that. I was talking about the referendum as Cameron's way of unifying the Tory party, into which we have all been dragooned. We are being asked to heal the Tories' various splits. Am I interested in that?
-
I don't think I was saying that. I was talking about the referendum as Cameron's way of unifying the Tory party, into which we have all been dragooned. We are being asked to heal the Tories' various splits. Am I interested in that?
You're right about Cameron, it was a ploy to keep his party quiet on the EU, as a short term fix. He also reckoned, like most of us, that our present government would be a coalition again but the Tories tried too hard with the fear of a Labour-SNP coalition and won. Now his scheming is coming home to roost, and his inability to get anything worthwhile (which is making him look like a full blown twat) will cause an internal internecine war within the Conservatives (70% of the grassroots are Outers). If it is a Leave vote then even more so as there will no doubt be a leadership race.
-
I don't think I was saying that.
No, I don't think you were either. I was talking about Jack Knave's mythical issues.
-
You're right about Cameron, it was a ploy to keep his party quiet on the EU, as a short term fix. He also reckoned, like most of us, that our present government would be a coalition again but the Tories tried too hard with the fear of a Labour-SNP coalition and won. Now his scheming is coming home to roost, and his inability to get anything worthwhile (which is making him look like a full blown twat) will cause an internal internecine war within the Conservatives (70% of the grassroots are Outers). If it is a Leave vote then even more so as there will no doubt be a leadership race.
If there is a leave vote then as sure as night follows day we will see a vote in Scotland for independence so Cameron will have presided over the breakup of the UK.
He would, of course, have to resign.
-
If there is a leave vote then as sure as night follows day we will see a vote in Scotland for independence so Cameron will have presided over the breakup of the UK.
He would, of course, have to resign.
And I might move to Scotland in order to remain in the EU.
-
And I might move to Scotland in order to remain in the EU.
It would be interesting to know what the mechanism for Scotland joining the EU would be under those circumstances. So if the UK left the EU prior to Scotland becoming independent the arguments used in the earlier referendum of fast tracking into the EU as they were effectively already part of the EU wouldn't hold. It could be a bureaucratic nightmare.
-
It would be interesting to know what the mechanism for Scotland joining the EU would be under those circumstances. So if the UK left the EU prior to Scotland becoming independent the arguments used in the earlier referendum of fast tracking into the EU as they were effectively already part of the EU wouldn't hold. It could be a bureaucratic nightmare.
Yep, I entirely agree with that. And I would go further even if the two things were somehow done in sync it would be a nightmare.
-
No, I don't think you were either. I was talking about Jack Knave's mythical issues.
And what do you think (I'm being generous there) they are?
-
If there is a leave vote then as sure as night follows day we will see a vote in Scotland for independence so Cameron will have presided over the breakup of the UK.
He would, of course, have to resign.
Scotland can have a vote but it won't be legal and binding.
-
Scotland can have a vote but it won't be legal and binding.
And would a vote in the upcoming referendum on leaving the EU be legal and binding? Probably not.
-
Scotland can have a vote but it won't be legal and binding.
it might or might not, that would depend on what happens then.
-
Scotland can have a vote but it won't be legal and binding.
That's true - the only authority that can dissolve the union would be the UK government. But just as in the referendum a couple of years ago I cannot see the UK government failing to move to ratify a clear vote in Scotland to leave the UK.
-
And what do you think (I'm being generous there) they are?
I don't know. You tell me.
-
And would a vote in the upcoming referendum on leaving the EU be legal and binding? Probably not.
Legal , yes. Binding, depends. It could be framed and i suspect there will be discussion when legislation is placed about making it binding in the sense that further legislation would be needed to make it non binding.
-
And I might move to Scotland in order to remain in the EU.
Good luck with that one.
And do rescind your UK status, we wouldn't want you to come crawling back when it all goes pear shaped!!!
-
Good luck with that one.
And do rescind your UK status, we wouldn't want you to come crawling back when it all goes pear shaped!!!
So you admit it's all going to go pear shaped if we leave the EU.
-
It would be interesting to know what the mechanism for Scotland joining the EU would be under those circumstances. So if the UK left the EU prior to Scotland becoming independent the arguments used in the earlier referendum of fast tracking into the EU as they were effectively already part of the EU wouldn't hold. It could be a bureaucratic nightmare.
Scotland would be sucked into the Ever-Closer-Union nightmare!!!
-
I think it would be better to drop the 'legal' Here. It would be quite hard to have an illegal referendum. Binding is theoretically possible in a notional sense since you could have it in the law that the govt in power had to enact any choice by the end of the parliament but i can't see it as enforceable.
-
I think it would be better to drop the 'legal' Here. It would be quite hard to have an illegal referendum. Binding is theoretically possible in a notional sense since you could have it in the law that the govt in power had to enact any choice by the end of the parliament but i can't see it as enforceable.
That's true but the only authority that could make it binding would be the UK government as they are the only ones that can enact it. So unless the UK government plan to hold a referendum (and that is extremely unlikely) then the referendum will be called by the Scottish government and cannot be binding on the UK government. In practice of course if the UK government accepts the legitimacy of the referendum (they don't have to of course) then they are pretty well obliged to accept and act on its result.
-
Yep, I entirely agree with that. And I would go further even if the two things were somehow done in sync it would be a nightmare.
You lot have this all wrong. Scotland joined the EU as part of the UK and so it is predicated on that. If the UK leaves then Scotland has left and to join would mean to start from scratch and Brussels wants everyone to be under its thumb so Scotland would be subject to the full Monty with not special conditions or opt outs. In the end Scotland would end up like Greece.
-
That's true but the only authority that could make it binding would be the UK government as they are the only ones that can enact it. So unless the UK government plan to hold a referendum (and that is extremely unlikely) then the referendum will be called by the Scottish government and cannot be binding on the UK government. In practice of course if the UK government accepts the legitimacy of the referendum (they don't have to of course) then they are pretty well obliged to accept and act on its result.
Yep, I agree with that but I'm actually sceptical it would be binding if a govt post referendum decided not to enforce it.
-
You lot have this all wrong. Scotland joined the EU as part of the UK and so it is predicated on that. If the UK leaves then Scotland has left and to join would mean to start from scratch and Brussels wants everyone to be under its thumb so Scotland would be subject to the full Monty with not special conditions or opt outs. In the end Scotland would end up like Greece.
We haven't even approached that. Indeed in part we are agreeing with it. It's the mechanics before we even get there that are a nightmare. We haven't even got to the actual settlements on any side.
-
And would a vote in the upcoming referendum on leaving the EU be legal and binding? Probably not.
Of course it would be legal and binding because it has been passed through parliament.
-
it might or might not, that would depend on what happens then.
Like what?
-
That's true - the only authority that can dissolve the union would be the UK government. But just as in the referendum a couple of years ago I cannot see the UK government failing to move to ratify a clear vote in Scotland to leave the UK.
Westminster can be bastards.
-
Of course it would be legal and binding because it has been passed through parliament.
A parliamentary decision to hold a referendum does not mean that the result is binding. Parliament can decide to hold an advisory referendum - in other words it allows them to gauge the view of the public but without being bound to accept that view and act according to its outcome.
Currently I am not sure what the nature of the referendum that may be held in the summer will be - indeed I don't know whether it has actually gone through parliament yet.
CORRECTION - the European Union Referendum Act 2015 received royal ascent in December, but I think this only allows the referendum to be held, I am not sure it binds the government to its outcome.
-
I don't know. You tell me.
You don't know!!! You made a statement that implied you did. Now you're admitting you talked out your arse.
-
Like what?
Covered in other posts. It would be difficult to actually come up with a referendum that isn't legal. I am suspicious of whether any referendum is actually binding because of the difficulties of enforcing it.
I agree with Prof D that a Westminster govt would in all likelihood go along with any referendum. And as to your point about Westminster being bastards, surely given your opinion that would mean they go along with a vote to stay in ;)
-
So you admit it's all going to go pear shaped if we leave the EU.
I'm talking about the EU.
-
A parliamentary decision to hold a referendum does not mean that the result is binding. Parliament can decide to hold an advisory referendum - in other words it allows them to gauge the view of the public but without being bound to accept that view and act according to its outcome.
Currently I am not sure what the nature of the referendum that may be held in the summer will be - indeed I don't know whether it has actually gone through parliament yet.
CORRECTION - the European Union Referendum Act 2015 received royal ascent in December, but I think this only allows the referendum to be held, I am not sure it binds the government to its outcome.
I don't think it does, it isn't an enforceable statement even if it was imo, and it can't bind future govts
-
I don't think it does, it isn't an enforceable statement even if it was imo, and it can't bind future govts
I agree - I don't believe it does. Indeed a glance around suggest no referendums in the UK are binding as parliament is sovereign.
-
We haven't even approached that. Indeed in part we are agreeing with it. It's the mechanics before we even get there that are a nightmare. We haven't even got to the actual settlements on any side.
I'm just pointing out that many think they can just take over where the UK left off but they can't, it would be a brand new deal by the present rules.
-
A parliamentary decision to hold a referendum does not mean that the result is binding. Parliament can decide to hold an advisory referendum - in other words it allows them to gauge the view of the public but without being bound to accept that view and act according to its outcome.
Currently I am not sure what the nature of the referendum that may be held in the summer will be - indeed I don't know whether it has actually gone through parliament yet.
CORRECTION - the European Union Referendum Act 2015 received royal ascent in December, but I think this only allows the referendum to be held, I am not sure it binds the government to its outcome.
Everyone, MPs, commentators etc., are talking as though it is binding. I think if it wasn't Andrew Neil would have made this clear, and he's gospel.
-
Everyone, MPs, commentators etc., are talking as though it is binding. I think if it wasn't Andrew Neil would have made this clear, and he's gospel.
Likewise they talked about the Scottish referendum in the same manner, but it wasn't binding at all.
I doubt that the government would renege on enacting the result of the referendum, but I don't think it is legally binding. Were the referendum to vote for out it would require a further act to pass through parliament to actually make that happen. In theory the government could chose not to bring forward that piece of legislation.
-
Everyone, MPs, commentators etc., are talking as though it is binding. I think if it wasn't Andrew Neil would have made this clear, and he's gospel.
It's incredibly unlikely that action wouldn't follow but people don;t talk about any laws as if they aren't binding on the govt. The fact is that they aren't because there is a method to enforce it.
-
It's sealed. Michael Gove is campaigning for EU exit. That means it must clearly be better to stay in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35617843
-
It's sealed. Michael Gove is campaigning for EU exit. That means it must clearly be better to stay in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35617843
From what I gather he was the lynch pin as to some crucial others in the Tory party would fall. This call herald for a big fight within the party. ;D
-
It's sealed. Michael Gove is campaigning for EU exit. That means it must clearly be better to stay in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35617843
Definitely agree. I listened to some of Five Live in the night and there seemed to be far more people - journalists or politicians, or whatever they were - being interviewed who were for leaving than for staing, but I didn't bother to pick up the phone!
-
It's sealed. Michael Gove is campaigning for EU exit. That means it must clearly be better to stay in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35617843
Unfortunately we have Blair campaigning for IN though.
As someone noted on News Quiz, if one side could manage to send their supporters abroad for 3 months, they would probably win!
-
Following on from L.A.'s comment, the picture is frightening
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-negotiations-mass-walk-outs-as-george-galloway-speaks-at-anti-eu-grassroots-out-rally-a6885541.html
-
Following on from L.A.'s comment, the picture is frightening
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-negotiations-mass-walk-outs-as-george-galloway-speaks-at-anti-eu-grassroots-out-rally-a6885541.html
I think that photo is just what the IN campaign need.
-
I think that photo is just what the IN campaign need.
Indeed, I think they should use it as an advert.
-
Indeed, I think they should use it as an advert.
But it would probably have to carry the health warning:
May cause vomiting
-
Where's the brexit plan?
How is a globalist conservative government going to keep wages low without large scale immigration?
How much of the freed up euro payment going to go on public utilities and services?
-
It's sealed. Michael Gove is campaigning for EU exit. That means it must clearly be better to stay in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35617843
And that's your argument for staying in, because you don't like Gove. Hahahaaha....How stupid!!!
-
Following on from L.A.'s comment, the picture is frightening
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-negotiations-mass-walk-outs-as-george-galloway-speaks-at-anti-eu-grassroots-out-rally-a6885541.html
Yes, there are going to be some strange bed fellows in this referendum.
-
I think that photo is just what the IN campaign need.
A very unnerving photo. But to Farage's credit he is sticking with those who want to Leave even though their reasons are different to his. And Galloway's reason are not bad ones.
-
Was interested to hear Norman Tebbit quoting Aneurin Bevan on Radio 4's PM programme earlier to explain why he no longer agrees with our membership of Europe.
-
Boris could just sit on the fence and keep his vote to himself.
-
Boris could just sit on the fence and keep his vote to himself.
On that we agree - why his view is especially important seems solely to do with in-fighting within the Tory party, which is of course the reason why we have this referendum in the first place.
We have a lame-duck PM presiding over a split cabinet, while at the same time saying the government position is 'stay in', and who hasn't the balls to get rid of the Eurosceptic faction within his own cabinet and where, it seems, Boris is more influential than our glorious PM - in appeasement terms it seems Dave is on a par with Neville.
-
On that we agree - why his view is especially important seems solely to do with in-fighting within the Tory party, which is of course the reason why we have this referendum in the first place.
We have a lame-duck PM presiding over a split cabinet, while at the same time saying the government position is 'stay in', and who hasn't the balls to get rid of the Eurosceptic faction within his own cabinet and where, it seems, Boris is more influential than our glorious PM - in appeasement terms it seems Dave is on a par with Neville.
Yes it should be an open and shut case of a loss of party control...........
However the great unwashed need to be governed and so the Tory party are now cast as vote shepherds.
-
Yes it should be an open and shut case of a loss of party control...........
However the great unwashed need to be governed and so the Tory party are now cast as vote shepherds.
Here in Scotland I think that the high-profile Tories based in southern England: Dave, Boris, IDS and Gideon et al, would have trouble influencing or shepherding a rancid leg of lamb irrespective of what side of the stay/leave debate they are on.
Be interesting to what position Ruth Davidson adopts during the forthcoming Holyrood campaign since her expectations of out-performing Labour could be undermined by the 'leave' brigade in that the indications are that The Scottish electorate are pro-EU.
-
I'm looking forward to seeing how Nicola reacts should there be a majority of the UK voting to remain in the EU, but only a minority of Scots doing so!! ;)
-
We have a lame-duck PM presiding over a split cabinet, while at the same time saying the government position is 'stay in', and who hasn't the balls to get rid of the Eurosceptic faction within his own cabinet and where, it seems, Boris is more influential than our glorious PM - in appeasement terms it seems Dave is on a par with Neville.
Is he any more 'lame duck' than Blair or Brown or Major or even Thatcher?
-
Boris could just sit on the fence and keep his vote to himself.
He'd lose all credibility if he did that and he's much too ambitious to vote according to his conscience or the national interest. No, he's trying to suss-out which way the popular vote will go, then he'll jump in that direction.
-
Is he any more 'lame duck' than Blair or Brown or Major or even Thatcher?
Hard to say if he is any lamer, but then none of the above are much to write home about in terms of which is the least worst, and of course the scenarios surrounding each were different.
-
I'm looking joforward to seeing how Nicola reacts should there be a majority of the UK voting to remain in the EU, but only a minority of Scots doing so!! ;)
I think Nicola isn't worried about the Scotland voting to the leave the EU - all the indications are this is unlikely.
-
He'd loose all credibility if he did that and he's much too ambitious to vote according to his conscience or the national interest. No, he's trying to suss-out which way the popular vote will go, then he'll jump in that direction.
How accurate will his decision be given that we are told that votes depend on him rather than what you are suggesting, that he is looking to see what we do.
-
How accurate will his decision be given that we are told that votes depend on him rather than what you are suggesting, that he is looking to see what we do.
I have no doubt that Boris wants to be on the winning side - how good is his judgement - who knows?
-
A lying toad lies and tries the fear factor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409
Are there any deaths the out-campaigners will not stoop to?
-
And on the subject of strange bedfellows, I find myself agreeing with Niall Ferguson, a very unusual occurrence
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/article1669873.ece
-
I can't read the full article as it peters out after a couple of paragraphs, upon which I am enjoined to subscribe to read the complete Montgomery.
Which, given that it's by Niall Ferguson, is a blessing.
-
Yes, I know what you mean, I had access to it elsewhere without coughing up but don't have a free version. That I agree with Ferguson on much of it just emphasises the strangeness of what will happen. Normally I a not allowed to mention his name in the house as it sets me off too much.
-
I have no doubt that Boris wants to be on the winning side - how good is his judgement - who knows?
I find Boris reluctance to come out with it disturbing because either he knows and is attention seeking or he doesn't already know and go to the toss of a coin.
Perhaps he will consult the person behind most of his achievements for London......Ken Livingstone.
-
A lying toad lies and tries the fear factor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409
Are there any deaths the out-campaigners will not stoop to?
Are you saying the Stay campaign aren't doing this?
Cameron was spewing this stuff with Andrew Marr.
-
Yes, I know what you mean, I had access to it elsewhere without coughing up but don't have a free version. That I agree with Ferguson on much of it just emphasises the strangeness of what will happen. Normally I a not allowed to mention his name in the house as it sets me off too much.
As we can't read it tell us what it says, why you agree with it and why you hate the man's guts so.
-
As we can't read it tell us what it says, why you agree with it and why you hate the man's guts so.
Basically it posits that pro EU used to be the Utopians but now that has been taken over by those who want out in that they think it will now make everything OK. It echoes what the chair of Rio Tinto supposed said recently that the only thing worse than being in the EU is not being in the EU.
As to myself and Niall, well other than I think he generally dresses up his views on a faux neoliberalism to make them more monetarily rewarding, and that this form of politics is simplistic and uncaring, nothing that is any of your business.
-
I find Boris reluctance to come out with it disturbing because either he knows and is attention seeking or he doesn't already know and go to the toss of a coin.
Perhaps he will consult the person behind most of his achievements for London......Ken Livingstone.
Boris is not an unintelligent man (despite the outer shell of buffoonery) and he has concluded that the next leader of the Conservative Party is unlikely to have supported the losing side in the referendum - so he is thinking very hard - because he wants to be that next leader.
-
Boris is not an unintelligent man (despite the outer shell of buffoonery) and he has concluded that the next leader of the Conservative Party is unlikely to have supported the losing side in the referendum - so he is thinking very hard - because he wants to be that next leader.
Indeed and he's now outed as outer. He is far from stupid, I just doubt he has many principles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35626621
-
Boris is not an unintelligent man (despite the outer shell of buffoonery) and he has concluded that the next leader of the Conservative Party is unlikely to have supported the losing side in the referendum - so he is thinking very hard - because he wants to be that next leader.
Which will be short lived if the celtic countries hold referendums to leave the UK.
-
Basically it posits that pro EU used to be the Utopians but now that has been taken over by those who want out in that they think it will now make everything OK. It echoes what the chair of Rio Tinto supposed said recently that the only thing worse than being in the EU is not being in the EU.
You mean that the only thing worse than being in the USSR is not being in the USSR. Well that makes sense!!! NOT.
-
You mean that the only thing worse than being in the USSR is not being in the USSR. Well that makes sense!!! NOT.
I can see that might disagree with it but in and of itself as a view it makes perfect sense. There is a choice here and all the statement covers is that neither is an ideal but one is better than the other.
-
that this form of politics is simplistic and uncaring,
Do irony much? :)
Can you outline why you are for staying in, then why you are out for staying out of the UK union.
-
Do irony much? :)
Can you outline why you are for staying in, then why you are out for staying out of the UK union.
The relationship of what I think a specific set of politics espoused by an individual to a general, and quite interesting question is a non sequitur.
Can you explain how you think the first part of your posts relates to the second?
As to the very valid question you post, that's a long answer, and I mean long, so if it's OK i'll get back to you some time when I have proper time to do it justice. At this stage, i'll just note that I see it as finely balanced on both questions, and while there are similarities, they aren't the same.
-
Which will be short lived if the celtic countries hold referendums to leave the UK.
Yes, he's finally jumped - I think (and hope) he has got it wrong, which will mean the end of his dreams of becoming PM.
-
The relationship of what I think a specific set of politics espoused by an individual to a general, and quite interesting question is a non sequitur.
Can you explain how you think the first part of your posts relates to the second?
As to the very valid question you post, that's a long answer, and I mean long, so if it's OK i'll get back to you some time when I have proper time to do it justice. At this stage, i'll just note that I see it as finely balanced on both questions, and while there are similarities, they aren't the same.
Look forward to it I know our politics differ but do respect your opinion.
I for leave for both because there is a democratic deficit for both.
-
This says nothing about whether he is right on this but just maybe question his motives
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fj686CmGGSA
-
This says nothing about whether he is right on this but just maybe question his motives
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fj686CmGGSA
If he has chosen the wrong side, his ambitions of Downing Street will be greatly diminished - he might just get a job a junior minister for office stationary.
-
If he has chosen the wrong side, his ambitions of Downing Street will be greatly diminished - he might just get a job a junior minister for office stationary.
Like it or not he is box office and will swing quite a few to vote leave.
-
If he has chosen the wrong side, his ambitions of Downing Street will be greatly diminished - he might just get a job a junior minister for office stationary.
Not necessarily - given that the majority of the party are Eurosceptic (and that's being kind), if he is percieved to have a good campaign even if he's on the losing side - he will still be well positioned and thought of within his own party tpo push for what he is so clearly desperate for.
-
Boris is not an unintelligent man (despite the outer shell of buffoonery) and he has concluded that the next leader of the Conservative Party is unlikely to have supported the losing side in the referendum - so he is thinking very hard - because he wants to be that next leader.
On the Today Programme this morning, the political correspondent claimed that this is a Tory leadership election. If Cameron loses, his position as PM will be untenable whereas, if Johnson loses, his ambitions to be PM will be over.
-
Do irony much? :)
Can you outline why you are for staying in, then why you are out for staying out of the UK union.
Actually, since staying in is the status quo position and we do alright in the EU, I think the onus is on the leavers to explain why we would be better off out of it.
-
On the Today Programme this morning, the political correspondent claimed that this is a Tory leadership election. If Cameron loses, his position as PM will be untenable whereas, if Johnson loses, his ambitions to be PM will be over.
I agree that if Cameron loses he is toast and would have to be replaced by someone from the 'winning' side, hence Boris as massive favourite - so this I think is Boris' calculation - by opting for 'leave' that there is a decent chance that he could be PM by late summer.
If 'Stay' wins, then Cameron is safe, so there won't be a vacancy for perhaps 3 years. That's a long time in politics and enough time for Boris to quietly drop the 'error' of backing the wrong side. Indeed he is already hedging his bets, kind of implying that he wants to vote out, to then renegotiate seriously and ... err ... stay in.
I think one thing is certain - we won't actually see much of Boris in the campaign - he won't be a major player - to do so would damage him too much if his side loses. By contrast he doesn't need to have been a leading player in a successful leave vote for him to be in poll position to take over from Cameron if he is forced to resign having lost the referendum.
He's not daft - very clear political calculation from Boris - but the problem is that it is all too obvious and maybe that is his achilles heal - when there is sufficient passion and the stakes are high I'm not sure the public (or the media) will take too kindly to this sort of overt political game-playing.
-
If 'Stay' wins, then Cameron is safe, so there won't be a vacancy for perhaps 3 years. That's a long time in politics and enough time for Boris to quietly drop the 'error' of backing the wrong side.
But in that case, he'll be up against George Osborne, plus, if he wins, he would be faced with the immediate prospect of a general election which the Tories may well lose and then he'll have to resign straight away (unless he can blame DC).
Indeed he is already hedging his bets, kind of implying that he wants to vote out, to then renegotiate seriously and ... err ... stay in.
Interesting, that would make me feel a bit less nervous about the referendum and I think it would be a fairly sound tactic since the other EU members don't want us to so he would have more leverage than DC.
I think one thing is certain - we won't actually see much of Boris in the campaign - he won't be a major player - to do so would damage him too much if his side loses.
He needs to be careful about that. If he is perceived as not pulling his weight by the leavers, that would also damage him.
He's not daft - very clear political calculation from Boris - but the problem is that it is all too obvious and maybe that is his achilles heal - when there is sufficient passion and the stakes are high I'm not sure the public (or the media) will take too kindly to this sort of overt political game-playing.
I agree.
-
Like it or not he is box office and will swing quite a few to vote leave.
Boris is certainly an entertainer, but I'm not sure that he is capable of creating such a huge swing in the vote, and if the IN vote triumphs, his political ambitions will effectively be scuppered.
Still, he can always go back to TV shows.
-
Look forward to it I know our politics differ but do respect your opinion.
I for leave for both because there is a democratic deficit for both.
Ok, I'll kick off though I suspect this may need to be a multipart answer.
Basically I see there as being a benefit in being made at the best level for them following the idea of subsidiarity but this has to be overlaid with what is possible to achieve and what are the best next steps.
To take independence for Scotland first, I for a long time was a federalist, ideally I still would be. However, we went through a period where we centralised UK powers reducing local democracy and then along came the Scottish parliament. After a number of years, it was clear that federalism wouldn't happen (the powerhouse of the North which is closest in recent times looks a piece of window dressing). Also the parliament lead us to not just a democratic deficit but a responsibility deficit where no one seemed to be really responsible. Along with the historic differences as regards law and education, it seemed to me the best thing on offer to address a problem apparent for a hundred years or more that was on offer was independence.
Note I thought that would also deal with a mis-shape in the democracy in the overall UK or at least kick off dealing with it. It was a pity that the unionist parties didn't pop a devo max option on the ballot paper as I think given it was policy for some and would have addressed the responsibility deficit pretty fully, it would have given them real status in Scotland and allowed them to fully expose the ' don't frighten the horses' approach of the SNP. The Vow with its vagueness and being all things to all unionists has just ended up with a further gap in democracy not having been voted for and no one really knowing what it meant.
This may lead to something useful but to take an example you mentioned elsewhere, the income tax bid by Labour illustrates the mess. Fair enough it was an attempt to regain their anti austerity credentials but it was always doomed. That wouldn't be bad if it didn't show up the current problems. So the Scottish Govt can only adjust all tax bands the same, so it looked as if they would end,up taxing the lower rate tax payers and regressively at that. Instead of having planned to deal with something that had to happen, they then ran round talking about a rebate system that appeared to cost more to implement than they were going to raise. As the further powers crystallise it may be that this sort of issue can be avoided, one hopes so.
That leaves me hoping that over the next couple of years there is a proper devolution of powers, though without full devolution of welfare, it's a difficult juggling game for any Scottish Govt. I don't think we should have another referendum for the foreseeable future, but I think the problems remain. Should there be a vote to leave the EU overall but a strong vote to stay in Scotland, there is a definite argument for another referendum but, as I agreed with Prof D, the complexity of how any leave/stay mechanisms work seem to be a nightmare.
The case for staying in the EU to me seems to be that the democratic deficit is one that could be addressed internally, it is currently much more federated than the UK ever could be. Also many of the decisions taken, such as the refugee crisis which is likely to get worse in my opinion, but also questions of what defense means, seem to me to need to be taken in a large block. Larger than the UK and in one that because of how it is currently constituted has the means to develop forward.
I worry that the UK would become essentially a reaction to the loss of its central role that still haunts the rhetoric of many leavers. That along with a strong hint of less support for workers and deregulation that will only help the rich. And yes there is a problem with the sign up to TTIP with staying in the EU, I just don't see that following with less protection in an out UK.
As noted, this will need to be part of a larger set of posts and I haven't begun to address what I think are very valid challenges from Jack Knave about the control of fiscal policy under ever closer union. Or looked at how independent any nation currently is. But think that is enough for a start.
One thing is I'm not wedded to either side emotionally here, nor do I think it is clear that there is a right side. It's an accumulation of guesses and having to come down on one side eventually. One thing that I suspect was a mistake from Cameron was the timing. It means for us in Scotland, Wales and NI we will follow parliamentary elections with another campaign. I think the vote may be down simply because of boredom. Given the current polling that is bad news for stay in the EU.
-
But in that case, he'll be up against George Osborne, plus, if he wins, he would be faced with the immediate prospect of a general election which the Tories may well lose and then he'll have to resign straight away (unless he can blame DC).
Indeed - he is certainly much less of a shoe-in, but still a credible candidate for a 2019 leadership election once the dust has settled on the EU ref - given the demographic of the Tory membership even with a won for 'stay' I think a prominent losing 'leave' candidate would be pretty attractive to members.
Interesting, that would make me feel a bit less nervous about the referendum and I think it would be a fairly sound tactic since the other EU members don't want us to so he would have more leverage than DC.
DC seems to have ruled this out, and politically he has to. If no can quietly persuade a demographic that 'leave' might not mean 'leave' but a better deal then 'stay' are in trouble. We had this with the Scottish ref, where the 'stay' campaigners had to make is abundantly clear that a vote to leave the UK would mean exactly that - no going back.
-
If 'Stay' wins, then Cameron is safe, so there won't be a vacancy for perhaps 3 years. That's a long time in politics and enough time for Boris to quietly drop the 'error' of backing the wrong side. Indeed he is already hedging his bets, kind of implying that he wants to vote out, to then renegotiate seriously and ... err ... stay in.
I think anyone doing that would split the Tory party forever. Those in the party who honestly voted to leave wouldn't stay, and I think some who voted to stay would leave too rather than serve under someone who would be seen as going back on a referendum result. I think you would need yet another referendum based on the renegotiation and people might just vote against any solution.
-
Well, the Leave campaign now seems headed by a bunch of right-wing nutters, plus odd-balls like Galloway and Field. Why on earth has Cameron gone into this referendum? Originally, it seemed that he was placating his right-wing Eurosceptics (plus UKIP), but now that all seems pointless and surreal. It gives politics an extra bizarre flavour, I suppose, rather like a down-at-heel Punch and Judy show on the pier, run by a drunken dosser.
(Forgot to say, that I was tempted by Leave, but Boris joining that gives it the kiss of death, just too right-wing and nutty for me).
-
Well, the Leave campaign now seems headed by a bunch of right-wing nutters, plus odd-balls like Galloway and Field. Why on earth has Cameron gone into this referendum? Originally, it seemed that he was placating his right-wing Eurosceptics (plus UKIP), but now that all seems pointless and surreal. It gives politics an extra bizarre flavour, I suppose, rather like a down-at-heel Punch and Judy show on the pier, run by a drunken dosser.
Because Cameron was concerned about winning the last election, not the next one. Having a well behaved party made the referendum a price worth paying, and as to the result, even with losing Boris and Red Mike, he is part of a very wide coalition to stay. His legacy may be the end of the UK (though I actually don't think it will be unless the numbers on the vote are more than 20% different in England/Scotland), but alternatively he is the undefeated champ of referendums,bows out on a high and let's the next leader get the next crash.
I agree with Prof D that this move doesn't preclude Boris being leader even if we vote to stay, and if he plays it canny less damage than bein on a narrow Stay vote.
-
Roll up roll up the Johnson and Cameron show is about to begin, smoke and bloody mirrors, referendum my arse.
-
Roll up roll up the Johnson and Cameron show is about to begin, smoke and bloody mirrors, referendum my arse.
The next round of an ongoing one-upmanship that dates back to when they were at school together, then at university together, then in the same elite club together etc etc.
Shame this is a critical issue for the country rather than about brag gin rights for whoever wins the annual Eton alumni golf tournament.
-
Dear Prof,
You are 100% right, where did all this leave the EU come from, I can't help but think, Nero fiddles whilst Rome burns, mass migration and Britain wants to walk away, pathetic, a tiny minority wanting out of Europe and suddenly it is a big question, NHS in trouble, businesses folding, foodbanks.
Cameron and Johnson are playing a terrific game, keep your eye on me, forget about the state of the country, the EU does need reforming but you can't reform it if you are not part of it.
Smoke and Mirrors >:(
Gonnagle.
-
It is a fairly elegant booting, but I wonder about the Speccie, has it finally made Nick the boot boy for the Establishment
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/author/nick-cohen/
-
a tiny minority wanting out of Europe and.....
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/05/britons-leaning-towards-brexit-but-a-fifth-undecided-yougov-poll-suggests
A new poll has suggested more Britons favour leaving the EU over staying in, with 45% supporting “Brexit” compared with 36% against, while a fifth remain undecided.
-
Dear Jakswan,
A poll, OH! they are reliable.
Gonnagle.
-
I suspect that Boris is hoping that he will be seen to be 'riding the wave' of a massive OUT vote - sweeping him into Downing Street .
-
Surely Boris has produced a sledgehammer argument - the EU restricts the suction power of vacuum cleaners. With one fell swoop, the Leave campaign has been transformed, dare I say it, transcended. Hoover away with Boris!
-
Boris is certainly an entertainer, but I'm not sure that he is capable of creating such a huge swing in the vote, and if the IN vote triumphs, his political ambitions will effectively be scuppered.
Still, he can always go back to TV shows.
Yes agree, kind of makes you think why he has done it.
-
Dear Jakswan,
A poll, OH! they are reliable.
Gonnagle.
They sometimes are, they sometimes are not, I'll take the poll as more indicative of public opinion than I would the word of Gonzo if its all the same to you.
You feel free to believe it is a tiny minority if you like, what would that be less than 2% of the vote...?
Want to put your money where your mouth is for a change?
-
Interested in the media working on the great man principle for which way the country will vote,
So Mr and Mrs Conservative since you obey great men.......are you for Boris or Cameron?
-
I can see that might disagree with it but in and of itself as a view it makes perfect sense. There is a choice here and all the statement covers is that neither is an ideal but one is better than the other.
Yes, out is better than in. The whole point of my last post was to show the similarity of the EU and the USSR; between Brussels and Moscow. They're both undemocratic run by an elite group of people who have no mandate from the masses.
-
Actually, since staying in is the status quo position and we do alright in the EU, I think the onus is on the leavers to explain why we would be better off out of it.
It's your opinion that we "do alright in the EU". The boot is on the other foot, mate.
-
Yes, out is better than in.
Why?
-
It's your opinion that we "do alright in the EU". The boot is on the other foot, mate.
We do alright in the EU. That's a fact - we are in the EU and we are doing OK.
Can you tell me why we would be better out of it?
-
Ok, I'll kick off though I suspect this may need to be a multipart answer.
Basically I see there as being a benefit in being made at the best level for them following the idea of subsidiarity but this has to be overlaid with what is possible to achieve and what are the best next steps.
To take independence for Scotland first, I for a long time was a federalist, ideally I still would be. However, we went through a period where we centralised UK powers reducing local democracy and then along came the Scottish parliament. After a number of years, it was clear that federalism wouldn't happen (the powerhouse of the North which is closest in recent times looks a piece of window dressing). Also the parliament lead us to not just a democratic deficit but a responsibility deficit where no one seemed to be really responsible. Along with the historic differences as regards law and education, it seemed to me the best thing on offer to address a problem apparent for a hundred years or more that was on offer was independence.
Note I thought that would also deal with a mis-shape in the democracy in the overall UK or at least kick off dealing with it. It was a pity that the unionist parties didn't pop a devo max option on the ballot paper as I think given it was policy for some and would have addressed the responsibility deficit pretty fully, it would have given them real status in Scotland and allowed them to fully expose the ' don't frighten the horses' approach of the SNP. The Vow with its vagueness and being all things to all unionists has just ended up with a further gap in democracy not having been voted for and no one really knowing what it meant.
This may lead to something useful but to take an example you mentioned elsewhere, the income tax bid by Labour illustrates the mess. Fair enough it was an attempt to regain their anti austerity credentials but it was always doomed. That wouldn't be bad if it didn't show up the current problems. So the Scottish Govt can only adjust all tax bands the same, so it looked as if they would end,up taxing the lower rate tax payers and regressively at that. Instead of having planned to deal with something that had to happen, they then ran round talking about a rebate system that appeared to cost more to implement than they were going to raise. As the further powers crystallise it may be that this sort of issue can be avoided, one hopes so.
That leaves me hoping that over the next couple of years there is a proper devolution of powers, though without full devolution of welfare, it's a difficult juggling game for any Scottish Govt. I don't think we should have another referendum for the foreseeable future, but I think the problems remain. Should there be a vote to leave the EU overall but a strong vote to stay in Scotland, there is a definite argument for another referendum but, as I agreed with Prof D, the complexity of how any leave/stay mechanisms work seem to be a nightmare.
The case for staying in the EU to me seems to be that the democratic deficit is one that could be addressed internally, it is currently much more federated than the UK ever could be. Also many of the decisions taken, such as the refugee crisis which is likely to get worse in my opinion, but also questions of what defense means, seem to me to need to be taken in a large block. Larger than the UK and in one that because of how it is currently constituted has the means to develop forward.
I worry that the UK would become essentially a reaction to the loss of its central role that still haunts the rhetoric of many leavers. That along with a strong hint of less support for workers and deregulation that will only help the rich. And yes there is a problem with the sign up to TTIP with staying in the EU, I just don't see that following with less protection in an out UK.
As noted, this will need to be part of a larger set of posts and I haven't begun to address what I think are very valid challenges from Jack Knave about the control of fiscal policy under ever closer union. Or looked at how independent any nation currently is. But think that is enough for a start.
One thing is I'm not wedded to either side emotionally here, nor do I think it is clear that there is a right side. It's an accumulation of guesses and having to come down on one side eventually. One thing that I suspect was a mistake from Cameron was the timing. It means for us in Scotland, Wales and NI we will follow parliamentary elections with another campaign. I think the vote may be down simply because of boredom. Given the current polling that is bad news for stay in the EU.
The highlighted bit is even more truer for the EU than for the UK and it has come about in the UK because we are in the EU. That is, Westminster are the puppets of the EU bidding and they look to them for approval and guidance and take no account of the effects of these derivatives on the British people and their sovereignty.
If we left the EU Westminster would change and focus once more on the UK and its true needs, including Scotland and the North because the party political machines at the centre of the Westminster bubble would change. We would also need to deal with the banking system.
-
Yes, out is better than in. The whole point of my last post was to show the similarity of the EU and the USSR; between Brussels and Moscow. They're both undemocratic run by an elite group of people who have no mandate from the masses.
No, the point of your last post was an assertion about the EU and the USSR, showing it was not even a glimpse on the horizon
-
We do alright in the EU. That's a fact - we are in the EU and we are doing OK.
Can you tell me why we would be better out of it?
We would be ruling ourselves by democratic means instead of being the slaves of the feudal lords of the EU. What do you think Ever-Closer-Union means?
But Jeremy I know that your paymasters are the EU else you wouldn't be coming out with all this flag waving for the EU that you have done over the years.
-
The highlighted bit is even more truer for the EU than for the UK
Do you realise that the EU is even less tightly coupled than a federation?
Westminster are the puppets of the EU bidding
No it isn't.
If we left the EU Westminster would change and focus once more on the UK and its true needs, including Scotland and the North because the party political machines at the centre of the Westminster bubble would change.
What evidence do you have for this? I could argue with equal credibility that the situation would get worse without the moderating influence of the EU.
We would also need to deal with the banking system.
The EU has no positive or negative effect on the banking system in the UK that I can see. We didn't relax banking controls prior to the 2008 crash because the EU told us to. We did that off our own bat.
-
No, the point of your last post was an assertion about the EU and the USSR, showing it was not even a glimpse on the horizon
I know what my post was about. What makes you think you know better than I do about my own posts!!! Such impertinence.
-
We would be ruling ourselves by democratic means instead of being the slaves of the feudal lords of the EU.
That's laughable. We would be ruled as we have been ruled in living memory by a political class. Do you honestly think it would be any different if the EU wasn't there?
What do you think Ever-Closer-Union means?
It means getting closer. Yes, there are elements in the EU that want a federation, but that doesn't mean a federation is going to happen or that, if it did, we would be worse off.
But Jeremy I know that your paymasters are the EU
Many people in this country work for the EU either directly or indirectly. Many other people work in EU countries thanks to EU legislation. Many people in this country benefit from the influx of labour from the rest of the EU. If you want to leave, you are fucking all these people up the arse for your petty mirage of home rule.
-
I know what my post was about. What makes you think you know better than I do about my own posts!!! Such impertinence.
You can think it all you like. You haven't justified the claim nor even been capable of suggesting why the alternative position is wrong other than being a bit Violet Elizabeth Bott. Are your tiny feet sore from all that stamping?
-
The highlighted bit is even more truer for the EU than for the UK and it has come about in the UK because we are in the EU. That is, Westminster are the puppets of the EU bidding and they look to them for approval and guidance and take no account of the effects of these derivatives on the British people and their sovereignty.
If we left the EU Westminster would change and focus once more on the UK and its true needs, including Scotland and the North because the party political machines at the centre of the Westminster bubble would change. We would also need to deal with the banking system.
The EU isn't as yet even federalist, it's much less joined - compare to the US or Germany. The UK is much more than federalist, there is way less devolvement.
-
Do you realise that the EU is even less tightly coupled than a federation?
Tell the Greek people that!!! You may be right but that's because it is more like a dictatorship, totally undemocratic.
What do you think Ever-Closer-Union is about?
What evidence do you have for this? I could argue with equal credibility that the situation would get worse without the moderating influence of the EU.
How stupid Jeremy. Are you saying without the EU the British would resort back to being primitive? How rude to declare the Brits don't have the brains to run things, which they have done for thousands of years.
The EU has no positive or negative effect on the banking system in the UK that I can see. We didn't relax banking controls prior to the 2008 crash because the EU told us to. We did that off our own bat.
You misread my post. Anyway the US effectively told us to do it.
-
That's laughable. We would be ruled as we have been ruled in living memory by a political class. Do you honestly think it would be any different if the EU wasn't there?
Yes, because many people have wised up to the machinations of the political party. Of course what goes around comes around.
It means getting closer. Yes, there are elements in the EU that want a federation, but that doesn't mean a federation is going to happen or that, if it did, we would be worse off.
Well I say look at history and the USSR and the result of highly concentrated power for a few.
Many people in this country work for the EU either directly or indirectly. Many other people work in EU countries thanks to EU legislation. Many people in this country benefit from the influx of labour from the rest of the EU. If you want to leave, you are fucking all these people up the arse for your petty mirage of home rule.
Sounds as though I've hit a nerve!!!
You can't have two masters for you'll love one and hate the other. The smaller and closer the power base is the better for those who are governed by it because it will be within arms reach for them to change and follow it. The problem with the USSR and with the EU is the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People don't work for other they work for themselves and their immediate clan.
-
You can think it all you like. You haven't justified the claim nor even been capable of suggesting why the alternative position is wrong other than being a bit Violet Elizabeth Bott. Are your tiny feet sore from all that stamping?
You made an assertion without a qualification. I just pointed out how it will all end.
-
The EU isn't as yet even federalist, it's much less joined - compare to the US or Germany. The UK is much more than federalist, there is way less devolvement.
But its aims is to be more so. Even so, what ever stage it is at it is going the wrong way. And in fact it is more fascist than federalist look at the way Greece was treated.
At least the US vote in their law makers, corrupt as they are.
-
People should realise that this referendum is a bit of a farce. If we vote to leave then what? Who does the negotiations. Who takes charge of the UK boat and sail her to better waters?
-
Moderator:
Posts that were originally in the 'Boris's third option' thread have been merged into this thread, which as a 'sticky' is the primary thread for discussion of the forthcoming EU referendum.
-
You made an assertion without a qualification. I just pointed out how it will all end.
Err nope, I posted a quote about an argument, you then made the assertion and comparison, you might want to actually engage then scweam and scweam, Violet
-
dear Jakswan,
Want to put your money where your mouth is for a change?
No problem, there will be a poor election turn out, it will be that we stay in, Cameron will be strutting like a crow, Johnson will get a lovely place in the cabinet, just right to to look like he could be the next Prime Minister, oh dear he mean't well but he had the country at heart.
Yes I am a cynical bar steward.
Gonnagle.
-
Err nope, I posted a quote about an argument,.....
You have proof of this?
-
No problem, there will be a poor election turn out, it will be that we stay in, Cameron will be strutting like a crow, Johnson will get a lovely place in the cabinet, just right to to look like he could be the next Prime Minister, oh dear he mean't well but he had the country at heart.
Yes I am a cynical bar steward.
Gonnagle.
And what do you think the EU's response, long term that is, will be to our vote to stay in their clutches, after, of course, the EP has voted away the little worthless crap Cameron negotiated in the mammoth ordeal he went through?
-
My local MP is going to vote for out. I have sent an e-mail to local Association to find out when he will be holding meetings here and my neighbour and I will be there to heckle!
-
There seem to be estimates of about 140 Tory MPs supporting Leave, which is maybe more than commentators were thinking. I suppose the Tory grassroots will be heavily for Leave, and quite a large number of Labour voters also, maybe a third. The polls seem to be contradictory, one in the Mail had a large Remain majority.
-
dear Jakswan,
No problem, there will be a poor election turn out, it will be that we stay in, Cameron will be strutting like a crow, Johnson will get a lovely place in the cabinet, just right to to look like he could be the next Prime Minister, oh dear he mean't well but he had the country at heart.
Yes I am a cynical bar steward.
Gonnagle.
Everyone claims that there will be no animosity, and they will all be friends after the vote - but I would be surprised if Boris got a senior position in the event of an IN vote. My guess is that Cameron would make his exit before Boris recovers from his humiliation and obvious poor judgement.
-
Everyone claims that there will be no animosity, and they will all be friends after the vote - but I would be surprised if Boris got a senior position in the event of an IN vote. My guess is that Cameron would make his exit before Boris recovers from his humiliation and obvious poor judgement.
I don't think they'd necessarily be friends, but that wouldn't mean that Boris wouldn't be in poll position to win the Tory leadership in, say, 2019 if Cameron wins the referendum.
Don't forget that the rules require Tory MPs to select the candidates who are then put to the membership. A large block of MPs are in the 'leave' camp so will likely want one of their people on the ballot paper. And Tory members (not Tory voters) are overwhelmingly for 'leave', so it is quite likely that in a run off between a prominent 'stay' candidate (e.g. Osborne) and a prominent 'leave' candidate (e.g. Boris) that the latter would easily won the final membership vote.
So Boris positioning himself with 'leave' gives him two bites at being PM - if 'leave' win then surely Cameron resigns and he is a shoe-in. If 'Stay' wins he is still extremely well placed when Cameron goes before the next election.
I have no doubt this is the (correct) calculation Boris has made and the prime reason for his sudden conversion to all things eurosceptic.
-
No problem, there will be a poor election turn out, it will be that we stay in, Cameron will be strutting like a crow, Johnson will get a lovely place in the cabinet, just right to to look like he could be the next Prime Minister, oh dear he mean't well but he had the country at heart.
Notice you have backtracked on 'tiny minority', good man.
Yes I am a cynical bar steward.
Come on now that is harsh, you are not cynical. :)
-
I don't think they'd necessarily be friends, but that wouldn't mean that Boris wouldn't be in poll position to win the Tory leadership in, say, 2019 if Cameron wins the referendum.
Don't forget that the rules require Tory MPs to select the candidates who are then put to the membership. A large block of MPs are in the 'leave' camp so will likely want one of their people on the ballot paper. And Tory members (not Tory voters) are overwhelmingly for 'leave', so it is quite likely that in a run off between a prominent 'stay' candidate (e.g. Osborne) and a prominent 'leave' candidate (e.g. Boris) that the latter would easily won the final membership vote.
So Boris positioning himself with 'leave' gives him two bites at being PM - if 'leave' win then surely Cameron resigns and he is a shoe-in. If 'Stay' wins he is still extremely well placed when Cameron goes before the next election.
I have no doubt this is the (correct) calculation Boris has made and the prime reason for his sudden conversion to all things eurosceptic.
Yes good point, also if the vote is for stay and then the EU has a sustained Euro\Migrant\Other crisis its going to put Osborne on the defensive.
-
To take independence for Scotland first, I for a long time was a federalist, ideally I still would be. However, we went through a period where we centralised UK powers reducing local democracy and then along came the Scottish parliament. After a number of years, it was clear that federalism wouldn't happen (the powerhouse of the North which is closest in recent times looks a piece of window dressing). Also the parliament lead us to not just a democratic deficit but a responsibility deficit where no one seemed to be really responsible. Along with the historic differences as regards law and education, it seemed to me the best thing on offer to address a problem apparent for a hundred years or more that was on offer was independence.
I think a large part of the issue is the ability for the SNP to blame Westminster which plays well to a Scottish electorate that a large part of hate the English.
The cure for that though is independence
Note I thought that would also deal with a mis-shape in the democracy in the overall UK or at least kick off dealing with it. It was a pity that the unionist parties didn't pop a devo max option on the ballot paper as I think given it was policy for some and would have addressed the responsibility deficit pretty fully, it would have given them real status in Scotland and allowed them to fully expose the ' don't frighten the horses' approach of the SNP. The Vow with its vagueness and being all things to all unionists has just ended up with a further gap in democracy not having been voted for and no one really knowing what it meant.
The vow was more powers for Scotland; Scotland is getting more powers. You can argue is was vague but the Scottish voted for it.
This may lead to something useful but to take an example you mentioned elsewhere, the income tax bid by Labour illustrates the mess. Fair enough it was an attempt to regain their anti austerity credentials but it was always doomed. That wouldn't be bad if it didn't show up the current problems. So the Scottish Govt can only adjust all tax bands the same, so it looked as if they would end,up taxing the lower rate tax payers and regressively at that. Instead of having planned to deal with something that had to happen, they then ran round talking about a rebate system that appeared to cost more to implement than they were going to raise. As the further powers crystallise it may be that this sort of issue can be avoided, one hopes so.
Following the Smith Commission won't the Scottish Govt. get 'The ability to set Income Tax rates and bands' (from wiki).
The case for staying in the EU to me seems to be that the democratic deficit is one that could be addressed internally, it is currently much more federated than the UK ever could be. Also many of the decisions taken, such as the refugee crisis which is likely to get worse in my opinion, but also questions of what defense means, seem to me to need to be taken in a large block. Larger than the UK and in one that because of how it is currently constituted has the means to develop forward.
A common defence policy is unworkable isn't it. I would expect a government to be able to control immigration, the electorate voted in Cameron on his 'no ifs or buts' promise but he is unable to deliver.
I worry that the UK would become essentially a reaction to the loss of its central role that still haunts the rhetoric of many leavers. That along with a strong hint of less support for workers and deregulation that will only help the rich. And yes there is a problem with the sign up to TTIP with staying in the EU, I just don't see that following with less protection in an out UK.
If Corbyn got elected then this would solve that issue. I'm sorry but if you are going to address the democratic deficit issue what you see as an issue is irrelevant, its what the electorate wants. So for example the electorate might not want TTIP they can't vote for anyone that can stop it whilst in the EU.
One thing is I'm not wedded to either side emotionally here, nor do I think it is clear that there is a right side. It's an accumulation of guesses and having to come down on one side eventually. One thing that I suspect was a mistake from Cameron was the timing. It means for us in Scotland, Wales and NI we will follow parliamentary elections with another campaign. I think the vote may be down simply because of boredom. Given the current polling that is bad news for stay in the EU.
It may be a bad judgement call but if the late Summer news is filled with stories of another migrant crisis or Germans rioting in protest of immigration or the Euro collapsing then Cameron might have timed it just right.
-
Following the Smith Commission won't the Scottish Govt. get 'The ability to set Income Tax rates and bands' (from wiki).
Indeed they will, and not only will they have the ability to (as they have had the ability to vary tax since the Scottish Parliament was set up) but will have to.
Previously a Scottish Parliament could simply go along with the status quo of UK tax levels and duck the tough decisions on tax. They can't do that now, as from April the basic rate of tax in Scotland will be just 10% - if they want the revenue to spend on the things they want they will now have to raise tax above that level and will have to justify to the electorate why the rate they set is correct, how that money is being spent and why.
That's a big change.
Until now the Scottish Parliament got to do all the nice stuff (spending money) but none of the tough stuff (raising revenue through taxation) - so it is easy to take the credit for spending when you want and blame Westminster if aren't spending on the basis that they didn't give us enough pocket money. All that should change now, and quite rightly - for democracy really to work government needs to be responsible both for raising revenue through taxation and also for spending the money raised.
-
I don't think they'd necessarily be friends, but that wouldn't mean that Boris wouldn't be in poll position to win the Tory leadership in, say, 2019 if Cameron wins the referendum.
Don't forget that the rules require Tory MPs to select the candidates who are then put to the membership. A large block of MPs are in the 'leave' camp so will likely want one of their people on the ballot paper. And Tory members (not Tory voters) are overwhelmingly for 'leave', so it is quite likely that in a run off between a prominent 'stay' candidate (e.g. Osborne) and a prominent 'leave' candidate (e.g. Boris) that the latter would easily won the final membership vote.
So Boris positioning himself with 'leave' gives him two bites at being PM - if 'leave' win then surely Cameron resigns and he is a shoe-in. If 'Stay' wins he is still extremely well placed when Cameron goes before the next election.
I have no doubt this is the (correct) calculation Boris has made and the prime reason for his sudden conversion to all things eurosceptic.
In the event of an IN vote, Boris would certainly be persona non grata in Downing Street and Cameron would still be in charge. He wouldn't be overtly punished, but senior figures would constantly be pointing out how poor his judgement had been. It's possible that a majority of the parliamentary party might have supported the OUT campaign, but they will want the new leader to be a credible figure and Boris would have had his credibility shattered.
In the event of an OUT vote, Boris might well make it.
-
Indeed they will, and not only will they have the ability to (as they have had the ability to vary tax since the Scottish Parliament was set up) but will have to.
Previously a Scottish Parliament could simply go along with the status quo of UK tax levels and duck the tough decisions on tax. They can't do that now, as from April the basic rate of tax in Scotland will be just 10% - if they want the revenue to spend on the things they want they will now have to raise tax above that level and will have to justify to the electorate why the rate they set is correct, how that money is being spent and why.
That's a big change.
Until now the Scottish Parliament got to do all the nice stuff (spending money) but none of the tough stuff (raising revenue through taxation) - so it is easy to take the credit for spending when you want and blame Westminster if aren't spending on the basis that they didn't give us enough pocket money. All that should change now, and quite rightly - for democracy really to work government needs to be responsible both for raising revenue through taxation and also for spending the money raised.
If your last point is true then there will be an even bigger incentive to become independent, which will make Cameron look a bit of a joke for campaigning to hold the Union together in the referendum but then giving Scotland all the fundamental powers to allow them to be independent - unless the government hasn't quite done that(?).
-
If your last point is true then there will be an even bigger incentive to become independent, which will make Cameron look a bit of a joke for campaigning to hold the Union together in the referendum but then giving Scotland all the fundamental powers to allow them to be independent - unless the government hasn't quite done that(?).
The stuff on changes to income tax are obviously true.
Whether or not the changes make independence more or less likely is a matter of opinion. There was an agreement that more powers should be transferred to Scotland and this is what has happened. You can argue that this is merely a step toward independence. However you can argue similarly that this gives sufficient autonomy within the UK to satisfy voters and make them less likely to want independence. You can also argue that having tax raising as well as spending powers focuses the minds of voters on what independence would really be like causing pause for thought, rather than the 'everything will be rosy, magic money tree' version of economics previously espoused by the SNP.
Don't forget that Scotland could have been independent this year - and according to the SNP awash with money from historically high oil prices ... which are currently historically low in real terms.
-
The stuff on changes to income tax are obviously true.
Whether or not the changes make independence more or less likely is a matter of opinion. There was an agreement that more powers should be transferred to Scotland and this is what has happened. You can argue that this is merely a step toward independence. However you can argue similarly that this gives sufficient autonomy within the UK to satisfy voters and make them less likely to want independence. You can also argue that having tax raising as well as spending powers focuses the minds of voters on what independence would really be like causing pause for thought, rather than the 'everything will be rosy, magic money tree' version of economics previously espoused by the SNP.
Don't forget that Scotland could have been independent this year - and according to the SNP awash with money from historically high oil prices ... which are currently historically low in real terms.
I think it all depends on the opposition to the SNP, Labour by calling for an increasing tax should have highlighted to many that whilst the SNP are able to spin the anti-austerity line, in reality they are implementing Tory austerity.
We will have to see how it plays out with increased power the SNP should be able to blame Westminster less and be held to account more.
-
I would think that exit from the EU will lead to Scottish independence, unless the SNP get cold feet. I'm surprised that the Remain campaign don't emphasize this, as the break-up of the UK is quite a strong counter-argument to exit.
-
I would think that exit from the EU will lead to Scottish independence, unless the SNP get cold feet. I'm surprised that the Remain campaign don't emphasize this, as the break-up of the UK is quite a strong counter-argument to exit.
Yes I agree - we either remain as the UK in the EU or we end up breaking up the UK with part (rUK) outside the EU and Scotland independent and within the EU.
-
I would think that exit from the EU will lead to Scottish independence, unless the SNP get cold feet. I'm surprised that the Remain campaign don't emphasize this, as the break-up of the UK is quite a strong counter-argument to exit.
Risky a lot of people in rUK are sick of Sturgeon & Co and would vote out just to get rid. Also if your Scottish and felt passionately about Scotland being independent it might be worth voting for Brexit.
-
Risky a lot of people in rUK are sick of Sturgeon & Co and would vote out just to get rid. Also if your Scottish and felt passionately about Scotland being independent it might be worth voting for Brexit.
That's possibly true ...
But ...
I suspect many of the people who are anti the EU are also profoundly pro-the UK. Where to go for these people. Get out of the EU and end up breaking up their beloved UK, or maintain the UK, but have to stay in their hated EU.
Fortunately I'm not a petty nationalist.
-
Risky a lot of people in rUK are sick of Sturgeon & Co and would vote out just to get rid. Also if your Scottish and felt passionately about Scotland being independent it might be worth voting for Brexit.
Surely there would be a break-down of the voting figures area by area, and if that showed Scotland voting for Bexit, Ms Sturgeon would be totally up the creek.
-
Surely there would be a break-down of the voting figures area by area, and if that showed Scotland voting for Bexit, Ms Sturgeon would be totally up the creek.
It would, but it seems unlikely.
Scots who are pro-independence are likely to vote to 'stay in' in the hope that in the event of a overall Brexit vote in UK terms will show that there is a very different view in Scotland.
-
It would, but it seems unlikely.
Scots who are pro-independence are likely to vote to 'stay in' in the hope that in the event of a overall Brexit vote in UK terms will show that there is a very different view in Scotland.
Hi Gordon,
I would have thought so, but if any Scots had any ideas of helping the Bexit camp (to get another independence referendum), it would likely back-fire.
But much to my own amazement, I find myself agreeing with the nationalists on this one. If Britain (as a whole) votes for OUT and Scotland votes for IN, I think there would be a case for a fresh independence referendum.
-
It would, but it seems unlikely.
Scots who are pro-independence are likely to vote to 'stay in' in the hope that in the event of a overall Brexit vote in UK terms will show that there is a very different view in Scotland.
I find this amusing, since independence would necessarily involve an exit for the newly independent nation. That exit might be temporary, but who knows.
-
I find this amusing, since independence would necessarily involve an exit for the newly independent nation. That exit might be temporary, but who knows.
Not really amusing: I'd say cynical - in 2014 we heard it said from those who wanted us to stay in the UK that an independent Scotland would be forced out of the EU, portraying that a real problem and a good reason why we Scots should vote to stay in the UK, since then we'd remain in the EU.
Now in 2016 some of those who scaremongered on this basis want to take us out of the EU.
-
I would think that exit from the EU will lead to Scottish independence, unless the SNP get cold feet. I'm surprised that the Remain campaign don't emphasize this, as the break-up of the UK is quite a strong counter-argument to exit.
Another thing that would help remain would be a few strong speeches from Corbyn!
-
Hi Gordon,
I would have thought so, but if any Scots had any ideas of helping the Bexit camp (to get another independence referendum), it would likely back-fire.
But much to my own amazement, I find myself agreeing with the nationalists on this one. If Britain (as a whole) votes for OUT and Scotland votes for IN, I think there would be a case for a fresh independence referendum.
I suspect that all pro-independence Scots will vote against Brexit in the hope that the Tory-voting areas elsewhere do vote for Brexit and that they win in UK terms by a very narrow margin, and that in contrast Scotland votes convincingly against Brexit.
That would do it!
-
Not really amusing: I'd say cynical - in 2014 we heard it said from those who wanted us to stay in the UK that an independent Scotland would be forced out of the EU, portraying that a real problem and a good reason why we Scots should vote to stay in the UK, since then we'd remain in the EU.
Now in 2016 some of those who scaremongered on this basis want to take us out of the EU.
Gordon it isn't cynical to state facts.
Had Scotland become an independent nation, leaving a member state it would not have automatically become a member of the EU. It would have needed to apply to join (not apply, not reapply as there would never have been a state called Scotland in the EU before). Whether or not that would be an easy process and what requirements the EU might have placed on an independent Scotland as conditions of membership was unclear, and remains unclear. It might be quick, fast tracked and without condition. Or it could be that the EU sees an independent Scotland in exactly the same way as other accession states and applies the same conditions, which might be joining the Eurozone.
Now don't underestimate the politics here. There are a number of other EU states with their own independence battles and they aren't going to want to help the cause of their own independence nationalists by allowing an independent state so simply join the EU on day 1 of independence.
-
I realise that Prof D.
I think the cynicism is seen in those who now support exit from the EU portraying this a being a risk in 2014, on the basis that if we wanted to stay in the EU we should say No to independence - so we said No and are now faced with the risk of exiting the EU because of factionalism in very the Tory party who tried to scare us that we'd be out of the EU if we said Yes to independence.
-
I realise that Prof D.
I think the cynicism is seen in those who now support exit from the EU portraying this a being a risk in 2014, on the basis that if we wanted to stay in the EU we should say No to independence - so we said No and are now faced with the risk of exiting the EU because of factionalism in very the Tory party who tried to scare us that we'd be out of the EU if we said Yes to independence.
Of course, but you can simply turn that around - namely those people who are pro-EU and also pro-Indpendence which would necessarily have meant leaving the EU, even if that was temporary.
I've always though that there are two positions which make no great sense to me - to be pro-EU (i.e. supporting the idea of being part of a larger enterprise with some necessary loss of local sovereignty) and also pro-independence. It just doesn't make sense.
Likewise to be anti-EU (i.e mustn't let anything get in the way of local sovereignty) yet fight tooth and nail to prevent a part of the UK having more sovereignty through independence.
Both seem totally inconsistent.
I am anti-independence and pro-EU - an entirely consistent position as I loath petty nationalism and want to break down and blur national borders through better cooperation and integration and I certainly don't support creating new border where ones don't currently exist.
-
Not really amusing: I'd say cynical - in 2014 we heard it said from those who wanted us to stay in the UK that an independent Scotland would be forced out of the EU, portraying that a real problem and a good reason why we Scots should vote to stay in the UK, since then we'd remain in the EU.
Now in 2016 some of those who scaremongered on this basis want to take us out of the EU.
Either way you would have to leave the EU to re-join anew.
-
Another thing that would help remain would be a few strong speeches from Corbyn!
Dream on!!!
On Saturday Labour are having a Stay campaign. Guess where Corbyn will be? At a CND rally.
-
Of course, but you can simply turn that around - namely those people who are pro-EU and also pro-Indpendence which would necessarily have meant leaving the EU, even if that was temporary.
I've always though that there are two positions which make no great sense to me - to be pro-EU (i.e. supporting the idea of being part of a larger enterprise with some necessary loss of local sovereignty) and also pro-independence. It just doesn't make sense.
Likewise to be anti-EU (i.e mustn't let anything get in the way of local sovereignty) yet fight tooth and nail to prevent a part of the UK having more sovereignty through independence.
Both seem totally inconsistent.
I am anti-independence and pro-EU - an entirely consistent position as I loath petty nationalism and want to break down and blur national borders through better cooperation and integration and I certainly don't support creating new border where ones don't currently exist.
Do you realise how two faced that is?
-
Dream on!!!
On Saturday Labour are having a Stay campaign. Guess where Corbyn will be? At a CND rally.
But it's the new poltics, he wouldn't hold to a position he didn't really believe in would he?
-
But it's the new poltics, he wouldn't hold to a position he didn't really believe in would he?
That contradicts your previous statement. If is was suppose to be ironic you didn't indicate it as such.
-
I think the cynicism is seen in those who now support exit from the EU portraying this a being a risk in 2014
Who were those people?
-
Splitters!
http://news.sky.com/story/1648918/ukip-infighting-over-rival-leave-eu-campaigns
-
Splitters!
http://news.sky.com/story/1648918/ukip-infighting-over-rival-leave-eu-campaigns
Ken Clarke had it dead right when he described UKIP as:
"'a collection of clowns . . . some of the party's supporters are racist . . . "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ken-clarke-calls-ukip-a-collection-of-clowns-and-claims-some-of-the-partys-supporters-are-racist-and-8591478.html
-
Do you realise how two faced that is?
Nope - in what way is my comment two faced JK. Please explain, because as far as I can see it is entirely consistent to see the value in each entity being part of something larger (so Scotland in the UK, and the UK in the EU) if (as I do) I would like the whole notion of the primacy of the nation state to be progressively downgraded so that national borders become less and less important.
And by doing that you can really get down to the concept of subsidiary - in other words that decisions are made at the most local level appropriate for that decision. The problem with the primacy of the nation state is that some decisions are taken too remotely (at the national government level rather than local/regional level to demonstrate that nation state primacy) and some decisions are taken too locally (again at the the national government level rather than at international level to demonstrate that nation state primacy).
Nothing two faced there JK. Don't forget that democracy and nation state primacy aren't the same thing. I believe in democracy I don't believe in the primacy of the nation state.
-
Ken Clarke had it dead right when he described UKIP as:
"'a collection of clowns . . . some of the party's supporters are racist . . . "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ken-clarke-calls-ukip-a-collection-of-clowns-and-claims-some-of-the-partys-supporters-are-racist-and-8591478.html
He has never got it right because he is cheerleader for big business, as they pay him to say these things.
-
Nope - in what way is my comment two faced JK. Please explain, because as far as I can see it is entirely consistent to see the value in each entity being part of something larger (so Scotland in the UK, and the UK in the EU) if (as I do) I would like the whole notion of the primacy of the nation state to be progressively downgraded so that national borders become less and less important.
And by doing that you can really get down to the concept of subsidiary - in other words that decisions are made at the most local level appropriate for that decision. The problem with the primacy of the nation state is that some decisions are taken too remotely (at the national government level rather than local/regional level to demonstrate that nation state primacy) and some decisions are taken too locally (again at the the national government level rather than at international level to demonstrate that nation state primacy).
Nothing two faced there JK. Don't forget that democracy and nation state primacy aren't the same thing. I believe in democracy I don't believe in the primacy of the nation state.
You criticise the flag wavers of the nation state and yet wave your EU flag. Loyalty at one level transposed to another more insidious one. What you find fault in the nation state is even a bigger problem in the EU state. You have just pushed the problem to a bigger institution and into few hands. The kind of thing we saw in Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia and else where.
And who is to say what should be done at the federal level, the national level and at the more local level? One thing is for sure the EU set-up hasn't been fully and clearly and transparently presented to the people for approval - and when it is vaguely presented to them under a veil of obscurity and opaqueness such as to Ireland, France and Denmark that if they vote the wrong way they get told how to do it 'properly'. Does that sound like an institution trying to do the right thing for the people or some megalomaniacs pushing their monstrous ideology to suit their delusional cravings?
We know that these wet dream utopian projects set in huge federal arrangement always go sour. I thought we were suppose to learn from history not insanely repeat it! It seems now that even some of the pro-EU lot in Brussels are expressing the idea that the EU won't be about in a decades time - lets hope so; the signs are it is falling to bits...thank god!!!
-
He has never got it right because he is cheerleader for big business, as they pay him to say these things.
Business, big, medium and small are our lifeblood - and if the multinationals start to de-invest in this country because access to the European market is more expensive - the effects will ripple down as suppliers and sub-contractors go out of business - and we ALL suffer.
. . . though (I suppose) on the positive side, there won't be so many migrants coming to 'take our jobs' because there won't be any jobs!
-
The referendum will almost entirely be based on sentiment, rather than rational analysis...I think. Lot depends on the situation around the time of the referendum. If there is a sudden Greek crisis or migrant crisis or something...people will likely vote to move out of the EU. If everything is hunky dory...people will likely vote to be in.
-
Business, big, medium and small are our lifeblood - and if the multinationals start to de-invest in this country because access to the European market is more expensive - the effects will ripple down as suppliers and sub-contractors go out of business - and we ALL suffer.
. . . though (I suppose) on the positive side, there won't be so many migrants coming to 'take our jobs' because there won't be any jobs!
Something similar was said about joining the Euro and now look at the situation - who'd want to be Greece!!!
No, if we leave then the EU will crumble as all the other peoples of Europe will want to get out and not be subject to the dictators in Brussels.
-
You criticise the flag wavers of the nation state and yet wave your EU flag. Loyalty at one level transposed to another more insidious one. What you find fault in the nation state is even a bigger problem in the EU state. You have just pushed the problem to a bigger institution and into few hands. The kind of thing we saw in Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia and else where.
I have no interest in waving any flag JK, that's the whole point. You are unable to see beyond a 'nation state primacy' approach and therefore see me as need to 'transfer' my loyalty from one level to another. You are completely missing the point - it is perfectly possible to accept that decisions are best taken at different levels - so I don't want local planning decisions to be taken at UK parliament level, they should be taken by a local council - I don't want national parliaments to be making unilateral environmental targets, as the environment affects us all - I want those decisions taken at a higher level. It is horses for courses and I don't see one level at 'inherently' more important than any other - they simply have different roles. So I am perfectly content with being 'loyal' to local councils, regional assemblies (I wish I had one), UK government, EU and UN for example on the basis that each is the best place to make a particular decision. So I have no interest in these claims of sovereignty - lets face it that should really mean democracy and the UK government is no more democratic to the people in the UK than the EU structures (both the EU parliament and those associated with the individual governments of each member state) is to the people of the EU.
And who is to say what should be done at the federal level, the national level and at the more local level? One thing is for sure the EU set-up hasn't been fully and clearly and transparently presented to the people for approval - and when it is vaguely presented to them under a veil of obscurity and opaqueness such as to Ireland, France and Denmark that if they vote the wrong way they get told how to do it 'properly'. Does that sound like an institution trying to do the right thing for the people or some megalomaniacs pushing their monstrous ideology to suit their delusional cravings?
Well actually I think that the EU 'gets' the notion of decision making being at the right level, and most local as possible, much more than the UK. Why, because most EU countries are much more decentralised than the UK, which has one of the most centralised government and decision making structures going.
And on transparency and legitimacy of constitution, when was the last time you were asked in a referendum to directly decide on the constitution of the UK. The answer will be never - the only referendum I have ever voted in was on the voting system, but that is different to a vote on fundamental constitution. So why is it that the little Englanders bang on about getting a say on Europe, but are totally silent on getting a say on the UK, in other words on fundamental constitutional issues.
We know that these wet dream utopian projects set in huge federal arrangement always go sour. I thought we were suppose to learn from history not insanely repeat it! It seems now that even some of the pro-EU lot in Brussels are expressing the idea that the EU won't be about in a decades time - lets hope so; the signs are it is falling to bits...thank god!!!
Oh you mean the one that has maintained peace and massively increasers prosperity over the past 60-odd years. And if your side win the referendum, it is pretty well nailed on that the EU will still be around for longer than the UK will be, as a vote to leave the EU will precipitate a vote by Scotland to leave the UK, effectively breaking up the latter.
-
Well actually I think that the EU 'gets' the notion of decision making being at the right level, and most local as possible, much more than the UK. Why, because most EU countries are much more decentralised than the UK, which has one of the most centralised government and decision making structures going.
Talking to people from mainland Europe who I know, they suggest that Europe has this type of understanding, but that the EU doesn't - that the EU overrides the decentralised nature of European nations and imposes centralised programmes on them. I am happy to accept thgat I haven't had sufficient expereince of life in such a nation to judge, but I think that there would be people in Europe who would differ in their analysis to you, PD.
And on transparency and legitimacy of constitution, when was the last time you were asked in a referendum to directly decide on the constitution of the UK. The answer will be never - the only referendum I have ever voted in was on the voting system, but that is different to a vote on fundamental constitution. So why is it that the little Englanders bang on about getting a say on Europe, but are totally silent on getting a say on the UK, in other words on fundamental constitutional issues.
I think you will find that the '74 EEC referendum was on a constitutional issue, and we were also promised referenda on the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, but were never given any.
Oh you mean the one that has maintained peace and massively increasers prosperity over the past 60-odd years. And if your side win the referendum, it is pretty well nailed on that the EU will still be around for longer than the UK will be, as a vote to leave the EU will precipitate a vote by Scotland to leave the UK, effectively breaking up the latter.
The latter of which will see not only the rUK outside of the EU but Scotland as well. With so many separatist movements in various parts of the current EU, I can't see a newly independent Scotland being warmly received into the fold - there will be too many nations who won't want to see a precedent being set.
-
He has never got it right because he is cheerleader for big business, as they pay him to say these things.
Yet he has been saying very similar things for decades, even before a Brexit was mooted. By the way, if KC is a cheerleader for bib business for saying this, that would seem to place Jeremy Corbyn and the majority of the Labour Party in the same camp!!
-
Talking to people from mainland Europe who I know, they suggest that Europe has this type of understanding, but that the EU doesn't - that the EU overrides the decentralised nature of European nations and imposes centralised programmes on them. I am happy to accept thgat I haven't had sufficient expereince of life in such a nation to judge, but I think that there would be people in Europe who would differ in their analysis to you, PD.
Wrong Hope - not only are most EU countries more inherently decentralised than the UK (which is I think the most centralised OECD country in the world), but subsidiarity (the concept the all decisions should be taken at the most local level appropriate) is actually embedded in the constitution of the EU. This from the Maastricht treaty:
'Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.'
I think you will find that the '74 EEC referendum was on a constitutional issue, and we were also promised referenda on the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, but were never given any.
Firstly I am too young to have voted in 1974, but more importantly I was talking about the UK constitution, not the UK's arraignment with the EU.
So have you (or anyone else) been able to vote in referendum on whether we should be a monarchy or a republic, the role/composition of the second chamber, whether we should have a state religion - to give but three examples. No-one has had any direct say on the entire UK constitution as a whole or in part.
Indeed we don't even have a proper written constitution, so JK's claim that the EU 'hasn't been fully and clearly and transparently presented to the people for approval' where every part of the EU constitution is written and clear is much more apt for the UK itself with its completely vague so-called unwritten constitution.
The latter of which will see not only the rUK outside of the EU but Scotland as well. With so many separatist movements in various parts of the current EU, I can't see a newly independent Scotland being warmly received into the fold - there will be too many nations who won't want to see a precedent being set.
I agree - an independent Scotland would become mired in the politics of other countries not wanting to make it easier for their separatist regions to become independent. So they will make Scotland's accession to the EU complex, long and with plenty of strings attached. They, will, in my opinion allow Scotland in but not 'on the nod'.
-
He has never got it right because he is cheerleader for big business, as they pay him to say these things.
Classic ad hominem
-
Classic ad hominem
It hit a nerve and that is a sign it is the truth, so go on admit it!!!
-
I have no interest in waving any flag JK, that's the whole point. You are unable to see beyond a 'nation state primacy' approach and therefore see me as need to 'transfer' my loyalty from one level to another. You are completely missing the point - it is perfectly possible to accept that decisions are best taken at different levels - so I don't want local planning decisions to be taken at UK parliament level, they should be taken by a local council - I don't want national parliaments to be making unilateral environmental targets, as the environment affects us all - I want those decisions taken at a higher level. It is horses for courses and I don't see one level at 'inherently' more important than any other - they simply have different roles. So I am perfectly content with being 'loyal' to local councils, regional assemblies (I wish I had one), UK government, EU and UN for example on the basis that each is the best place to make a particular decision. So I have no interest in these claims of sovereignty - lets face it that should really mean democracy and the UK government is no more democratic to the people in the UK than the EU structures (both the EU parliament and those associated with the individual governments of each member state) is to the people of the EU.
But you fail to see that the EU isn't required in the scheme you have set out, as it imposes its undemocratic will on nation states and local regions on issues (i.e. laws) which have nothing to do with it or are handled by other bodies. So your green issue you mention is taken care of by things like the COP21 conferences. The EU is an unnecessary level of bureaucracy and can be disbanded for most things. And as for the UN its mandate says that the nation state takes preference to all other laws; unless of course they are stupid enough to give their powers away.
Well actually I think that the EU 'gets' the notion of decision making being at the right level, and most local as possible, much more than the UK. Why, because most EU countries are much more decentralised than the UK, which has one of the most centralised government and decision making structures going.
And on transparency and legitimacy of constitution, when was the last time you were asked in a referendum to directly decide on the constitution of the UK. The answer will be never - the only referendum I have ever voted in was on the voting system, but that is different to a vote on fundamental constitution. So why is it that the little Englanders bang on about getting a say on Europe, but are totally silent on getting a say on the UK, in other words on fundamental constitutional issues.
We don't have a written constitution so could you clarify what you mean exactly.
The EU grabs all the useful power and wealth and leaves the crumbles to the rest. Much of that power should be at the national level and I agree that regional areas should be given more powers - and that is something UKIP is in favour of.
As for your last bit the dictatorship of the EU needs to be dealt with first before powers are handed down to local regions for how can the national level disperse these necessary powers if they are held in Brussels?
(By the way your use of the term little Englander gives your flag waving colours loyalties away)
Oh you mean the one that has maintained peace and massively increasers prosperity over the past 60-odd years.
Once again your language blows your claims to neutrality to pieces.
This claim to peace is absurd. Do you really think that after WWII Europe would have carried on looking to find ways to create more wars? The wars were caused by megalomaniac ideologies which is what the EU is and the war that is going on now is a class war - look how the Greek people have been totally abused by the elites in Brussels! Ground root voices all over the EU are echoing the discontentment of how Brussels is ruling with an iron fist; for the elites, that is, the bankers and big business.
And as for prosperity, for who? Not the people, like the Greeks. But only the ruling classes are getting richer!!!
And if your side win the referendum, it is pretty well nailed on that the EU will still be around for longer than the UK will be, as a vote to leave the EU will precipitate a vote by Scotland to leave the UK, effectively breaking up the latter.
Again, nakedly showing your real colours!!!
Much of that is guesswork. Even many in Brussels are now talking about the demise of the EU, say in a decades time. The various countries of the UK will still be standing then.
-
Yet he has been saying very similar things for decades, even before a Brexit was mooted. By the way, if KC is a cheerleader for bib business for saying this, that would seem to place Jeremy Corbyn and the majority of the Labour Party in the same camp!!
KC? I think it was JP who said these things that caused me to claim such bribed loyalty of him.
Labour are in the same camp as Goldman Sachs!!! The Left have always been stupid.
-
'Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.'
You may have noticed how the EU doesn't even keep to its own rules and laws, so this subsidiarity is actually just there to keep the 'plebs' quiet. And as Hope has said it isn't kept to and as such much of the 'locals' in the EU are in fact governed by laws from Brussels.
So have you (or anyone else) been able to vote in referendum on whether we should be a monarchy or a republic, the role/composition of the second chamber, whether we should have a state religion - to give but three examples. No-one has had any direct say on the entire UK constitution as a whole or in part.
Have the American people been asked to vote on their constitution in recent decades, to approve it? No! And if they look closely at how things are going, over the pond, it is being infringed on with impunity by their elites.
If it really did bother the British people I'm sure they would be demanding changes on those things you mention. And Hope is right the Treaties do play apart in shaping our constitution; remember the Lisbon Treaty was originally called the EU constitution.
-
Something similar was said about joining the Euro and now look at the situation - who'd want to be Greece!!!
No, if we leave then the EU will crumble as all the other peoples of Europe will want to get out and not be subject to the dictators in Brussels.
The EU certainly faces a lot of problems and will have to change, with or without us, but it will continue to exist and it will remain a very important market.
The problem for us will be that if we are out, we will have no influence over how it changes.
-
You may have noticed how the EU doesn't even keep to its own rules and laws, so this subsidiarity is actually just there to keep the 'plebs' quiet. And as Hope has said it isn't kept to and as such much of the 'locals' in the EU are in fact governed by laws from Brussels.
Oh yes it does - aren't you aware that a significant amount of funding from the EU is distributed down to local/regional level because the EU believes in subsidiarity and therefore distributes funding to the correct levels for those functions.
Have the American people been asked to vote on their constitution in recent decades, to approve it? No! And if they look closely at how things are going, over the pond, it is being infringed on with impunity by their elites.
If it really did bother the British people I'm sure they would be demanding changes on those things you mention. And Hope is right the Treaties do play apart in shaping our constitution; remember the Lisbon Treaty was originally called the EU constitution.
How about taking the plank from your own eye. So everyone must have a direct say on every other constitution, but no-one can have a direct say on the UK constitution. Isn't that rank double standards.
And you complained about the EU constitution being opaque - well it is as clear as day compared to the murky, unclear UK 'unwritten' constitution. So if you are really concerned about the clarity of constitutions and that they have democratic legitimacy, sure the first place to look is the UK, to demand that government set out a clear written constitution and then gain direct democratic approval via a referendum.
But actually, of course, you aren't really interested in constitutional issues, you are really just another 'little englander'-type petty nationalist who cannot stand the EU.
-
But actually, of course, you aren't really interested in constitutional issues, you are really just another 'little englander'-type petty nationalist who cannot stand the EU.
I find it interesting that the Brexiters haven't named any clear benefits of leaving yet but they are appealing to nebulous concepts of self rule and sovereignty.
-
I find it interesting that the Brexiters haven't named any clear benefits of leaving yet but they are appealing to nebulous concepts of self rule and sovereignty.
It seems to me that an awful lot of the 'advantages' of bexit are illusory. If we were really lucky (and pragmatic) we might well be able to negotiate a deal that would still give us access to the EU market, but that deal would likely to have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages as we have at present. Nothing would have changed - except that we would then be excluded from the decision making processes of Europe.
-
It seems to me that an awful lot of the 'advantages' of bexit are illusory. If we were really lucky (and pragmatic) we might well be able to negotiate a deal that would still give us access to the EU market, but that deal would likely to have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages as we have at present. Nothing would have changed - except that we would then be excluded from the decision making processes of Europe.
Indeed and this notion of absolute sovereignty is outdated and illusional.
Whenever we chose to be part of a greater grouping we trade off the benefits of membership of that bigger group against some loss of sovereignty at nation state level. So we give up some sovereignty to the part of NATO, we give up some sovereignty to be part of the UN, likewise the OECD and to some extent the G8. Yet the little englanders aren't jumping up and down about leaving NATO as it involves significant loss of power to act (or not to act) for individual NATO members, such as the UK.
So if you really think sovereignty is the be all and end all (I would strongly disagree with you, but it is a view) then you should be campaigning to complete isolationism - leave the EU and NATO and the UN and OECD etc etc etc. But if not then the issue of national sovereignty is simply a straw man.
-
I find it interesting that the Brexiters haven't named any clear benefits of leaving yet but they are appealing to nebulous concepts of self rule and sovereignty.
What is nebulous about self-rule and sovereignty?
-
It seems to me that an awful lot of the 'advantages' of bexit are illusory. If we were really lucky (and pragmatic) we might well be able to negotiate a deal that would still give us access to the EU market, but that deal would likely to have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages as we have at present. Nothing would have changed - except that we would then be excluded from the decision making processes of Europe.
We would not get roped into TTIP, we might be able to opt out of giving EU migrants in work benefits for however long we choose, the UK courts would have the final say, the democratic deficit would be within UK's control to solve.
-
Indeed and this notion of absolute sovereignty is outdated and illusional.
Whenever we chose to be part of a greater grouping we trade off the benefits of membership of that bigger group against some loss of sovereignty at nation state level. So we give up some sovereignty to the part of NATO, we give up some sovereignty to be part of the UN, likewise the OECD and to some extent the G8. Yet the little englanders aren't jumping up and down about leaving NATO as it involves significant loss of power to act (or not to act) for individual NATO members, such as the UK.
So if you really think sovereignty is the be all and end all (I would strongly disagree with you, but it is a view) then you should be campaigning to complete isolationism - leave the EU and NATO and the UN and OECD etc etc etc. But if not then the issue of national sovereignty is simply a straw man.
You've created a straw man and then argued against it.
-
What is nebulous about self-rule and sovereignty?
Because for the majority of us, self rule is simply about a different set of people we don't know screwing us over. Is the British government really any better than the EU one? Would it be better than an English/Scottish/Welsh/NI one? I don't know.
I do know that one of the perceived advantages of leaving the EU is that we will be able to ditch the the EU human rights laws and employment laws because we'll obviously all be better off with fewer human rights and less protection from exploitative employers. Oh, wait, no.
Are there any real benefits from leaving the EU? How will it make my life better, or your life better?
-
We would not get roped into TTIP
If we want to trade with the EU or the USA, we'll have to abide by the rules they set. At least as a member of the EU our government gets some influence over the rules.
we might be able to opt out of giving EU migrants in work benefits for however long we choose
Yes, because it's always good to have people in your country starving to death. Oh, wait.
the UK courts would have the final say, the democratic deficit would be within UK's control to solve.
And the UK courts are better than the European ones because....?
-
The EU certainly faces a lot of problems and will have to change, with or without us, but it will continue to exist and it will remain a very important market.
The problem for us will be that if we are out, we will have no influence over how it changes.
It is very unlikely that the Euro will survive and that will be that.
We have never had any influence, the dice have always been loaded from the very start. That is why we have huge splits in the Tory party because many know that the EU train is on a single line track that is going to hell.
Maggy said it very curtly, "No!, No!, NO!!"
-
It is very unlikely that the Euro will survive and that will be that.
The Euro has just survived a major crisis. I think it will be around long after we are all dead.
We have never had any influence, the dice have always been loaded from the very start. That is why we have huge splits in the Tory party because many know that the EU train is on a single line track that is going to hell.
Maggy said it very curtly, "No!, No!, NO!!"
Instead of all this emotive nonsense, how about telling us how we will be better outside the EU. I want concrete benefits, not fear mongering.
-
What is nebulous about self-rule and sovereignty?
I would say that that is another illusion. We never will have the kind of sovereignty that the the bexit crew fantasise about. The days when Britannia ruled the waves and the rest of the world did as they were told have long gone.
In short we will always be constrained by international agreements but we will have more influence if we are part of a powerful block.
-
Oh yes it does - aren't you aware that a significant amount of funding from the EU is distributed down to local/regional level because the EU believes in subsidiarity and therefore distributes funding to the correct levels for those functions.
There's just been a report out by the EU audit lot that billions have been wasted on these local projects because it was thrown at schemes which were flawed and inappropriate for the regions needs. In the past these grants have been used by local officials and criminals to nick billions. There's no due diligence on them or accountability for these failures. In fact the bureaucrats in Brussels are legally above the law and can't be brought to account for anything which is why anything goes with them; usually down the drain.
How about taking the plank from your own eye. So everyone must have a direct say on every other constitution, but no-one can have a direct say on the UK constitution. Isn't that rank double standards.
I think you need to learn how to read with that red mist in front of you. I said no one has had a say on their constitution, especially ones created or evolved centuries ago. But I also said that if people were bothered by the flaws that they may have there would have been an uprising by now, or outcry. And of course they would have the right to get things changed.
And you complained about the EU constitution being opaque - well it is as clear as day compared to the murky, unclear UK 'unwritten' constitution. So if you are really concerned about the clarity of constitutions and that they have democratic legitimacy, sure the first place to look is the UK, to demand that government set out a clear written constitution and then gain direct democratic approval via a referendum.
It is not clear. The fact that it is written down does not make it clear to the man and woman in the street. It is technically complex, and purposively so to keep it at arms length from the people, but also it runs into millions of pages. The American constitution is just a handful or so. Even so, the little that we do know makes it enough for me to want to leave and let the whole rotten pile fester away.
But actually, of course, you aren't really interested in constitutional issues, you are really just another 'little englander'-type petty nationalist who cannot stand the EU.
There you go again showing your true colours!!!
-
It is very unlikely that the Euro will survive and that will be that.
We have never had any influence, the dice have always been loaded from the very start. That is why we have huge splits in the Tory party because many know that the EU train is on a single line track that is going to hell.
Maggy said it very curtly, "No!, No!, NO!!"
I think the EURO probably will survive in some form or other though some countries might have to give it up as a national currency.
Maggie was very keen on the single market because she saw it was good for Britain - we would be mad to throw that away.
-
I find it interesting that the Brexiters haven't named any clear benefits of leaving yet but they are appealing to nebulous concepts of self rule and sovereignty.
And the Remainers just play the fear card game!!!
-
It seems to me that an awful lot of the 'advantages' of bexit are illusory. If we were really lucky (and pragmatic) we might well be able to negotiate a deal that would still give us access to the EU market, but that deal would likely to have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages as we have at present. Nothing would have changed - except that we would then be excluded from the decision making processes of Europe.
That's a lie.
-
That's a lie.
Thank you for that well though out in depth analysis of my posting :D
-
That's a lie.
Really!
Question for you JK - if there is Brexit, do you want to remain a member of EEA/EFTA?
If so do you understand the consequences in terms of having to comply with EU regulations. If not do you understand the consequences in terms of lack of access to European markets and the negative effect on our economy.
-
The Euro has just survived a major crisis. I think it will be around long after we are all dead.
It has not survived anything. The can has been kicked down the road which is getting shorter and shorter.
Instead of all this emotive nonsense, how about telling us how we will be better outside the EU. I want concrete benefits, not fear mongering.
We will be able to make our own laws that suit us.
Politics in the UK will change as the politicians are forced to look towards the UK and not Brussels, thereby, being truly accountable to those who vote them in.
We can create a points system to control those coming in and going out of the UK.
We will be able to do trade deals with others around the world, deals that suit us not Germany and France. Because of the specificity of these deals they will be easier to fit to our needs than these gross compromises we get from Brussels.
We will lose tonnes of red tape, and just other general crap.
We will get democracy back which is never an item for sale.
And we will show the rest of the EU members that they too can free themselves from that monster the EU, thereby, having countries to deal with not bureaucratic nightmares.
We will kiss TTIP goodbye, something no one wants or needs except the powerful elites and political classes.
Am sure Farage and UKIP could come up with loads more reasons.
-
We will be able to make our own laws that suit us.
That's another illusion.
The majority of the (much hated) Euro-laws that have to pass through our parliament are just boring product standards - and we will still have to comply to those standards, one way or another, as long as we want to sell to Europe.
We can't just force the rest of the world to start using 13amp plugs :)
-
I would say that that is another illusion. We never will have the kind of sovereignty that the the bexit crew fantasise about. The days when Britannia ruled the waves and the rest of the world did as they were told have long gone.
Even UKIP are not calling for that. Instead they are looking to the future.
-
Even UKIP are not calling for that. Instead they are looking to the future.
I don't think UKIP can see any further than Farage's ego.
-
I think the EURO probably will survive in some form or other though some countries might have to give it up as a national currency.
Maggie was very keen on the single market because she saw it was good for Britain - we would be mad to throw that away.
But the EURO won't survive as part of the wet dream of Brussels, the Ever-Closer-Union. It will just be one more run-of-the-mill currencies which is just about what it is now.
Depends on what you mean by the single market. It has changed from what she knew in her day.
-
We will be able to make our own laws that suit us.
No you won't unless you want restrictions on the ability to trade with the rest of Europe who are in then EU or the EEA. If you want to trade without restrictions you will have to abide by the principles and rules of the EEA, which include the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital.
And the UK won't be able to make up its own laws 'to suit us' unless it also decides to withdraw from NATO, the UN, OECD etc etc as membership of those groups also comes with obligations that prevents member states doing what the hell they like.
-
Thank you for that well though out in depth analysis of my posting :D
My pleasure mate. ;) ........ ??? You want a reply?
Oh OK. But I'm tied of repeating myself on this.
Firstly, we have never been part of the decision making process in the sense we have got things changed. There is only one plan, no ifs no buts, either that or lump it (Greece got the full 9 yards of that boot in your face attitude from Brussels). All our representatives in Brussels are paid by Brussels and get impunity from all crimes and a fat pension and tax at 15%. They know who there master is.
The deal would not be the same as we would not be in the single market, which is not a market but a political project with rules to match. We would cut our own trade deal with the EU to suit ourselves and needs.
-
Dearest me,
28 countries, 517 MEP's, UKIP have 24 MEP's :o Labour have 20, Tories have 19, all those politicians out of work, is that a good reason to vote out :)
Gonnagle.
-
Really!
Really!!!
Question for you JK - if there is Brexit, do you want to remain a member of EEA/EFTA?
NO.
If so do you understand the consequences in terms of having to comply with EU regulations. If not do you understand the consequences in terms of lack of access to European markets and the negative effect on our economy.
Do you understand that anyone who trades with the EU have to keep to comply with the rules? We would be outside the EU as is Canada, say.
What makes you think we would not have access to the EU market?
-
We would cut our own trade deal with the EU to suit ourselves and needs.
No you wouldn't - given that the EU is the largest block on the planet by GDP ($18.5 million million) and the UK represents just 15% of that GDP it would of courses be the other way around.
The UK would be required to abide by trade rules set by the EU not the other way around, as is currently the case for other countries that are part of the EEA but not the EU.
The Norwegians call it fax democracy - they have no say in the EU rules but wait for them to be faxed to Norway where they are obliged to implement them as a requirement for free trade with the rest of the EEA.
-
But the EURO won't survive as part of the wet dream of Brussels, the Ever-Closer-Union. It will just be one more run-of-the-mill currencies which is just about what it is now.
I think that is probably a 'good thing'.
Depends on what you mean by the single market. It has changed from what she knew in her day.
The worlds largest single market is still our 'home market'.
-
That's another illusion.
The majority of the (much hated) Euro-laws that have to pass through our parliament are just boring product standards - and we will still have to comply to those standards, one way or another, as long as we want to sell to Europe.
We can't just force the rest of the world to start using 13amp plugs :)
That's a half truth.
Anyone selling to the EU has to abide by the EU rules on product quality.
We, as members though, have to make everything to EU standards whether it is for the EU market or not and that costs money, and dealing with unnecessary red tape. Therefore, better out and cheaper out.
-
I don't think UKIP can see any further than Farage's ego.
That plainly shows that you can't think. Try doing some homework and acquire some facts!!!
-
Dear Bloody Hell,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6818119/MEP-pay-rise-takes-salary-to-86000.html
86 grand a year and free haircuts, F*** me.
British MEPs claim to be embarrassed at taking the extra money at a time when their voters are feeling the pinch but argue that the matter is out of their hands.
Embarrassed, hang your heads in shame >:( >:(
Gonnagle.
-
That's a half truth.
Anyone selling to the EU has to abide by the EU rules on product quality.
We, as members though, have to make everything to EU standards whether it is for the EU market or not and that costs money, and dealing with unnecessary red tape. Therefore, better out and cheaper out.
If we quit, we would still have to comply to EU standards for EU exports. It would be very expensive for manufacturers to produce separate products for home and EU markets. It would be much easier and cheaper just to comply to EU standards for everything (and I would be very surprised if we didn't)
We would still be bound by EU red-tape but wouldn't be able to influence the rules.
-
No you won't unless you want restrictions on the ability to trade with the rest of Europe who are in then EU or the EEA. If you want to trade without restrictions you will have to abide by the principles and rules of the EEA, which include the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital.
And the UK won't be able to make up its own laws 'to suit us' unless it also decides to withdraw from NATO, the UN, OECD etc etc as membership of those groups also comes with obligations that prevents member states doing what the hell they like.
That comment was in reference to how the EU imposes their laws on us. As I have said we will be outside the single market like Canada, Australia etc., who by the way trades with the EU and are not subject to free movement and all that.
-
Dearest Mater,
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html
So basically we tell Johnny Foreigner to piss off and then they set the terms of just how they will piss off, nice.
Gonnagle.
-
No you wouldn't - given that the EU is the largest block on the planet by GDP ($18.5 million million) and the UK represents just 15% of that GDP it would of courses be the other way around.
The UK would be required to abide by trade rules set by the EU not the other way around, as is currently the case for other countries that are part of the EEA but not the EU.
The Norwegians call it fax democracy - they have no say in the EU rules but wait for them to be faxed to Norway where they are obliged to implement them as a requirement for free trade with the rest of the EEA.
We buy more off the EU than they do off us. They are falling to bits and they need our trade. We also have the rest of the world to trade with, so if need be we'll buy our goods elsewhere, but I'm sure BMW will pressure the EU to give us a nice deal. ;D
We will NOT be in any of the EU groups if the negotiations are done properly, say by Farage and UKIP.
-
The worlds largest single market is still our 'home market'.
What do you actually mean by that statement?
-
If we quit, we would still have to comply to EU standards for EU exports. It would be very expensive for manufacturers to produce separate products for home and EU markets. It would be much easier and cheaper just to comply to EU standards for everything (and I would be very surprised if we didn't)
We would still be bound by EU red-tape but wouldn't be able to influence the rules.
I've explained all that. Some manufacturers don't, or hardly, sell to the EU and yet waste time and money bringing their products up to EU standards.
I have already said we don't influence anything now!!! So that won't change.
-
Dearest Mater,
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html
So basically we tell Johnny Foreigner to piss off and then they set the terms of just how they will piss off, nice.
Gonnagle.
Doesn't quite work out like that. There's a 2 year limit on it. If nothing is agreed then all treaties etc. cease to apply to us.
-
Dear Jack,
As I think on this it reminds me of the Scottish Referendum, divorce and then we decide who gets the kids at the weekend, the out mob will need to get their act in gear, tell us before we divorce who gets the kids.
For instance, will we get the same deal that Norway and Switzerland seem to enjoy, do we want that same deal?
Gonnagle.
-
For instance, will we get the same deal that Norway and Switzerland seem to enjoy, do we want that same deal?
Norway and Switzerland have to abide by pretty well all of the rules of the EU (certainly the ones the UKIPers get so agitated by in order to trade freely, yet of course have no say in those rules at all.
Not sure about Switzerland but Norway seems to pay very substantially into the EU budget, yet gets nothing directly out of it (except the ability to trade freely).
-
And the Remainers just play the fear card game!!!
Still no clear benefits from you then.
-
It has not survived anything. The can has been kicked down the road which is getting shorter and shorter.
We will be able to make our own laws that suit us.
The Euro is still with us. It has survived.
Politics in the UK will change as the politicians are forced to look towards the UK and not Brussels, thereby, being truly accountable to those who vote them in.
That's a rather vague thing to say. Give me specific benefits. Why will our lives (yours and mine) be better. Will the government stop squeezing the NHS? will they carry on with fracking?
We can create a points system to control those coming in and going out of the UK.
Ah, you want a little England. I don't see that as a benefit.
We will be able to do trade deals with others around the world, deals that suit us not Germany and France. Because of the specificity of these deals they will be easier to fit to our needs than these gross compromises we get from Brussels.
What? Little England will be able to tell the USA, China and the EU how we want our trade to run? We no longer have an empire, don't you know.
We will lose tonnes of red tape, and just other general crap.
Be specific. What bureaucratic regulations will go away?
We will get democracy back which is never an item for sale.
This island with its electoral system that saw the SNP get many more seats than UKIP on a lower proportion of the vote and that has a totally unelected second chamber? What do you think "democracy" actually means?
And we will show the rest of the EU members that they too can free themselves from that monster the EU, thereby, having countries to deal with not bureaucratic nightmares.
Again, be specific. What bureaucratic nightmares.
We will kiss TTIP goodbye, something no one wants or needs except the powerful elites and political classes.
You are deluding yourself. If we can get the Americans to listen to us for 10 minutes we might get a trade agreement with them, but the terms will be just as bad as TTIP
Am sure Farage and UKIP could come up with loads more reasons.
That bunch of racist, xenophobic losers? Blimey.
-
We, as members though, have to make everything to EU standards whether it is for the EU market or not and that costs money, and dealing with unnecessary red tape. Therefore, better out and cheaper out.
So the benefit of leaving the EU is that we can make products to a lower standard, is it? That sounds like it benefits nobody except the manufacturers. Except, of corse, the manufacturers will still have to make a higher standard version of their products to export to the EU.
-
We can create a points system to control those coming in and going out of the UK.
We already have one for people coming from outside the EU.
If we try to introduce on for people from the EU we can kiss goodbye to any free trade deal, as it would be incompatible with being part of the EEA or EFTA. So points for immigration means tariffs for trade.
-
What do you actually mean by that statement?
With virtually any kind of business there are economies of scale. Basically that means the more 'units' you sell the more efficiently you can operate and the greater profit you can make and the more you can expand.
However, the size of the UK market is not very big in world terms, so the potential for our companies would be limited with such a small 'home market', but when we got unrestricted access to the EU market all that changed. Our home market is currently the whole EU.
. . . and some bunch of clowns want to ditch all that!
-
If we want to trade with the EU or the USA, we'll have to abide by the rules they set. At least as a member of the EU our government gets some influence over the rules.
If we leave our government will have total influence over the rules.
Yes, because it's always good to have people in your country starving to death. Oh, wait.
[/quote]
Straw man.
And the UK courts are better than the European ones because....?
The are accountable to the UK parliament. Why do you think the EU courts are better?
-
Because for the majority of us, self rule is simply about a different set of people we don't know screwing us over. Is the British government really any better than the EU one? Would it be better than an English/Scottish/Welsh/NI one? I don't know.
The British government is accountable to the British electorate, lets get rid of democracy altogether you seem to have more faith in a totalitarian bureaucracy.
I do know that one of the perceived advantages of leaving the EU is that we will be able to ditch the the EU human rights laws and employment laws because we'll obviously all be better off with fewer human rights and less protection from exploitative employers. Oh, wait, no.
Did I argue for less human rights, oh wait no, another straw man.
Are there any real benefits from leaving the EU? How will it make my life better, or your life better?
It will fix the democratic deficit, we will be better able to elect governments that can be held to account.
Might help fix the housing crisis with less migration, we might be better able to stop large corporates evade tax.
-
If we leave our government will have total influence over the rules.
No we won't, quite the reverse. As we will eb a much smaller player our ability to impose our view on others in trade negotiations will be significantly diminished. So if we want to trade most likely we will have to do so according to the rule imposed on us by other much larger economic blocks, such as the EU, the USA and China.
If we want free trade with the EU, or the wider EEA we will be obliged to align with their rules, not ours.
-
If we leave our government will have total influence over the rules.
Have you not read the rest of this thread? We will still have to abide by EU and US rules if we want to trade with them, but without any influence whatsoever.
Straw man.
If they don't get benefits, migrants that are out of work will starve to death, or turn to crime.
The are accountable to the UK parliament.
Why do you think the EU courts are better?
Who said they are better? I was just challenging the assertion that the UK courts are somehow the Nirvana of the justice system. The European courts provide an extra level of checks and balances.
-
The British government is accountable to the British electorate, lets get rid of democracy altogether you seem to have more faith in a totalitarian bureaucracy.
What percentage of British voters voted for the current government?
What percentage of British voters voted for the 50 SNP MPs?
What percentage of British voters voted for the one UKIP MP?
What percentage of British voters voted for anybody in our second chamber?
Did I argue for less human rights, oh wait no, another straw man.
Did I say you did argue for less human rights? I put it up as an alleged benefit since you brexiters are so reticent to do it yourself.
Might help fix the housing crisis with less migration, we might be better able to stop large corporates evade tax.
A lot of mights there. Still nothing solid.
Let's be honest, if Britain goes it alone and it makes the place better, we will have more migrants, not fewer. Of course, if Brexit causes an economic slump, that will relieve the migration crisis, somewhat.
By the way, if large corporations are evading tax, that is illegal. Which large corporations do you claim are breaking the law and how will Brexit make it easier to prosecute them?
-
No we won't, quite the reverse. As we will eb a much smaller player our ability to impose our view on others in trade negotiations will be significantly diminished. So if we want to trade most likely we will have to do so according to the rule imposed on us by other much larger economic blocks, such as the EU, the USA and China.
If we want free trade with the EU, or the wider EEA we will be obliged to align with their rules, not ours.
It will be a negotiation either way.
-
Have you not read the rest of this thread? We will still have to abide by EU and US rules if we want to trade with them, but without any influence whatsoever.
So lets join the US then?
Trade deals are negotiated, being in the EU is where rules are imposed.
If they don't get benefits, migrants that are out of work will starve to death, or turn to crime.
Check back, I was talking about in work benefits.
Who said they are better? I was just challenging the assertion that the UK courts are somehow the Nirvana of the justice system. The European courts provide an extra level of checks and balances.
Never claimed they were a nirvana of any justice system, another straw man.
-
What percentage of British voters voted for the current government?
What percentage of British voters voted for the 50 SNP MPs?
What percentage of British voters voted for the one UKIP MP?
What percentage of British voters voted for anybody in our second chamber?
So a totalitarian EU bureaucracy is better than British democracy?
Did I say you did argue for less human rights? I put it up as an alleged benefit since you brexiters are so reticent to do it yourself.
we'll obviously all be better off with fewer human rights and less protection from exploitative employers. Oh, wait, no.
A lot of mights there. Still nothing solid.
There is nothing but mights on either side of the debate. Like it or not the Conservatives were elected on a manifesto (some policies Labour shared) and they are unable to deliver on many issues because we are in the EU.
Let's be honest, if Britain goes it alone and it makes the place better, we will have more migrants, not fewer. Of course, if Brexit causes an economic slump, that will relieve the migration crisis, somewhat.
Lets be honest and not make things up like you just did.
By the way, if large corporations are evading tax, that is illegal. Which large corporations do you claim are breaking the law and how will Brexit make it easier to prosecute them?
Avoidance then, Google prime example. Even John McDonnell wants to impose a sales tax on Google to fix the problem how exactly will that work when the sales are in Ireland?
-
So lets join the US then?
Trade deals are negotiated, being in the EU is where rules are imposed.
And there would be rules that apply to our trade with them.
Check back, I was talking about in work benefits.
Apologies. I think the point still stands. If a migrant is not being paid enough by his or her job to meet th cost of living in the UK, why do they deserve benefits less than anybody else?
Never claimed they were a nirvana of any justice system, another straw man.
You made the unsubstantiated claim that our courts are better than the European courts. I don't see any evidence of that.
-
So a totalitarian EU bureaucracy is better than British democracy?
No it wouldn't be, if there was a democracy in Britain.
There is nothing but mights on either side of the debate. Like it or not the Conservatives were elected on a manifesto (some policies Labour shared) and they are unable to deliver on many issues because we are in the EU.
Would you like to tell me which Conservative policies cannot be delivered because we are in the EU.
Avoidance then, Google prime example. Even John McDonnell wants to impose a sales tax on Google to fix the problem how exactly will that work when the sales are in Ireland?
How will us not being in the EU stop Google from minimising its tax bill in the way it does?
For reference, until last year, Starbucks made no profit in the UK. The main reason for this is that Starbucks UK bought all of its beans from Starbucks in Switzerland at a huge markup. This trick would still be available to Starbucks if we were not in the EU.
These kinds of tricks will always be possible while different countries have different corporate tax rates. Google is in the RoI because of its very low corporate tax regime, as is Apple. The only way to stop this from happening is for countries to get together in a large Bloc and create rules to stop it. However, you are arguing for us to leave just such a large bloc.
-
Like it or not the Conservatives were elected on a manifesto (some policies Labour shared) and they are unable to deliver on many issues because we are in the EU.
Yes ... and.
My local council was elected on a manifesto and they are unable to deliver on many of those issues because of the Westminster government. Likewise regional assemblies and parliaments in Scotland, Wales and London. There are plenty of things a westminster government cannot do because it is a member of NATO, and of the UN, and of the OECD etc etc. That's life - if you want to be part of a club and benefit from that membership (as the UK does by being part of the UN, NATO, EU, OECD etc) then there are some restrictions on your freedom to act.
And actually many of those policies that you claim they are unable to deliver because of the EU are in fact deliverable (e.g. restrictions on benefits) but Westminster pretends that the EU is preventing them. Others would still be undeliverable even if we were outside the EU unless we are prepared to accept swinging restrictions on trade with most of the rest of europe (including some countries that aren't even in the EU).
-
And there would be rules that apply to our trade with them.
Yes to be negotiated.
Apologies. I think the point still stands. If a migrant is not being paid enough by his or her job to meet th cost of living in the UK, why do they deserve benefits less than anybody else?
They are not UK citizens.
You made the unsubstantiated claim that our courts are better than the European courts. I don't see any evidence of that.
No I said our courts are accountable to our parliament who are accountable to the electorate.
-
No it wouldn't be, if there was a democracy in Britain.
So because you are not a fan of the in your eyes non-democratic UK you prefer a non-democratic bureaucracy?
Would you like to tell me which Conservative policies cannot be delivered because we are in the EU.
In work benefits for migrants, not paying child benefit to migrants.
How will us not being in the EU stop Google from minimising its tax bill in the way it does?
If would allow the UK government to pass a law that prevented sales being issued from a foreign country when the activity relating to that sale is done in the UK.
For reference, until last year, Starbucks made no profit in the UK. The main reason for this is that Starbucks UK bought all of its beans from Starbucks in Switzerland at a huge markup. This trick would still be available to Starbucks if we were not in the EU.
These kinds of tricks will always be possible while different countries have different corporate tax rates. Google is in the RoI because of its very low corporate tax regime, as is Apple. The only way to stop this from happening is for countries to get together in a large Bloc and create rules to stop it. However, you are arguing for us to leave just such a large bloc.
No if the UK government wants apply a rule on tax it applies that rule on tax... when its out of the EU. There are limitations whilst it remains.
-
Yes ... and.
My local council was elected on a manifesto and they are unable to deliver on many of those issues because of the Westminster government. Likewise regional assemblies and parliaments in Scotland, Wales and London. There are plenty of things a westminster government cannot do because it is a member of NATO, and of the UN, and of the OECD etc etc. That's life - if you want to be part of a club and benefit from that membership (as the UK does by being part of the UN, NATO, EU, OECD etc) then there are some restrictions on your freedom to act.
And actually many of those policies that you claim they are unable to deliver because of the EU are in fact deliverable (e.g. restrictions on benefits) but Westminster pretends that the EU is preventing them. Others would still be undeliverable even if we were outside the EU unless we are prepared to accept swinging restrictions on trade with most of the rest of europe (including some countries that aren't even in the EU).
Sure there are restrictions on our freedom to act, that is the price you have to pay to be a member.
I think the price is too high with regard to the EU and I'll be voting to leave.
You seem to have this notion that you have to be in favour of joining all organisation or against joining any.
-
Sure there are restrictions on our freedom to act, that is the price you have to pay to be a member.
I think the price is too high with regard to the EU and I'll be voting to leave.
That's fine and that's your opinion. I disagree.
But the point is that at least you understand that being a member of any larger group means that you trade off the benefits of being part of that group with some restrictions on freedom to act. And that doesn't just apply to the EU, but to loads of other groups that the UK is part of.
You seem to have this notion that you have to be in favour of joining all organisation or against joining any.
Not at all, quite the contrary - it seems to be the Brexiters who seem to think this fundamental trade off of bilateral/multilateral cooperation vs individual sovereignty at nation state level only applies to the EU and not to other organisations that we are members of - it does, it applies to them all.
Further the oft-proffered Brexit view of the fundamental and critical importance of nation state sovereignty. I disagree with this as a view, but if you do believe it to be fundamental then you need to leave not just the EU, but the UN, NATO etc etc. To suggest that state sovereignty is the be all and end all, yet quietly ignore the loss of sovereignty that is required to be a member of the UN and NATO (as examples), while using it as the main argument against the EU, either suggests a fundamental lack of understanding, or a deliberately disingenuous and hypocritical approach.
-
That's fine and that's your opinion. I disagree.
But the point is that at least you understand that being a member of any larger group means that you trade off the benefits of being part of that group with some restrictions on freedom to act. And that doesn't just apply to the EU, but to loads of other groups that the UK is part of.
Not at all, quite the contrary - it seems to be the Brexiters who seem to think this fundamental trade off of bilateral/multilateral cooperation vs individual sovereignty at nation state level only applies to the EU and not to other organisations that we are members of - it does, it applies to them all.
It applies but doesn't apply equally. The cost of being a member of NATO in terms of sovereignty isn't the same as being a member of the EU.
Further the oft-proffered Brexit view of the fundamental and critical importance of nation state sovereignty. I disagree with this as a view, but if you do believe it to be fundamental then you need to leave not just the EU, but the UN, NATO etc etc. To suggest that state sovereignty is the be all and end all, yet quietly ignore the loss of sovereignty that is required to be a member of the UN and NATO (as examples), while using it as the main argument against the EU, either suggests a fundamental lack of understanding, or a deliberately disingenuous and hypocritical approach.
Eh, just because I don't want to be a member of a golf club because I don't like their rules doesn't mean I'm being hypocritical because I join the chess club.
-
Dear Jack,
As I think on this it reminds me of the Scottish Referendum, divorce and then we decide who gets the kids at the weekend, the out mob will need to get their act in gear, tell us before we divorce who gets the kids.
For instance, will we get the same deal that Norway and Switzerland seem to enjoy, do we want that same deal?
Gonnagle.
Nice try Gonny but I've already covered this question. We will get a deal that suits the UK and we will not be in any of the EU groups, if I have a say on anything. The problem is who will negotiate with the EU if we leave? Probably some spag like Cameron!?
-
Norway and Switzerland have to abide by pretty well all of the rules of the EU (certainly the ones the UKIPers get so agitated by in order to trade freely, yet of course have no say in those rules at all.
Not sure about Switzerland but Norway seems to pay very substantially into the EU budget, yet gets nothing directly out of it (except the ability to trade freely).
That's not true of Australia who trade with the EU.
-
Still no clear benefits from you then.
That's because you can't read and you have a limited understanding of things!!!
Can't communicate with the mentally empty.
-
The Euro is still with us. It has survived.
You mean in the same way a zombie is technically still with us. It looks dead to me.
That's a rather vague thing to say. Give me specific benefits. Why will our lives (yours and mine) be better. Will the government stop squeezing the NHS? will they carry on with fracking?
You're very myopic. Think in bigger terms of decades to come for our children and grandchildren.............The Tories, and Cameron are not going to be in power for ever.
Ah, you want a little England. I don't see that as a benefit.
I'm not surprised, you don't come across as very visionary, a bit of a stick in the mud.
What? Little England will be able to tell the USA, China and the EU how we want our trade to run?
Those three powers are on the way out. Don't you follow the news? Trump is on the rise because the US people are fed up with politics as usual. They'll be highly disappointed in him but the mood is changing. China is financially broke and with the rise of the middle class there people are becoming discontented with the how thing are run there, and what has been done to them to create that structural mess of tower blocks. And the EU...well, it's fucked....
Be specific. What bureaucratic regulations will go away?
Again don't you follow the news. Businesses are always complaining of the unnecessary red tape.
This island with its electoral system that saw the SNP get many more seats than UKIP on a lower proportion of the vote and that has a totally unelected second chamber? What do you think "democracy" actually means?
Oh Jeremy. Nothing is perfect but downright EU undemocratic crap is nothing to wish for. Democracy is also a function of the institutions that go with it. It also means that the peoples' vote directly affects those that govern them and are accountable to them and work for their benefit; not for some monster in Brussels.
Again, be specific. What bureaucratic nightmares.
You need to do your homework me laddy. If you can't see the heinous malfunction of the EU then I can't help you. If you are so stupid to think that I can summarise years of looking into the EU then you must have a screw loose. It is these investigations that give me an overview of what is going on - overviews can't be dispensed in specifics.
You are deluding yourself. If we can get the Americans to listen to us for 10 minutes we might get a trade agreement with them, but the terms will be just as bad as TTIP
Are you saying we are not doing any trade whatsoever with the US at the moment?
That bunch of racist, xenophobic losers? Blimey.
Showing your true colours there, Jeremy. That bribe or pension from your EU masters must be pretty sweet for such vociferous and bilious retort.
-
So the benefit of leaving the EU is that we can make products to a lower standard, is it? That sounds like it benefits nobody except the manufacturers. Except, of corse, the manufacturers will still have to make a higher standard version of their products to export to the EU.
Why waste money on a product that doesn't need it, if the country that's buying it doesn't need such high quality. That brings down costs, more are sold. What are you whinging about?
-
We already have one for people coming from outside the EU.
If we try to introduce on for people from the EU we can kiss goodbye to any free trade deal, as it would be incompatible with being part of the EEA or EFTA. So points for immigration means tariffs for trade.
Are you lot deaf, hard of reading or just dumb?
I have said several times that we should not be part of any of the EU groups. But of course if that wanker Cameron does the negotiations then probably we are all done for.
-
With virtually any kind of business there are economies of scale. Basically that means the more 'units' you sell the more efficiently you can operate and the greater profit you can make and the more you can expand.
However, the size of the UK market is not very big in world terms, so the potential for our companies would be limited with such a small 'home market', but when we got unrestricted access to the EU market all that changed. Our home market is currently the whole EU.
What about the whole world. That's bigger than the EU market!!!
-
In work benefits for migrants, not paying child benefit to migrants.
Yes you keep going on about these migrants. Apparently, you think it's OK to make them destitute as long as they come from outside the UK. I don't.
If would allow the UK government to pass a law that prevented sales being issued from a foreign country when the activity relating to that sale is done in the UK.
If we are in the EFTA that will not be allowed.
No if the UK government wants apply a rule on tax it applies that rule on tax... when its out of the EU. There are limitations whilst it remains.
What are those limitations?
-
That's because you can't read and you have a limited understanding of things!!!
Actually it is because the Brexiters haven't come up with any. As soon as I ask for specifics you start with the insults.
Can't communicate with the mentally empty.
See what I mean.
-
What about the whole world. That's bigger than the EU market!!!
But we don't have unrestricted access to the whole world market now, and we won't have if we exit. We would eventually be able to negotiate some kind of deals with various countries but we won't be in a strong position. Meanwhile, our access to the EU market will be restricted.
-
Actually it is because the Brexiters haven't come up with any. As soon as I ask for specifics you start with the insults.
I gave you a list (or someone). You seemed to have erased it and then complained I hadn't given you any. What do expect from such underhand tactics from you?
-
But we don't have unrestricted access to the whole world market now, and we won't have if we exit. We would eventually be able to negotiate some kind of deals with various countries but we won't be in a strong position. Meanwhile, our access to the EU market will be restricted.
That's because we are in the EU. Leave and then we can make trade deals with the rest of the world on our needs and on agreed terms that suit us not the Germans and the French.
-
Are you lot deaf, hard of reading or just dumb?
I have said several times that we should not be part of any of the EU groups. But of course if that wanker Cameron does the negotiations then probably we are all done for.
That is of course an option, but in which case there will be consequences for trade as their will be tariffs imposed if you want to trade with any of the countries in the EEA, which basically includes all of our neighbours.
You seem to want to have your cake and to eat it - you can't. If you want free trade with the EEA you will have to abide by their rules, which includes free movement of labour. If you don't want to abide with those rules you will not be able to benefit from the free trade without tariff that the EEA countries enjoy when trading with each other.
Stop being so naive.
-
That's not true of Australia who trade with the EU.
And are charged trade tariffs for everything they export to the EU, increasing their costs and reducing their competitiveness within the EU market.
If you want to trade without tariffs you have to sign up to the EU/EEA rules.
-
IDS does irony to the max
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35720065
-
And are charged trade tariffs for everything they export to the EU, increasing their costs and reducing their competitiveness within the EU market.
If you want to trade without tariffs you have to sign up to the EU/EEA rules.
Exactly, JK and the other brexiters seem to imagine that we would just magically get unrestricted access to the whole world market!
-
It applies but doesn't apply equally. The cost of being a member of NATO in terms of sovereignty isn't the same as being a member of the EU.
Really?!? Sure the EU arguably add some red tape.
Being a member of NATO may oblige us to enter a war which we might otherwise use our sovereignty to chose not to be involved in. That may result is deaths of service personnel, UK actually being attacked too etc etc. That sounds pretty significant to me.
Eh, just because I don't want to be a member of a golf club because I don't like their rules doesn't mean I'm being hypocritical because I join the chess club.
You are misinterpreting my argument.
The analogy is to say that if you refuse to become a member of a golf club because you can't accept any rules being placed on you by an external club whose rules you cannot control yet happily join a chess club which also places rules on you, then you are undoubtedly being hypocritical.
-
IDS does irony to the max
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35720065
Quite so, I could never stand the man. Sometimes ad hominem is perfectly reasonable when you are dealing with an utter tosser.
-
IDS does irony to the max
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35720065
Ian Duncan Smith's back stabbing activities were partially responsible for the Tory drubbing in 1997. Then, as leader, he was too pathetic to last the distance from one general election to the next.
It's typical that he would engage in these smear tactics.
spoing!
-
That's because we are in the EU. Leave and then we can make trade deals with the rest of the world on our needs and on agreed terms that suit us not the Germans and the French.
So you are saying that, in situations where the mighty EU cannot get good trade agreements, we would just walk in and sign the dream deal. That doesn't seem likely to me.
-
So you are saying that, in situations where the mighty EU cannot get good trade agreements, we would just walk in and sign the dream deal. That doesn't seem likely to me.
It is the height of either naivety or arrogance to think that China, or the USA (as examples) are going to take as much notice of a single country with a pretty tiny economy in trade negotiations, as they do to the EU, a trading block an order of magnitude larger than the UK and the largest single economy on the planet, when considered as a single economic area.
There is no doubt that the economic muscle of the EU, and therefore its attractiveness for others to trade with, means they will get a far better deal, and be much more able to call the shots than we would alone.
-
It is the height of either naivety or arrogance to think that China, or the USA (as examples) are going to take as much notice of a single country with a pretty tiny economy in trade negotiations . . .
Though they probably would be quite happy to 'dump' some of their surplus goods here when it suited them. (great news for home producers)
-
I haven't read all the posts but have been reading JeremyP's posts with which I agree. I heard part of QT on FiveLive last night and then some of the phone-ins. I hope fervently that if, as was pointed out, it is the young who are much more in favour of remaining firmly in the EU, that all young voters will take the trouble to vote, in order to counteract the, to me, ghastly opinions of most of the phoners-in. Thank goodness the vote is on 23rd June because I'm off to Australia for 10 days on the 24th.
-
I haven't read all the posts but have been reading JeremyP's posts with which I agree. I heard part of QT on FiveLive last night and then some of the phone-ins. I hope fervently that if, as was pointed out, it is the young who are much more in favour of remaining firmly in the EU, that all young voters will take the trouble to vote, in order to counteract the, to me, ghastly opinions of most of the phoners-in. Thank goodness the vote is on 23rd June because I'm off to Australia for 10 days on the 24th.
I read somewhere yesterday - I can't now remember where I saw it - than while more young people are in favour of remaining in the EU and more older people in favour of leaving, it tends to be more older people who actually go out and vote.
-
I read somewhere yesterday - I can't now remember where I saw it - than while more young people are in favour of remaining in the EU and more older people in favour of leaving, it tends to be more older people who actually go out and vote.
Is always the case and is therefore a worry.
-
Well, for the innies, yes.
-
Well, for the innies, yes.
Which is why I am concerned
-
An additional issue, not just on the referendum, but all votes going forward is the changes to the registration procedures seems to be reducing the electoral roll.
-
That is of course an option, but in which case there will be consequences for trade as their will be tariffs imposed if you want to trade with any of the countries in the EEA, which basically includes all of our neighbours.
If they can set tariffs so can we, and get our money back.
You seem to want to have your cake and to eat it - you can't. If you want free trade with the EEA you will have to abide by their rules, which includes free movement of labour. If you don't want to abide with those rules you will not be able to benefit from the free trade without tariff that the EEA countries enjoy when trading with each other.
Wrong again. Australia trades with the EU and are not bound by the free movement thingy.
-
And are charged trade tariffs for everything they export to the EU, increasing their costs and reducing their competitiveness within the EU market.
If you want to trade without tariffs you have to sign up to the EU/EEA rules.
All the rules of the EU are making them uncompetitive with the rest of the world.
By the way these tariffs are really low these days they aren't going to make much of a difference.
-
So you are saying that, in situations where the mighty EU cannot get good trade agreements, we would just walk in and sign the dream deal. That doesn't seem likely to me.
Are you saying that the trade deals the EU gets for us are dream deals? Your statements of absolutism for the Leavers is unfounded and are a straw man.
-
If they can set tariffs so can we, and get our money back.
Wrong again. Australia trades with the EU and are not bound by the free movement thingy.
Right again JK - sure Australia trades with the EU, but they are subject to trade tariffs, making their goods more expensive and their businesses less competitive than they would have been in the absence of those tariffs.
If you don't want to pay tariffs to trade with the EU, you can (at least if you are in Europe) by becoming part of the EEA or EFTA but you will have to agree to the EU rules on movement of labour.
So you can have tariff-free trade, but have to have EU labour movement rules, or you can decide on your own immigration rules but have your trade subject to tariffs. You cannot have control over immigration and tariff-free trade. You cannot have you cake and eat it.
And of course if you want to trade with the EU your goods must adhere to EU quality regulations, e.g. C.E. mark regardless of tariff position. So effectively if you want to trade with the EU tariff-free you will have to abide by all their rules. If you are happy to pay tariffs you can make your own rules on certain things but will still have to abide by EU quality regulations.
-
Are you saying that the trade deals the EU gets for us are dream deals? Your statements of absolutism for the Leavers is unfounded and are a straw man.
The EU, the largest economic block on the planet, has a much better chance of driving excellent trade deals than the UK with an economy perhaps a tenth of the size.
And you can see this all over the place - good example being the non-EU, but EAA countries. Effectively to be able to trade they are obliged to do so pretty well 100% on the terms of the EU.
-
Right again JK - sure Australia trades with the EU, but they are subject to trade tariffs, making their goods more expensive and their businesses less competitive than they would have been in the absence of those tariffs.
If you don't want to pay tariffs to trade with the EU, you can (at least if you are in Europe) by becoming part of the EEA or EFTA but you will have to agree to the EU rules on movement of labour.
So you can have tariff-free trade, but have to have EU labour movement rules, or you can decide on your own immigration rules but have your trade subject to tariffs. You cannot have control over immigration and tariff-free trade. You cannot have you cake and eat it.
And of course if you want to trade with the EU your goods must adhere to EU quality regulations, e.g. C.E. mark regardless of tariff position. So effectively if you want to trade with the EU tariff-free you will have to abide by all their rules. If you are happy to pay tariffs you can make your own rules on certain things but will still have to abide by EU quality regulations.
I've answered all this.
The tariffs aren't that high and well worth paying to avoid all those unnecessary migrants which are now swarming into the EU, and will get worse - 130,000 so far this year. And we can charge our own tariffs on the EU, and no doubt buy some of those goods elsewhere for less.
And as I said anyone who trades with the EU have to abide by their quality requirements.
-
The tariffs aren't that high and well worth paying to avoid all those unnecessary migrants which are now swarming into the EU, and will get worse - 130,000 so far this year. And we can charge our own tariffs on the EU, and no doubt buy some of those goods elsewhere for less.
And as I said anyone who trades with the EU have to abide by their quality requirements.
So everyone ends up paying more, companies lose business and with it jobs are lost etc etc.
And who are you to say that it is a 'price worth paying' - I certainly don't agree and I suspect most companies won't as that additional cost will affect competitiveness, profitability, ability to invest etc etc. I don't want to saddle UK companies with additional costs to allow them to trade with our nearest neighbours, and the largest economic block on the planet.
And do you think that Toyota would think so - to access 90+% of the EU market with their cars made in Derbyshire they'd end up paying tariffs and the whole reason they set up that plant was to benefit from the free trade zone. Do you think they'll stay put. Of course they won't - maybe not straight away but they'll be setting up a plant in Spain, or maybe Poland etc before you know it. Loss of jobs in the UK.
And what about all the small component manufacturers etc who currently supply that plant - well suddenly they'll be charged tariffs to provide their components to Toyota making them more expensive. So guess what Toyota will do, find a new source - result, more job losses etc etc.
And just so we are clear I think the free movement of labour in the EU is a thoroughly good thing on principle regardless of economic costs of getting rid of it.
-
... all those unnecessary migrants which are now swarming into the EU
Migration into the EU isn't affected by the free movement of labour requirements. The UK (or any other EU country) can set whatever immigration rules it likes for migrants from outside the EU and always could. Leaving the EU wouldn't change that one iota.
-
The EU, the largest economic block on the planet, has a much better chance of driving excellent trade deals than the UK with an economy perhaps a tenth of the size.
And you can see this all over the place - good example being the non-EU, but EAA countries. Effectively to be able to trade they are obliged to do so pretty well 100% on the terms of the EU.
Well lets look at the facts on the ground. Many of the Euro countries have unemployment at 25% with youth unemployment at around 50%. Not many of those are going to be good for trade, that is, buying stuff. Millions of migrants entering the EU many of which are young men looking to find jobs - ??? what jobs?
The EU year on year is losing % of world trade and still falling. Greece is about to hit another financial crisis and the Euro is on the verge of falling into the mire.
Germany and the richer northern members are going to want to do trade with the UK who buys £50 billion more each year from the EU than they do off us.
All in all I think we have a strong hand. And free movement is pretty much dead now that Schengen has collapsed and there is a bottle neck on the Greek-Macedonia border......and it looks that the EU won't be able to get a deal with Turkey to stop the flow. What a huge incompetent mess, who would want to be part of all that?!!?......and Putin is very obligingly creating havoc in Syria so that those migrants will keep streaming in - what a guy!!! And why? Ukraine and those sanctions possibly??
-
So everyone ends up paying more, companies lose business and with it jobs are lost etc etc.
And who are you to say that it is a 'price worth paying' - I certainly don't agree and I suspect most companies won't as that additional cost will affect competitiveness, profitability, ability to invest etc etc. I don't want to saddle UK companies with additional costs to allow them to trade with our nearest neighbours, and the largest economic block on the planet.
And do you think that Toyota would think so - to access 90+% of the EU market with their cars made in Derbyshire they'd end up paying tariffs and the whole reason they set up that plant was to benefit from the free trade zone. Do you think they'll stay put. Of course they won't - maybe not straight away but they'll be setting up a plant in Spain, or maybe Poland etc before you know it. Loss of jobs in the UK.
And what about all the small component manufacturers etc who currently supply that plant - well suddenly they'll be charged tariffs to provide their components to Toyota making them more expensive. So guess what Toyota will do, find a new source - result, more job losses etc etc.
And just so we are clear I think the free movement of labour in the EU is a thoroughly good thing on principle regardless of economic costs of getting rid of it.
You can't read can you! We can charge tariffs and there will be saving on all that pointless red tape which we can reduce down to just the useful stuff.
And you said you had no flag to wave. Yeah, right!!!
-
Migration into the EU isn't affected by the free movement of labour requirements. The UK (or any other EU country) can set whatever immigration rules it likes for migrants from outside the EU and always could. Leaving the EU wouldn't change that one iota.
They want jobs in the EU and will eventually get citizenship. And there is a market in forging EU passports so these migrants won't be migrants for long.
And if, though it is a big if, Turkey and the EU agree an arrangement to halt the flow of migrants then one of the conditions that Turkey wants is to have automatic visas for its people so they can go and work in the EU with no hinderance that the migrants would have to endure. That's 80 million people, a factor that could affect the referendum, on top of all the migrant influx. Not looking good!!!
And as for your last point I have already said we would use a points system for all migrants thereby controlling the numbers.
-
And there is a market in forging EU passports so these migrants won't be migrants for long.
...
And as for your last point I have already said we would use a points system for all migrants thereby controlling the numbers.
But what you are describing there is illegal immigration - which is currently illegal and would remain illegal. A points based system isn't going to change that one iota. If someone can get a forged EU passport (which is a non-sense statement in itself as there is no such things as an EU passport) then they can just as easily get a forged UK passport and get into the UK illegally anyhow.
-
Yes you keep going on about these migrants. Apparently, you think it's OK to make them destitute as long as they come from outside the UK. I don't.
No I don't think that another straw man.
If we are in the EFTA that will not be allowed.
So you know the terms of a future deal, got a crystal ball have we?
What are those limitations?
Any company can invoice from any country in the EU, as far I'm aware the UK government would not be able to introduce a law preventing this.
-
I haven't read all the posts but have been reading JeremyP's posts with which I agree. I heard part of QT on FiveLive last night and then some of the phone-ins. I hope fervently that if, as was pointed out, it is the young who are much more in favour of remaining firmly in the EU, that all young voters will take the trouble to vote, in order to counteract the, to me, ghastly opinions of most of the phoners-in. Thank goodness the vote is on 23rd June because I'm off to Australia for 10 days on the 24th.
Inidividual reads only those opinions of whom she agrees and doesn't change her view shocker!
-
So you know the terms of a future deal, got a crystal ball have we?
But isn't that part of the problem - we have no idea what 'Leave' means - to some people it means further renegotiation with a second referendum to allow the UK to stay in - to others, at the other extreme, it means an isolationist approach with the UK not only out of the EU, but also EEA/EFTA etc.
'Leave' need to clearly set out what it means - it simply isn't good enough to be completely in the dark as to what happens if there is a Leave vote in June.
Frankly I'm struggling to see how anyone can sensibly vote Leave as no-one knows what Leave actually means.
-
Dear Prof,
Frankly I'm struggling to see how anyone can sensibly vote Leave as no-one knows what Leave actually means.
Exactly, lets leave and we sort the details out later, no thanks, I want the details now.
Gonnagle.
-
But isn't that part of the problem - we have no idea what 'Leave' means - to some people it means further renegotiation with a second referendum to allow the UK to stay in - to others, at the other extreme, it means an isolationist approach with the UK not only out of the EU, but also EEA/EFTA etc.
'Leave' need to clearly set out what it means - it simply isn't good enough to be completely in the dark as to what happens if there is a Leave vote in June.
Frankly I'm struggling to see how anyone can sensibly vote Leave as no-one knows what Leave actually means.
We have no idea what stay means, well there be a new treaty with Cameron's deal, will Turkey join, what is the long term immigration policy going to be as the Schengen Agreement falls apart. Will the Euro last what new laws will be passed in Brussels over the next ten years.
Frankly I'm struggling to see how anyone can sensibly vote Stay as no-one knows what Stay actually means.
-
Exactly, lets leave and we sort the details out later, no thanks, I want the details now.
did you say that about No voters in the Scottish referendum?
-
did you say that about No voters in the Scottish referendum?
That isn't a comparable situation is it.
If you voted NO in the Scottish referendum you knew you were going to stay in the UK, with at least the same powers as before the referendum. Vote Leave and you aren't even sure that will result in leaving the EU, let alone what type of arrangement there will be were the UK to leave.
The levels of uncertainty aligned with a Leave vote are massively greater than that for a No vote in the Scottish referendum. Actually it is more appropriate to compare the uncertainty of a Leave vote with a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum, where there was likewise a huge uncertainty. But even then it was pretty certain that a Yes vote would have meant Scottish independence, and there weren't Yes supporters claiming that Yes meant No, in the way there are for some extremely high profile Leave supporters who are saying that Leave means Stay!!
-
But what you are describing there is illegal immigration - which is currently illegal and would remain illegal. A points based system isn't going to change that one iota. If someone can get a forged EU passport (which is a non-sense statement in itself as there is no such things as an EU passport) then they can just as easily get a forged UK passport and get into the UK illegally anyhow.
Forged citizenship proof then, or a member state passport. In fact with Schengen they can move freely anyway, once they are in; and yes I know we aren't in Schengen, but many are just waved through. And that's my point once we are in charge we'll be rigorous in guarding our borders; or that's the plan of UKIP.
-
Forged citizenship proof then, or a member state passport. In fact with Schengen they can move freely anyway, once they are in; and yes I know we aren't in Schengen, but many are just waved through.
No they aren't - have you ever been through passport control coming back into the UK from another EU country. The checks are much, much more stringent than you might get when entering another country.
And if UK border control is simply waving people through without checking their passports, I don't see why that would be any different if the UK was outside rather than in the EU. That, my friend, is a matter for the UK border agency, now and in the future. Nothing to do with the EU whatsoever.
-
This essay deals with Article 50 which is the section on a member leaving the EU. It's not too long. It also deals with tariffs which shows that it is not a given that they could be applied.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/article-50-articles/
-
This is Farage's speech at their spring conference recently. All you Remainers will learn something of the truth of what the EU is about and is well worth a listen as he lays out the facts of the matter and why Cameron and co. are a joke and liars in their claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehGu7dp1tw&feature=youtu.be
-
No they aren't - have you ever been through passport control coming back into the UK from another EU country. The checks are much, much more stringent than you might get when entering another country.
And if UK border control is simply waving people through without checking their passports, I don't see why that would be any different if the UK was outside rather than in the EU. That, my friend, is a matter for the UK border agency, now and in the future. Nothing to do with the EU whatsoever.
"Another country". Which one did you have in mind?
But they are not. It is luck to how much they bother and where the people have come from. They are not manned enough to do a thorough search of everyone, and they rely on those machines too much which I've heard are not as great as the makers claim.
Actually the true matter is for the British people to vote in a government that will do proper border checks and get our computer system up to scratch.
-
This is Farage's speech at their spring conference recently. All you Remainers will learn something of the truth of what the EU is about and is well worth a listen as he lays out the facts of the matter and why Cameron and co. are a joke and liars in their claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehGu7dp1tw&feature=youtu.be
Farage is a great performer, he can 'work the crowd', but there is no substance to his 'material'. He is just an entertainer with a handful of one liners.
He remains the CLOWN.
-
That isn't a comparable situation is it.
If you voted NO in the Scottish referendum you knew you were going to stay in the UK, with at least the same powers as before the referendum. Vote Leave and you aren't even sure that will result in leaving the EU, let alone what type of arrangement there will be were the UK to leave.
The levels of uncertainty aligned with a Leave vote are massively greater than that for a No vote in the Scottish referendum. Actually it is more appropriate to compare the uncertainty of a Leave vote with a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum, where there was likewise a huge uncertainty. But even then it was pretty certain that a Yes vote would have meant Scottish independence, and there weren't Yes supporters claiming that Yes meant No, in the way there are for some extremely high profile Leave supporters who are saying that Leave means Stay!!
We are voting if we want to the political union with the EU, we don't know what the future holds in either case.
-
Actually the true matter is for the British people to vote in a government that will ... get our computer system up to scratch.
I think that you are possibly asking for the moon here, JK. Do you know of any Government-related computer system that has ever been 'up to scratch'?
-
This is Farage's speech at their spring conference recently. All you Remainers will learn something of the truth of what the EU is about and is well worth a listen as he lays out the facts of the matter and why Cameron and co. are a joke and liars in their claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehGu7dp1tw&feature=youtu.be
I heard it at the time, JK. I'm still trying to discover which syllables had even a hint of the truth within them ;)
-
Actually the true matter is for the British people to vote in a government that will do proper border checks and get our computer system up to scratch.
And finally you get it - the competence and ability to enforce the UK border regulations are a matter entirely for the UK government now - it is nothing to do with the EU. If they are cr*p, under-resouced, incompetent that is entirely the responsibility of the UK government.
Do you think the EU somehow phone up Theresa May and ask her to under-staff the passport control at Luton Airport - of course they don't. If Luton airport border control is understaffed blame the UK government - do not blame the EU, because it is nothing to do with them.
-
Have been enjoying Boris' idiotic accusations against 10 Downing Street and the BCC issue.
Fox has got into the mix - when it is pretty obvious that an organisation whose membership is split, both materially and philosophically, on the whole issue has enough power to 1) decide not to come down on one or other side of the issue, and 2) to discipline its own leadership if that should choose to break that decision.
-
If they can set tariffs so can we, and get our money back.
Actually, we can't. Tariffs are a barrier to trade. If we all set tariffs, less trade happens which means everybody suffers.
-
Are you saying that the trade deals the EU gets for us are dream deals? Your statements of absolutism for the Leavers is unfounded and are a straw man.
Argue the point, not some silly straw man.
-
No I don't think that another straw man.
You want to stop immigrants that don't earn enough money from getting benefits. So, no, not a straw man.
So you know the terms of a future deal, got a crystal ball have we?
Nope> I go on what countries that are in the EFTA have to sign up to now.
Any company can invoice from any country in the EU, as far I'm aware the UK government would not be able to introduce a law preventing this.
Of course they can. It's a free trade area. Do you want us to leave the free trade area?
[/quote]
-
You want to stop immigrants that don't earn enough money from getting benefits. So, no, not a straw man.
Nope> I go on what countries that are in the EFTA have to sign up to now.
Of course they can. It's a free trade area. Do you want us to leave the free trade area?
This is getting boring, did I argue for EFTA? Another strawman.
Free trade doesn't restrict you from introducing laws preventing profit divergence.
Lets next start talking about rising wages, thanks Lord Rose, and cost of being in the EU, you debate if its 120 or 250 million a week.
-
This is getting boring, did I argue for EFTA? Another strawman.
Free trade doesn't restrict you from introducing laws preventing profit divergence.
Lets next start talking about rising wages, thanks Lord Rose, and cost of being in the EU, you debate if its 120 or 250 million a week.
What's the real net cost Jakswan - in other words the direct money we provide minus the direct money we receive, adjusted for the economic benefit in terms of additional GDP linked to being a member.
-
What's the real net cost Jakswan - in other words the direct money we provide minus the direct money we receive, adjusted for the economic benefit in terms of additional GDP linked to being a member.
120 to 250 million a week.
-
120 to 250 million a week.
Nope - try again.
-
Nope - try again.
Sunday Politics Andrew Neil went through these figures with Douglas Carswell, who claimed £350 million. Including everything its £120 million.
You can argue to include notional "economic benefit" but I could equally claim the reverse.
The EU costs, its a simple fact.
-
Sunday Politics Andrew Neil went through these figures with Douglas Carswell, who claimed £350 million. Including everything its £120 million.
You can argue to include notional "economic benefit" but I could equally claim the reverse.
The EU costs, its a simple fact.
No it doesn't - being a member of the EU delivers about £6 for every £1 'invested'.
So some real data:
Gross contributions to the EU (i.e. the public funds transferred to Brussels) are about £13billion per annum. That is about 1.7% of the public sector spending per year.
Net contribution - i.e. money we directly contribute minus money we directly receive back, e.g. for investment in infrastructure, research, etc etc is about £7-8 billion per annum, about 1% of the public sector spending per year.
Benefit in terms of enhanced GDP is estimated by the CBI (and they are highly authoritative) at £62-78 billion.
So I make that £13 billion invested and £66-82 billion gained. So the EU doesn't cost us at all - it generates a net additional GDP of between £53 billion and £69 billion each year.
https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
http://news.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/
And by the way our net direct contribution to the EU on a per person basis is little different to Norway's and they aren't even members of the EU.
-
No it doesn't - being a member of the EU delivers about £6 for every £1 'invested'.
So some real data:
Gross contributions to the EU (i.e. the public funds transferred to Brussels) are about £13billion per annum. That is about 1.7% of the public sector spending per year.
Net contribution - i.e. money we directly contribute minus money we directly receive back, e.g. for investment in infrastructure, research, etc etc is about £7-8 billion per annum, about 1% of the public sector spending per year.
So that is £120 million per week, thanks for confirming. We send £250 million a week the EU dictates where we spend the money they give back.
Benefit in terms of enhanced GDP is estimated by the CBI (and they are highly authoritative) at £62-78 billion.
So I make that £13 billion invested and £66-82 billion gained. So the EU doesn't cost us at all - it generates a net additional GDP of between £53 billion and £69 billion each year.
https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
http://news.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/
Which would remain as is if we do a free trade deal, its highly speculative anyway.
And by the way our net direct contribution to the EU on a per person basis is little different to Norway's and they aren't even members of the EU.
What about Mexico?
-
So that is £120 million per week, thanks for confirming. We send £250 million a week the EU dictates where we spend the money they give back.
Nope I asked you:
'What's the real net cost Jakswan - in other words the direct money we provide minus the direct money we receive, adjusted for the economic benefit in terms of additional GDP linked to being a member.'
The answer to that is that we benefit to the tune of approximately £1billion every week from being a member of the EU
Which would remain as is if we do a free trade deal, its highly speculative anyway.
Which would require us to sign up to the vast majority of EU regulations plus contribute significantly to the EU budget, just like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. But we would have a say in shaping those regulations that would still apply to us.
We could, of course, decide not to abide by those requirements, and then on would go the tariffs, making our businesses less competitive, thereby reducing our GDP.
-
Nope I asked you:
'What's the real net cost Jakswan - in other words the direct money we provide minus the direct money we receive, adjusted for the economic benefit in terms of additional GDP linked to being a member.'
I disagree with your answer since we would still trade with the EU.
But you agree we send the EU £250 million a week.
We could, of course, decide not to abide by those requirements, and then on would go the tariffs, making our businesses less competitive, thereby reducing our GDP.
Assuming we can't negotiate a free trade agreement like Mexico, also the tariffs go both ways can't see BMW etc being too happy with that.
Even Labours position is to stay in a "reformed" EU, a reform that is the stuff of dreams like the majority of Corbyn's idealist policies.
-
I disagree with your answer since we would still trade with the EU.
It wasn't my answer, but the CBI's who you will no doubt be aware are the leading organisation representing British business. So somehow you, Jakswan, apparently know better about the benefits of EU membership on British trade, businesses and industry than the CBI, whose members are of course involved in ... err ... British trade, business and industry.
And the £60-70 billion benefit isn't the values of trade with the rest of the EU, but specifically the additional benefit we get from being an EU member and therefore being able to trade as part of a free trade area. Leave the EU and that benefit is lost, unless of course you agree (like Norway) to be part of the EEA but outside the EU and then of course the contributions to the EU will kick in again and you will have to abide by pretty well all of the EU regulation.
But you agree we send the EU £250 million a week.
And get £1 billion benefit a week in return - sounds like a no-brainer.
Assuming we can't negotiate a free trade agreement like Mexico
Mexico's deal with the EU is on the basis of supporting developing economies, in other words to slowly lift up developing countries and therefore increase the market ultimately for trade from the EU. There is no way that the UK would have the same kind of deal because it isn't a developing economy ... unless, of course the economy tanks so much from no longer being part of the EU that we become classed as a developing economy ;)
also the tariffs go both ways can't see BMW etc being too happy with that.
Indeed, which is why BMW, and other major investors, will pull out of the UK and relocated to another part of the EU to ensure they benefit from the 90% of the EU market that isn't in the UK, tariff-free, rather than just the 10% that is the UK and pay tariff on the remaining 90%.
-
This is getting boring, did I argue for EFTA? Another straw man.
It's only getting boring because the BREXITers don't want to answer the questions.
Free trade doesn't restrict you from introducing laws preventing profit divergence.
What is this? Why are you talking about?
Lets next start talking about rising wages, thanks Lord Rose, and cost of being in the EU, you debate if its 120 or 250 million a week.
Let's talk about the falling wages as a result of leaving the EU.
-
But you agree we send the EU £250 million a week.
Oh FFS, understand what investment and return from investment means. I pay in£x to my ISA every month, where x is quite significant. However, I get something called a "return on investment" back, which is usually more than x. Can you understand that principle? i.e. paying something in and thereby getting more back? Because the way you are arguing here, it suggests you can't.
-
Oh FFS, understand what investment and return from investment means. I pay in£x to my ISA every month, where x is quite significant. However, I get something called a "return on investment" back, which is usually more than x. Can you understand that principle? i.e. paying something in and thereby getting more back? Because the way you are arguing here, it suggests you can't.
I know - he really is acting like a bit of a numpty in insisting on only referring to what we put in and not what we get back.
You could use the same approach to everything - so we 'send' £2.6 billion every week to the NHS - have to stop that then. Oh I forgot, we get a health service in return.
Jaskwan seems to understand the cost of everything (or rather the EU) but the value of nothing.
-
It wasn't my answer, but the CBI's who you will no doubt be aware are the leading organisation representing British business. So somehow you, Jakswan, apparently know better about the benefits of EU membership on British trade, businesses and industry than the CBI, whose members are of course involved in ... err ... British trade, business and industry.
There have been other studies which formed a different view.
And the £60-70 billion benefit isn't the values of trade with the rest of the EU, but specifically the additional benefit we get from being an EU member and therefore being able to trade as part of a free trade area. Leave the EU and that benefit is lost, unless of course you agree (like Norway) to be part of the EEA but outside the EU and then of course the contributions to the EU will kick in again and you will have to abide by pretty well all of the EU regulation.
No a free trade agreement does not mean you become a member of EEA.
[/quote]
And get £1 billion benefit a week in return - sounds like a no-brainer. [/quote]
As I said I disagree.
Mexico's deal with the EU is on the basis of supporting developing economies, in other words to slowly lift up developing countries and therefore increase the market ultimately for trade from the EU. There is no way that the UK would have the same kind of deal because it isn't a developing economy ... unless, of course the economy tanks so much from no longer being part of the EU that we become classed as a developing economy ;)
Again you are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
Indeed, which is why BMW, and other major investors, will pull out of the UK and relocated to another part of the EU to ensure they benefit from the 90% of the EU market that isn't in the UK, tariff-free, rather than just the 10% that is the UK and pay tariff on the remaining 90%.
Won't apply to a free trade agreement.
Clearly you think there is a price on democracy I'm not prepared to sell out so cheaply.
-
It's only getting boring because the BREXITers don't want to answer the questions.
You might not like the answers but you been given them.
What is this? Why are you talking about?
The UK can't stop Google from invoicing UK business from Ireland currently, the EU could if it gets round to it.
Let's talk about the falling wages as a result of leaving the EU.
Evasion noted.
-
Oh FFS, understand what investment and return from investment means. I pay in£x to my ISA every month, where x is quite significant. However, I get something called a "return on investment" back, which is usually more than x. Can you understand that principle? i.e. paying something in and thereby getting more back? Because the way you are arguing here, it suggests you can't.
Please play the ball, you and Prof have been reduced to name calling, I know your losing the debate but try to stay focused on the argument.
In what way is the money we pour into the EU an investment. An ISA is an investment I agree, your tax bill is a cost you pay. You can argue there is a benefit sure but to pretend its not a cost would render everything as an "investment".
Blimey next you'll be spinning the lie that the migrant camp will move to the UK.
-
There have been other studies which formed a different view.
Then link to them. And ensure they are from as credible source as the CBI - in other words from a source that represents and understands business and industry and not from some swivelled eyes eurosceptic loons.
-
Then link to them. And ensure they are from as credible source as the CBI - in other words from a source that represents and understands business and industry and not from some swivelled eyes eurosceptic loons.
Lets just check for consistency first, the CBI are an authority as far as you are concerned with regard to Business and Industry?
-
Lets just check for consistency first, the CBI are an authority as far as you are concerned with regard to Business and Industry?
The report I am discussing involved gaining data from CBI member organisations, firstly on their views on the EU and secondly on the benefit to their businesses from being a member of the EU, plus incorporating evidence from hundred of other sources on the subject - this is research conducted through the leading UK organisation representing business and industry and gaining much of its data directly from businesses and industry.
So yes it is authoritative.
What it is not is:
1. Data generates by a partisan organisation whose primary remit is to campaign to stay or leave.
2. Individual views of a single person which may not be representative of the overall views of industry/business or even
3. Selected rent a crowd letter signed by a cherry picked group of business leaders, selected on the basis of their personal views on the EU.
None of the above would be authoritative.
So I wait for your research data that meets these stringent criteria.
-
The report I am discussing involved gaining data from CBI member organisations, firstly on their views on the EU and secondly on the benefit to their businesses from being a member of the EU, plus incorporating evidence from hundred of other sources on the subject - this is research conducted through the leading UK organisation representing business and industry and gaining much of its data directly from businesses and industry.
So yes it is authoritative.
So its position on TTIP you agree with?
-
So its position on TTIP you agree with?
Diversionary tactic.
I am still waiting for you to provide your authoritative report on the economic benefits (or otherwise) of EU membership.
-
Clearly you think there is a price on democracy I'm not prepared to sell out so cheaply.
Last time I looked the EU was a democratic organisation with decisions taken by a combination of agreement of the democratically elected member state governments and also the directly elected European Parliament.
And on the latter, in the 2014 EU elections I had a direct democratic say in the election of 7 MEPs out of a total of 751 - I make that a direct say in 0.93% of MEPs. In the 2015 UK general election I had a direct democratic say in the election of 1 MPs out of a total of 650 - I make that a direct say in 0.15% of MPs.
-
Diversionary tactic.
I am still waiting for you to provide your authoritative report on the economic benefits (or otherwise) of EU membership.
No, you are citing the CBI as an authority, I'm trying to ensure you are not cherry picking.
-
Last time I looked the EU was a democratic organisation with decisions taken by a combination of agreement of the democratically elected member state governments and also the directly elected European Parliament.
And on the latter, in the 2014 EU elections I had a direct democratic say in the election of 7 MEPs out of a total of 751 - I make that a direct say in 0.93% of MEPs. In the 2015 UK general election I had a direct democratic say in the election of 1 MPs out of a total of 650 - I make that a direct say in 0.15% of MPs.
I have more influence over how my MP vote and what MP is elected. Meanwhile my local EU MP is toothless.
-
No, you are citing the CBI as an authority, I'm trying to ensure you are not cherry picking.
No I am citing an exhaustive report produced by the CBI as authoritative, in part due to its provenance.
But your evasion is still noted. Can you please provide me with details of your similarly authoritative report on the economic benefits (or otherwise) of EU membership.
-
I have more influence over how my MP vote and what MP is elected. Meanwhile my local EU MP is toothless.
I doubt it.
Given that my local MP is not from a party I support I have little likelihood of influencing how she will vote and very little ability to influence her. As there are a number of MEPs in my area there is at least one (actually only one, but at least that is something), who is likely to be receptive to my views and likely to take them forward. And as an aside I always get a Christmas card from him - fat chance of getting that from my MP. This is the value of multimember areas - the likelihood that there will be someone representing you whose basic political views you agree with.
And on influencing who is elected - my vote counted in the EU elections - I got one member, out of 7, from my political party of choice. My vote didn't count in the 2015 general election as under FPTP my preferred candidate came third. I am not represented by an MP with political views that broadly align with my own.
-
No I am citing an exhaustive report produced by the CBI as authoritative, in part due to its provenance.
But your evasion is still noted. Can you please provide me with details of your similarly authoritative report on the economic benefits (or otherwise) of EU membership.
So you agree with their conclusions on TTIP another exhaustive report?
I'm just trying to ensure you are consistent.
I'm sure I could get you those reports and I'm confident you won't consider them valid for some tortured reason which boils down to they are not the CBI. All of those would be an argument from authority anyway and I could cite the former Director General Digby Jones of the CBI, or go with Mark Carney 'no impact to jobs or wages' or how about the leader of Remain Lord Rose 'wages will go up'.
-
I doubt it.
Given that my local MP is not from a party I support I have little likelihood of influencing how she will vote and very little ability to influence her. As there are a number of MEPs in my area there is at least one (actually only one, but at least that is something), who is likely to be receptive to my views and likely to take them forward. And as an aside I always get a Christmas card from him - fat chance of getting that from my MP. This is the value of multimember areas - the likelihood that there will be someone representing you whose basic political views you agree with.
And on influencing who is elected - my vote counted in the EU elections - I got one member, out of 7, from my political party of choice. My vote didn't count in the 2015 general election as under FPTP my preferred candidate came third. I am not represented by an MP with political views that broadly align with my own.
I have written to my MP several times and got a reply back on each occasion and she is not from a party I have always voted for. Opinions in the Uk influence MP's in the UK, who can influence government policy, EU MP's are toothless.
-
So you agree with their conclusions on TTIP another exhaustive report?
We aren't discussing the TTIP so this is irrelevant. And your obvious evasion tactic is clear.
Again, can you please answer my relevant question, namely:
Can you please provide me with details of your similarly authoritative report on the economic benefits (or otherwise) of EU membership.
I'm sure I could get you those reports and I'm confident you won't consider them valid for some tortured reason which boils down to they are not the CBI. All of those would be an argument from authority anyway and I could cite the former Director General Digby Jones of the CBI, or go with Mark Carney 'no impact to jobs or wages' or how about the leader of Remain Lord Rose 'wages will go up'.
Oh so you 'get you those reports' could you - well do so please. And I'm not talking about individual comments of personal opinion but proper reports with evidence.
But on personal viewpoint you have rather shot yourself in the foot by mentioning Mark Carney who this very morning had publicly stated that the EU, in his opinion, has helped the UK economy. He referred to a Bank of England report, stating that that EU membership had "increased the dynamism of the UK economy and correspondingly its ability to grow without generating risks to the Bank's primary objectives of monetary and financial stability".
So evasion noted and still waiting.
No more diversionary tactics on TTIP please.
-
We aren't discussing the TTIP so this is irrelevant. And your obvious evasion tactic is clear.
Again, can you please answer my relevant question, namely:
Can you please provide me with details of your similarly authoritative report on the economic benefits (or otherwise) of EU membership.
Oh so you 'get you those reports' could you - well do so please. And I'm not talking about individual comments of personal opinion but proper reports with evidence.
But on personal viewpoint you have rather shot yourself in the foot by mentioning Mark Carney who this very morning had publicly stated that the EU, in his opinion, has helped the UK economy. He referred to a Bank of England report, stating that that EU membership had "increased the dynamism of the UK economy and correspondingly its ability to grow without generating risks to the Bank's primary objectives of monetary and financial stability".
So evasion noted and still waiting.
No more diversionary tactics on TTIP please.
My point stands I'll get reports you'll dismiss them because they are not XYZ.
I would agree leaving the EU represents a change and brings a degree of instability. The vast majority of countries don't belong to the EU and many of them do just fine.
It boils down to this, there may be an economic risk in leaving the EU, however leaving the EU represents a better way for this country to be run with a more democratically accountable government.
How much better and how much risk is subjective, I think its worth it, especially with immigration running so high, a housing crisis and the infrastructure of the country not ready to sustain such a rapidly growing population.
You may disagree and that is fine but please don't claim to have some objective study from an organisation that is some sort of authority view, especially when you know full well you would not agree with every report they write.
-
My point stands I'll get reports you'll dismiss them because they are not XYZ.
How do you know how I will respond to them?
Frankly it is an irrelevant point as you haven't provided any reports for me to respond to, all you do is evade the request, which remains:
Can you please provide me with details of your similarly authoritative report on the economic benefits (or otherwise) of EU membership.
-
Farage is a great performer, he can 'work the crowd', but there is no substance to his 'material'. He is just an entertainer with a handful of one liners.
He remains the CLOWN.
You probably say that because you are too stupid to see otherwise. What he says is right.
-
I think that you are possibly asking for the moon here, JK. Do you know of any Government-related computer system that has ever been 'up to scratch'?
Up to scratch doesn't mean perfect. We have no choice here if we are going to control our borders. But one thing has transpired, it seems to me, that computers can not do all the work and we need more humans on the ground to do their bit.
-
I heard it at the time, JK. I'm still trying to discover which syllables had even a hint of the truth within them ;)
Keep trying Hope perhaps one day you'll become good enough to understand, though I'm not holding my breath.
-
And finally you get it - the competence and ability to enforce the UK border regulations are a matter entirely for the UK government now - it is nothing to do with the EU. If they are cr*p, under-resouced, incompetent that is entirely the responsibility of the UK government.
Do you think the EU somehow phone up Theresa May and ask her to under-staff the passport control at Luton Airport - of course they don't. If Luton airport border control is understaffed blame the UK government - do not blame the EU, because it is nothing to do with them.
But we can't stop the EU citizens coming in, and the number of non-EU lot coming in is well over Camerons 10,000s because he's done bugger all to try to get them down. And the new NI numbers given out to migrants indicate that it is more like that 600,000 came last year.
-
Actually, we can't. Tariffs are a barrier to trade. If we all set tariffs, less trade happens which means everybody suffers.
So why has the EU got tariffs if they are a bad thing?
And if their tariffs means their goods cost more then we will buy less and go somewhere else.
-
Argue the point, not some silly straw man.
Well, its your straw man against mine, at high noon!!!
-
But we can't stop the EU citizens coming in,
That's right, and nor will you be able to if you want to trade freely having left the EU, in the same way as applies to Norway, Switzerland etc.
But as the UK isn't in Schengen so the UK border agencies should be checking passports - and those with forged passports should not only not be getting in, but should be arrested and charged.
and the number of non-EU lot coming in is well over Camerons 10,000s because he's done bugger all to try to get them down. And the new NI numbers given out to migrants indicate that it is more like that 600,000 came last year.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
-
That's right, and nor will you be able to if you want to trade freely having left the EU, in the same way as applies to Norway, Switzerland etc.
I've answered this several time. My choice would be not to be in any of the EU groups or in the single market.
But as the UK isn't in Schengen so the UK border agencies should be checking passports - and those with forged passports should not only not be getting in, but should be arrested and charged.
Should and are are two different things, and the efficiency in which they do it.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
That was a response to how badly Cameron is doing and that once we leave the EU we would/should tighten up our borders - please note the Tories won't be in power forever so no silly short term replies to that one!!!
-
I've answered this several time. My choice would be not to be in any of the EU groups or in the single market.
Should and are are two different things, and the efficiency in which they do it.
Fine, but I hope you are comfortable with about £60 billion a year being wiped off our GDP, with the associated pain in terms of job losses, cuts to public services or increases in tax that has been estimated by a range of authoritative organisations including the CBI when we are no longer able to trade freely, tariff and custom duty free with the EU.
-
Fine, but I hope you are comfortable with about £60 billion a year being wiped off our GDP, with the associated pain in terms of job losses, cuts to public services or increases in tax that has been estimated by a range of authoritative organisations including the CBI when we are no longer able to trade freely, tariff and custom duty free with the EU.
So what are the other 'authorative organisations'? Do you accept the opinion of these 'authorative institutions' generally?
-
Should and are are two different things, and the efficiency in which they do it.
Which once again has nothing to do with the EU. Leaving the EU won't suddenly make the UK government more efficient at running its border control. Probably the reverse as additional resource will need to be diverted into customs checking, which is currently not required to be anything other than light touch for people arriving from the EU.
-
So what are the other 'authorative organisations'?
The Bank of England, the London School of Economics and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills as examples.
-
The Bank of England, the London School of Economics and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills as examples.
Did you not answer the second question and edit it out for a reason?
-
Did you not answer the second question and edit it out for a reason?
I am not talking about their 'opinion' - in other words whether we should leave the EU. I am talking about their evidence-based data on the economic effects.
-
I am not talking about their 'opinion' - in other words whether we should leave the EU. I am talking about their evidence-based data on the economic effects.
So you accept the 'evidence based data' of the CBI generally?
-
So you accept the 'evidence based data' of the CBI generally?
I'm a scientist - I'm hard wired to accept 'evidence based data' whatever its provenance. And to use it to base an opinion on. ;)
-
Fine, but I hope you are comfortable with about £60 billion a year being wiped off our GDP, with the associated pain in terms of job losses, cuts to public services or increases in tax that has been estimated by a range of authoritative organisations including the CBI when we are no longer able to trade freely, tariff and custom duty free with the EU.
So if we are able to trade freely then no loss to GDP.
-
That's right, and nor will you be able to if you want to trade freely having left the EU, in the same way as applies to Norway, Switzerland etc.
According to Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
These are the countries with a EU free trade agreement not all of them have the same terms as Switzerland and Norway, who themselves don't share the same terms. #projectfear
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Chile
Egypt
Faroe Islands
Bailiwick of Guernsey
Iceland
Isle of Man
Israel
Bailiwick of Jersey
Jordan
Lebanon
Liechtenstein
Republic of Macedonia
Mexico
Monaco
Montenegro
Morocco
Norway
Palestinian Authority
San Marino
Serbia
South Africa
South Korea
Switzerland
Tunisia
Turkey
-
According to Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
These are the countries with a EU free trade agreement not all of them have the same terms as Switzerland and Norway, who themselves don't share the same terms. #projectfear
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Chile
Egypt
Faroe Islands
Bailiwick of Guernsey
Iceland
Isle of Man
Israel
Bailiwick of Jersey
Jordan
Lebanon
Liechtenstein
Republic of Macedonia
Mexico
Monaco
Montenegro
Morocco
Norway
Palestinian Authority
San Marino
Serbia
South Africa
South Korea
Switzerland
Tunisia
Turkey
Thanks for providing this as I was also yogin to provide a similar list as it clearly illustrates my point. Look at the list and a few things jump out.
First - there are only 30 countries (including territories) on the list. There are 206 sovereign states on the planet, so that means that there are 148 that aren't members of the EU and don't have a free trade agreement in place.
Secondly, look carefully and you will see that the countries fit into a number of categories and that is by policy and design, namely:
1. Non EU members who are EEA members - e.g. Norway, Switzerland, Iceland
2. Dependent or linked territories to member states - e.g. Isle of Man, Jersey etc
3. States that want to join the EU and are already in the accession process or working toward that - e.g. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey
4. Countries with developing economies where reduced tariffs are provided to encourage that economic development e.g. Mexico, Chile, South Africa.
5. Countries where free trade is used as the carrot equivalent of the sanctions 'stick' to support democratisation and improved human rights e.g. Morocco, Lebanon, Israel etc.
Pretty well every one of them fits into one of those groups, but the problem for the UK is it wouldn't only be considered under category 1, i.e. being an EEA member, which comes with it the regular EU obligations on free movement of goods, services and labour.
What you will also note is that unless a country is part of the EU or EEA (or a dependent territory of one of those) or wanting to be and is considered to be a developed democratic economy (so 4 or 5 don't apply) there is no free trade deal.
So where are our non EU fellow G7 members - they aren't there.
So where are our non EU fellow G8 members - they aren't there.
So where are our non EU fellow G8 members - they aren't there.
Where are:
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
China
USA
Russia
Japan
India
Brazil
Not there.
The point is that the EU uses free trade deals in a manner that supports a broader policy and unless the UK chooses to join the EEA then it won't be part of that approach and very unlikely to get a deal.
So you have rather shot yourself in the foot as, unless the UK choses to join the EEA, there are no countries on that list which are really equivalent to the UK and for good reason.
-
So if we are able to trade freely then no loss to GDP.
Of course, but that would only happen under EEA rules, which are effectively identical to EU rules.
You cannot have your cake and eat it - you cannot have equivalent free trade (and maintenance of the GDP benefit) to the situation now without signing up toe the EU/EEA rules on free movement of goods, services and labour. And if you are primarily concerned about sovereignty, surely being required to sign up to rules that you have no control over whatsoever (because you aren't in the EU) is a greater loss of sovereignty that having to sign up to rules that the UK does have a say over, as a member state of the EU.
-
So you have rather shot yourself in the foot as, unless the UK choses to join the EEA, there are no countries on that list which are really equivalent to the UK and for good reason.
There are no countries in the world like the UK if start making up categories of countries in such a way, besides I think you missed South Korea.
Why wouldn't the EU want a free trade deal?
-
Of course, but that would only happen under EEA rules, which are effectively identical to EU rules.
So you assert, more #projectfear. So lets explore your position a little more, lets say as the debate progresses the EU signals they would welcome a free trade deal (lets be honest they'd be mad not to). Will you change your mind?
-
There are no countries in the world like the UK if start making up categories of countries in such a way, besides I think you missed South Korea.
South Korea is really part of category 5, supported through free trade agreements to ensure and develop democracy, human rights etc in a region, which I'm sure you will recognise is hardly a benchmark for stability.
So directly from the EU on this deal:
'Trade relations are part of the EU's overall political and economic relations with South Korea' which links to:
'The EU-South Korea Framework Agreement (FA) (2010) addresses a wide range of international concerns, including non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, human rights, cooperation in the fight against terrorism, climate change, energy security and development assistance.'
Read all about it here:
http://eeas.europa.eu/korea_south/docs/framework_agreement_final_en.pdf
Why wouldn't the EU want a free trade deal?
I'm sure they will, but it will happen largely on the EU's terms, which is obvious as the EU (even without the UK) economic block will be 6 times the size of the UKs. And there will be an expectation that the relationship will be comparable to those of Norway, Iceland or Switzerland if free trade is to be provided.
And don't forget that a free trade agreement doesn't necessarily mean 'no tariff' or 'no customs duty' as is the case within the EU. Nope in most of the cases you listed the free trade agreement merely reduces the levels of tariffs, and often not is all cases.
-
Fine, but I hope you are comfortable with about £60 billion a year being wiped off our GDP, with the associated pain in terms of job losses, cuts to public services or increases in tax that has been estimated by a range of authoritative organisations including the CBI when we are no longer able to trade freely, tariff and custom duty free with the EU.
The CBI are bias and are not worth the gob shite they spout. These are the people who said that if we didn't join the Euro we would decline and become a backwater - Duh!!!!
In fact most of those urging us to vote Stay in the referendum were the ones saying similar things to the CBI about joining the Euro.
You have proof that the things you say above will transpire? Things I have addressed.
-
Which once again has nothing to do with the EU. Leaving the EU won't suddenly make the UK government more efficient at running its border control. Probably the reverse as additional resource will need to be diverted into customs checking, which is currently not required to be anything other than light touch for people arriving from the EU.
"Suddenly"?
Some things take a little longer than that. ;D
-
I'm a scientist - I'm hard wired to accept 'evidence based data' whatever its provenance. And to use it to base an opinion on. ;)
In economics? That's a joke!
Ask 10 economists a question on the economy and you will get 15 different answers!!!
If they are so good why is the world economy, especially the Wests, in such a bad state?
-
Thanks for providing this as I was also yogin to provide a similar list as it clearly illustrates my point. Look at the list and a few things jump out.
First - there are only 30 countries (including territories) on the list. There are 206 sovereign states on the planet, so that means that there are 148 that aren't members of the EU and don't have a free trade agreement in place.
Secondly, look carefully and you will see that the countries fit into a number of categories and that is by policy and design, namely:
1. Non EU members who are EEA members - e.g. Norway, Switzerland, Iceland
2. Dependent or linked territories to member states - e.g. Isle of Man, Jersey etc
3. States that want to join the EU and are already in the accession process or working toward that - e.g. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey
4. Countries with developing economies where reduced tariffs are provided to encourage that economic development e.g. Mexico, Chile, South Africa.
5. Countries where free trade is used as the carrot equivalent of the sanctions 'stick' to support democratisation and improved human rights e.g. Morocco, Lebanon, Israel etc.
Pretty well every one of them fits into one of those groups, but the problem for the UK is it wouldn't only be considered under category 1, i.e. being an EEA member, which comes with it the regular EU obligations on free movement of goods, services and labour.
What you will also note is that unless a country is part of the EU or EEA (or a dependent territory of one of those) or wanting to be and is considered to be a developed democratic economy (so 4 or 5 don't apply) there is no free trade deal.
So where are our non EU fellow G7 members - they aren't there.
So where are our non EU fellow G8 members - they aren't there.
So where are our non EU fellow G8 members - they aren't there.
Where are:
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
China
USA
Russia
Japan
India
Brazil
Not there.
The point is that the EU uses free trade deals in a manner that supports a broader policy and unless the UK chooses to join the EEA then it won't be part of that approach and very unlikely to get a deal.
So you have rather shot yourself in the foot as, unless the UK choses to join the EEA, there are no countries on that list which are really equivalent to the UK and for good reason.
So what is TTIP? He asks rhetorically. Who is this trade deal with?
Also you don't need a trade deal to trade.
-
The CBI are bias and are not worth the gob shite they spout.
The problem with the CBI is that they tend to represent the same types of organisation as the British Chamber of Commerce. The nature of those types of organisation is that their attitude is necessarily varied - depending on their size, type of product, the nature of their markets, etc.
These are the people who said that if we didn't join the Euro we would decline and become a backwater - Duh!!!!
Do you have any evidence that they were the only people to argue for our joining - after all, I seem to remember that most of the political parties agreed on the issue.
In fact most of those urging us to vote Stay in the referendum were the ones saying similar things to the CBI about joining the Euro.
IIRC, parts of the CBI argued against joining the Euro and parts argued for it.
-
South Korea is really part of category 4, supported through free trade agreements to ensure and develop democracy, human rights etc in a region, which I'm sure you will recognise is hardly a benchmark for stability.
The EU spouting democracy? Don't make me laugh. The EU is totally undemocratic at its core.
Human rights? Don't make me laugh. Look at how Greece was treated. Look at the migrant crisis and how they are now pawns in a game of swop, played with the rules of chess. And look how Turkey (human rights galore there) is going to be fast tracked into the EU (if a deal is struck) all because it has the EU over a barrel. If they had any principles, other than lining their own pockets, they would say no to Turkey.
-
The problem with the CBI is that they tend to represent the same types of organisation as the British Chamber of Commerce. The nature of those types of organisation is that their attitude is necessarily varied - depending on their size, type of product, the nature of their markets, etc.
Do you have any evidence that they were the only people to argue for our joining - after all, I seem to remember that most of the political parties agreed on the issue.
IIRC, parts of the CBI argued against joining the Euro and parts argued for it.
My last bit said it all, that those saying we will wither if we leave the EU are the same lot who said that if we didn't join the Euro we'd be done for. There may have been a few within camps like that that said otherwise but generally this is true.
-
South Korea is really part of category 4, supported through free trade agreements to ensure and develop democracy, human rights etc in a region, which I'm sure you will recognise is hardly a benchmark for stability.
4. Countries with developing economies
Erm do you want to check that.
I'm sure they will, but it will happen largely on the EU's terms, which is obvious as the EU (even without the UK) economic block will be 6 times the size of the UKs. And there will be an expectation that the relationship will be comparable to those of Norway, Iceland or Switzerland if free trade is to be provided.
The French farmers and German car makers will not want to see one of their biggest markets disappear. The terms will be free trade, pretty much what we have now with no political union, that will good for the Uk and good for the EU, low risk all round.
-
There are no countries in the world like the UK if start making up categories of countries in such a way, besides I think you missed South Korea.
Why wouldn't the EU want a free trade deal?
Did you miss this?
-
Did you miss this?
No I answered it in reply 591, in detail - I even linked the document setting out the South Korea - EU cooperation approach and reasoning.
The reasons South Korea is included are effectively in my category 5. If you don't wish to read the document, in a nutshell - South Korea is wedged between highly dangerous and potentially unstable states. The EU wants to ensure that South Korea is stable and a friend in the region and stable and will use the carrot of free trade to help ensure that.
I don't think that really applies to the UK, does it.
-
4. Countries with developing economies
Sorry, my mistake - I meant category 5. Effectively to use free trade to ensure stability, develop values of democracy/freedom etc and a friend in the region, when pressures within the region might drive it in a different direction.
-
Sorry, my mistake - I meant category 5. Effectively to use free trade to ensure stability, develop values of democracy/freedom etc and a friend in the region, when pressures within the region might drive it in a different direction.
Canada doesn't fall into your categories either they have recently signed a deal.
-
So you assert, more #projectfear. So lets explore your position a little more, lets say as the debate progresses the EU signals they would welcome a free trade deal (lets be honest they'd be mad not to). Will you change your mind?
Apologies meant did you miss this.
-
Canada doesn't fall into your categories either they have recently signed a deal.
You are incorrect.
There is no signed deal between the EU and Canada.
There is an agreement but it is yet to be signed and that is required for it to come into effect, and this illustrates the issues that could well face the UK very well.
First the deal is not as comprehensive as the free trade approach the UK current enjoys with other EU countries. So not all tariffs are eliminated and a range of other restrictions to trade will undoubtedly remain even if is was to come into force, which of course it hasn't.
Secondly, one of the big stumbling blocks to ratification and therefore implementation is the issue of visas - most notably for Eastern European countries. In effect they won't sign, and therefore the agreement cannot be implemented, unless Canada agrees to lift visa restrictions. So were the UK government to try to 'flex' its sovereignty 'muscle' to restrict immigration via visa controls to (lets say) Romania, then Romania can refuse to sign the agreement and it cannot come into force.
Thirdly - it is 2016 and the EU-Canada agreement hasn't come into force. Negotiations started, officially in 2008 (actually 2004 was the real starting point) - so it has taken between 8 and 12 years and there is still not an agreement in force. So if the UK voted to leave the EU in the summer and left in 2018, with negotiations on a trade deal starting on the 24th June this year, on the basis of the Canada example we would not have an agreement actually in force until perhaps 2024 or 2028. And this level of negotiation on trade deals isn't uncommon - I gather 7 years is the average from formal start.
So thanks for raising Canada, which is much better ammunition for my position than it is for yours.
-
You are incorrect.
There is no signed deal between the EU and Canada.
There is an agreement but it is yet to be signed and that is required for it to come into effect, and this illustrates the issues that could well face the UK very well.
First the deal is not as comprehensive as the free trade approach the UK current enjoys with other EU countries. So not all tariffs are eliminated and a range of other restrictions to trade will undoubtedly remain even if is was to come into force, which of course it hasn't.
Secondly, one of the big stumbling blocks to ratification and therefore implementation is the issue of visas - most notably for Eastern European countries. In effect they won't sign, and therefore the agreement cannot be implemented, unless Canada agrees to lift visa restrictions. So were the UK government to try to 'flex' its sovereignty 'muscle' to restrict immigration via visa controls to (lets say) Romania, then Romania can refuse to sign the agreement and it cannot come into force.
Thirdly - it is 2016 and the EU-Canada agreement hasn't come into force. Negotiations started, officially in 2008 (actually 2004 was the real starting point) - so it has taken between 8 and 12 years and there is still not an agreement in force. So if the UK voted to leave the EU in the summer and left in 2018, with negotiations on a trade deal starting on the 24th June this year, on the basis of the Canada example we would not have an agreement actually in force until perhaps 2024 or 2028. And this level of negotiation on trade deals isn't uncommon - I gather 7 years is the average from formal start.
So thanks for raising Canada, which is much better ammunition for my position than it is for yours.
You still haven't answered my other question.
With regard to Canada Wiki:-
"Whether approval by all EU member states is also necessary is disputed. If approved, the agreement would begin to come into effect in 2016 at the earliest, at which time about 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU would be eliminated."
Travel without Visa is not the same full entitlement to work, benefits, etc. Also Canada is coming from a position of no trade agreement whereas the Uk will just want to status quo to remain.
The Canada situation refutes entirely your earlier post.
-
You still haven't answered my other question.
With regard to Canada Wiki:-
"Whether approval by all EU member states is also necessary is disputed. If approved, the agreement would begin to come into effect in 2016 at the earliest, at which time about 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU would be eliminated."
Travel without Visa is not the same full entitlement to work, benefits, etc. Also Canada is coming from a position of no trade agreement whereas the Uk will just want to status quo to remain.
The Canada situation refutes entirely your earlier post.
There is no implemented agreement with Canada, and might not be for years, depending on the views of some individual EU states.
You claim that the UK wants the status quo remain - indeed and of course the way to ensure that the status quo remains is, obviously, to remain in the EU.
To suggest you want to leave the club, but still retain all the benefits of being a member is naive, and frankly arrogant.
-
The Canada situation refutes entirely your earlier post.
No it doesn't because the situation is that there is no free trade agreement implemented with Canada.
And there is no deal in place despite it being 8 or 12 years since the negotiations started.
So by my reckoning if Canada is your shining example of what can be achieved, in 2024 or 2028 there will be no deal in place between the UK and the EU on free trade. That really is a terrifying prospect, given that what investors, markets and economies hate is uncertainly. That's one hell of a long time of uncertainly.
-
There is no implemented agreement with Canada, and might not be for years, depending on the views of some individual EU states.
You claim that the UK wants the status quo remain - indeed and of course the way to ensure that the status quo remains is, obviously, to remain in the EU.
To suggest you want to leave the club, but still retain all the benefits of being a member is naive, and frankly arrogant.
No what is naive is not recognising that a free trade area would benefit the UK and the EU, more #projectfear.
-
No it doesn't because the situation is that there is no free trade agreement implemented with Canada.
And there is no deal in place despite it being 8 or 12 years since the negotiations started.
So by my reckoning if Canada is your shining example of what can be achieved, in 2024 or 2028 there will be no deal in place between the UK and the EU on free trade. That really is a terrifying prospect, given that what investors, markets and economies hate is uncertainly. That's one hell of a long time of uncertainly.
You asserted that free trade deals are only done with countries in certain categories, Canada is not in one of those categories yet a free trade deal is close to being signed, as I said you are refuted.
-
So you assert, more #projectfear. So lets explore your position a little more, lets say as the debate progresses the EU signals they would welcome a free trade deal (lets be honest they'd be mad not to). Will you change your mind?
Reminder.
-
So you assert, more #projectfear. So lets explore your position a little more, lets say as the debate progresses the EU signals they would welcome a free trade deal (lets be honest they'd be mad not to). Will you change your mind?
Change my mind on what - being a member of the EU?
In my view the EU provides all sorts of benefits above and beyond those associated with the economic benefits of free trade. So even if it were the case that the UK would not be affected economically (which is extremely unlikely as there will undoubtedly be a period of uncertainty which is affect economic confidence, investment and stability) we would still be affected negatively by our isolationist, petty nationalist-type approach. So no I still wouldn't support exit.
You seem to think that the only reason why people support being a member of the EU is because of economic benefit, or fear of the loss of economic benefit. That isn't true - there are plenty of us you think better cooperation, integration and working together to break down barriers and borders is a thoroughly good thing on principle. And that's why I support EU membership, just as I did not support Scottish independence. Both the UK leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK take us in the wrong direction in my view.
-
Change my mind on what - being a member of the EU?
In my view the EU provides all sorts of benefits above and beyond those associated with the economic benefits of free trade. So even if it were the case that the UK would not be affected economically (which is extremely unlikely as there will undoubtedly be a period of uncertainty which is affect economic confidence, investment and stability) we would still be affected negatively by our isolationist, petty nationalist-type approach. So no I still wouldn't support exit.
You seems to think that the only reason why people support being a member of the EU is because of economic benefit, or fear of the loss of economic benefit. That isn't true - there are plenty of us you think better cooperation, integration and working together to break down barriers and borders is a thoroughly good thing on principle. And that's why I support EU membership, just as I did not support Scottish independence. Both the UK leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK take us in the wrong direction in my view.
I see so you see my position as 'isolationist, petty nationalist-type approach', none of which I've advocated, which boils to strawmen and name calling, which is pretty much all you have offered.
Oddly my mind could be changed, if could put a brake on immigration (which is still great news for the economy in the long term) build some houses and infrastructure to cope, have a better democratic system, see real reform of the EU, etc, then I'd be all for it!
I don't see all those supporting Scottish independence as 'isolationist, petty nationalists' either, there is a legitimate argument that Scotland is more left wing than rUK and they also have a democratic deficit which can only be cured by independence.
I accept there is a undercurrent of anti-English sentiment in Scotland which the SNP plays to with its grievance rhetoric. Its also not true that Scotland are left the rUK and the SNP has policies to the right but just spins left. You've questioned why someone can be for Scottish independence yet for the EU, the EU are not English. :)
-
I accept there is a undercurrent of anti-English sentiment in Scotland which the SNP plays to with its grievance rhetoric. Its also not true that Scotland are left the rUK and the SNP has policies to the right but just spins left. You've questioned why someone can be for Scottish independence yet for the EU, the EU are not English. :)
As you appear happy to accept an undercurrent of anti-Endlish petty nationalism within the Scottish independence context, why are you not prepared to accept that a large part of the leave the EU brigade is driven by a similar undercurrent of anti-Europe petty nationalism. Indeed I would suggest rather more so - let's face it the main cheerleaders for EU withdrawal UKIP barely try to disguise their petty nationalism.
There is a nasty undercurrent in both camps and while I freely accept that not everyone who wants Scottish independence displays those rather unpleasant traits and the same is true for the EU leave camp, those unpleasant traits are a major undercurrent in both campaigns.
-
As I said the EU is falling apart, especially the Eurozone, a Draghi (more like Drag-low) tries to keep it afloat with over the top monetary measures, which will never work. Who would want to stay with such an ill run monstrosity as that?!! Get us out, vote to Leave......not to mention the migrant crisis where Merkel is selling what little integrity the EU has to the Turks.
-
As you appear happy to accept an undercurrent of anti-Endlish petty nationalism within the Scottish independence context, why are you not prepared to accept that a large part of the leave the EU brigade is driven by a similar undercurrent of anti-Europe petty nationalism. Indeed I would suggest rather more so - let's face it the main cheerleaders for EU withdrawal UKIP barely try to disguise their petty nationalism.
There is a nasty undercurrent in both camps and while I freely accept that not everyone who wants Scottish independence displays those rather unpleasant traits and the same is true for the EU leave camp, those unpleasant traits are a major undercurrent in both campaigns.
There may be an undercurrent in both camps I'm glad you recognise that not everyone who wants to leave stands for a 'isolationist, petty nationalist-type approach' , your earlier post didn't make that clear.
What do you think of TTIP?
-
The BBC have published a guide on their website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887
These are the things David Cameron has managed to get agreed.
Child benefit - Child benefit payments to migrant workers for children living overseas to be recalculated to reflect the cost of living in their home countries
Migrant welfare payments - The UK can decide to limit in-work benefits for EU migrants during their first four years in the UK. This so-called "emergency brake" can be applied in the event of "exceptional" levels of migration, but must be released within seven years - without exception.
Eurozone - Britain can keep the pound while being in Europe, and its business trade with the bloc, without fear of discrimination. Any British money spent on bailing out eurozone nations will be reimbursed.
Protection for the City of London - Safeguards for Britain's large financial services industry to prevent eurozone regulations being imposed on it
Sovereignty - There is an explicit commitment that the UK will not be part of an "ever closer union" with other EU member states. This will be incorporated in an EU treaty change.
'Red card' for national parliaments - It will be easier for governments to band together to block unwanted legislation. If 55% of national EU parliaments object to a piece of EU legislation it will be rethought.
Competitiveness - The settlement calls on all EU institutions and member states to "make all efforts to fully implement and strengthen the internal market" and to take "concrete steps towards better regulation", including by cutting red tape.
Some limits on free movement - Denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national, as part of measures to tackle "sham" marriages. There are also new powers to exclude people believed to be a security risk - even if they have no previous convictions.
-
No what is naive is not recognising that a free trade area would benefit the UK and the EU, more #projectfear.
I don't think there is any doubt that the UK will be able to do some sort of free trade deal with the EU, but we will have to abide by terms and conditions that they impose, as we do now. But at the moment, our government has a say in what the terms and conditions are. If we leave the EU, it won't.
Not only that, but there will be tremendous uncertainty while the terms of our withdrawal are negotiated. This will do tremendous harm to our economy, plus multi national companies with significant operations in the UK may relocate to other EU states. Is the a risk you want to take for your dream of a country free from foreigners?
-
There may be an undercurrent in both camps I'm glad you recognise that not everyone who wants to leave stands for a 'isolationist, petty nationalist-type approach' , your earlier post didn't make that clear.
Yes they do, whether they think so or not.
What do you think of TTIP?
I thought we had decided that has nothing to do with the EU referendum.
-
I don't think there is any doubt that the UK will be able to do some sort of free trade deal with the EU, but we will have to abide by terms and conditions that they impose, as we do now. But at the moment, our government has a say in what the terms and conditions are. If we leave the EU, it won't.
In a negotiation each side has a say on the terms and conditions.
Not only that, but there will be tremendous uncertainty while the terms of our withdrawal are negotiated. This will do tremendous harm to our economy, plus multi national companies with significant operations in the UK may relocate to other EU states.
Project fear, is there "tremendous uncertainty" in Canada whilst they negotiate or the US as TTIP is finalised?
Is the a risk you want to take for your dream of a country free from foreigners?
Yet another straw man, please stop being so dishonest it undermines your position greatly.
-
Yes they do, whether they think so or not.
I thought we had decided that has nothing to do with the EU referendum.
No Prof asserted that, you don't think a major trade deal negotiated by the EU, whose terms we will be bound by, has anything to do with the EU?
What do you think of TTIP and why do you think it has nothing to do with the EU referendum?
-
Project fear, is there "tremendous uncertainty" in Canada whilst they negotiate or the US as TTIP is finalised?
No, for the simply reason that while the Canada agreement or the TTIP fail to be finalised and in place, the current status quo remains - in other words Canada and the USA trade as now with the EU.
If the UK leaves the EU then until a new deal is struck then the current status quo (i.e. what we have now) will not remain, but the situation would be default imposition of standard tariffs until or unless a deal can be struck, which may well take 7 years or more, if the normal timeframe for negotiation of trade deals is a decent benchmark.
-
In a negotiation each side has a say on the terms and conditions.
Indeed they do, but of course in negotiations between the EU and the UK one will have much, much more negotiating power as one economy is about 6 time the size of the other. And that block with the upper hand is the EU.
Also, don't forget that for an agreement to be reached all 27 remaining EU member states must agree. So if there is anything that any individual member state doesn't like, then no deal. Again this places the bargaining power very much with the EU as there will be no way they will ratify an agreement that is seen to be a compromise from the EU's perspective.
And don't forget that failure to get a deal is far less significant for any individual EU member state than it is for the UK, because of the balance of trade between individual member states and the UK.
-
No, for the simply reason that while the Canada agreement or the TTIP fail to be finalised and in place, the current status quo remains - in other words Canada and the USA trade as now with the EU.
If the UK leaves the EU then until a new deal is struck then the current status quo (i.e. what we have now) will not remain, but the situation would be default imposition of standard tariffs until or unless a deal can be struck, which may well take 7 years or more, if the normal timeframe for negotiation of trade deals is a decent benchmark.
Actually if Uk leaves the same deal remains in place for two years anyway. Its a pretty simple deal, trade as we do now and we leave the EU. You keep insisting it will takes age and the EU will insist on free movement but its assertion on your part, why would the rest of the EU not want a free trade deal when
1) It represents a massive risk to EU
2) Its well on its way doing similar deals with Canada and the US
3) German car manufacturers would favour this deal
4) French farmers would favour this deal
50 Anyone who exports into the Uk would favour this deal
-
Indeed they do, but of course in negotiations between the EU and the UK one will have much, much more negotiating power as one economy is about 6 time the size of the other. And that block with the upper hand is the EU.
Upper hand doesn't mean we can't stipulate some terms.
Also, don't forget that for an agreement to be reached all 27 remaining EU member states must agree. So if there is anything that any individual member state doesn't like, then no deal. Again this places the bargaining power very much with the EU as there will be no way they will ratify an agreement that is seen to be a compromise from the EU's perspective.
So which country do you think would block a deal?
And don't forget that failure to get a deal is far less significant for any individual EU member state than it is for the UK, because of the balance of trade between individual member states and the UK.
Maybe but that doesn't mean that a deal is not in the EU's best interests.
-
Upper hand doesn't mean we can't stipulate some terms.
Perhaps, but if those terms are ones that just one of the 27 remaining EU member states doesn't like then there will be no agreement.
So which country do you think would block a deal?
Most likely one of the recently joined Eastern European countries if the UK tries to restrict free movement of Labour from them. This is what has held up the Canada deal.
Maybe but that doesn't mean that a deal is not in the EU's best interests.
It may be important to the EU, but it is critical to the UK. While not ideal the EU could soldier on without a free trade deal with the UK. The UK would be completely screwed without a free trade deal with the EU.
-
Perhaps, but if those terms are ones that just one of the 27 remaining EU member states doesn't like then there will be no agreement.
Perhaps, perhaps they won't to risk a lucrative export market.
Most likely one of the recently joined Eastern European countries if the UK tries to restrict free movement of Labour from them. This is what has held up the Canada deal.
Perhaps and likely, come on project fear can do better that that, millions of jobs, financial meltdown, are you forgetting your play book?
It may be important to the EU, but it is critical to the UK. While not ideal the EU could soldier on without a free trade deal with the UK. The UK would be completely screwed without a free trade deal with the EU.
So it will "solider on" for what reason, why wouldn't it just sign a deal that is in both parties interests.
-
It is undoubtedly true that certain people would benefit from grexit, basically people who would prefer a less competitive market.
For example, a few years ago there was a huge difference between car prices in UK and continental countries. The same model was significantly more expensive here - and the motor trade loved it! Then several companies cottoned-on and started importing UK spec cars from EU countries offering a significant discount, and the UK motor trade had a tantrum and said they wouldn't honour manufactures warranty - but then it was pointed out to them that this was against EU law and they had to comply.
People like that would just love to be free of those 'interfering' Europeans.
-
It is undoubtedly true that certain people would benefit from grexit, basically people who would prefer a less competitive market.
For example, a few years ago there was a huge difference between car prices in UK and continental countries. The same model was significantly more expensive here - and the motor trade loved it! Then several companies cottoned-on and started importing UK spec cars from EU countries offering a significant discount, and the UK motor trade had a tantrum and said they wouldn't honour manufactures warranty - but then it was pointed out to them that this was against EU law and they had to comply.
People like that would just love to be free of those 'interfering' Europeans.
Plus, of course, there's that inconvenient Human Rights law. Human rights are so unBritish.
Then there's the Working Time Directive, it's outrageous that we can't treat our workers like slaves.
-
why wouldn't it just sign a deal that is in both parties interests.
If we leave the EU, we will sign a trade deal. Most likely, it will be very similar to what we have now except that we will have no say EU policy. We will still have to let EU citizens in to work here and we will still have to deal with EU red tape (as well as our own).
Furthermore, the EU will be weaker as a result of one of its richest members leaving and that means that exports to the EU will be weaker.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
If we leave the EU, we will sign a trade deal. Most likely, it will be very similar to what we have now except that we will have no say EU policy. We will still have to let EU citizens in to work here and we will still have to deal with EU red tape (as well as our own).
Furthermore, the EU will be weaker as a result of one of its richest members leaving and that means that exports to the EU will be weaker.
About sums it up for me, I have seen no convincing argument on here, the media that tells me we should leave, the EU should be shaken up but we can't do that standing on the byline.
Gonnagle.
-
Plus, of course, there's that inconvenient Human Rights law. Human rights are so unBritish.
Then there's the Working Time Directive, it's outrageous that we can't treat our workers like slaves.
An awful lot of the much maligned EU laws are just creating a fair system for all - but some people benefit from an unfair system.
-
Heard locally: older people want to be out; why, because they want 'Britain to be great again'.
So many of the pro-exiters do not seem to think beyond some vague, rather fluffy, personal , single idea, and are not at all thinking of the country and Europe as a whole, of history, of safety, the future, oh, and thousands of other points. I do so hope the vote is a strong one for remaining in.
-
Heard locally: older people want to be out; why, because they want 'Britain to be great again'.
So many of the pro-exiters do not seem to think beyond some vague, rather fluffy, personal , single idea, and are not at all thinking of the country and Europe as a whole, of history, of safety, the future, oh, and thousands of other points. I do so hope the vote is a strong one for remaining in.
See #500 (page 21).
-
If we leave the EU, we will sign a trade deal. Most likely, it will be very similar to what we have now except that we will have no say EU policy. We will still have to let EU citizens in to work here and we will still have to deal with EU red tape (as well as our own).
Furthermore, the EU will be weaker as a result of one of its richest members leaving and that means that exports to the EU will be weaker.
The 'most likely' is pure opinion on your part, others are available.
-
Plus, of course, there's that inconvenient Human Rights law. Human rights are so unBritish.
Then there's the Working Time Directive, it's outrageous that we can't treat our workers like slaves.
Hitting that man of straw make you feel good?
-
Heard locally: older people want to be out; why, because they want 'Britain to be great again'.
So many of the pro-exiters do not seem to think beyond some vague, rather fluffy, personal , single idea, and are not at all thinking of the country and Europe as a whole, of history, of safety, the future, oh, and thousands of other points. I do so hope the vote is a strong one for remaining in.
Heard locally: younger people want to be in; why, because they want 'not another war in Europe'.
So many of the pro-remainerss do not seem to think beyond some vague, rather fluffy, personal , single idea, and are not at all thinking of the country of our history, of our safety, the future...
Ahh rhetoric, take the words spin them another way and easily refute the person who had some delusion that they actually made a point.
-
Hitting that man of straw make you feel good?
If we aren't leaving to get rid of EU red tape and certain laws we don't like, why are we leaving?
You seem quite vague on the reasons.
-
An awful lot of the much maligned EU laws are just creating a fair system for all - but some people benefit from an unfair system.
Indeed - many of the laws from the EU are good and sensible, and were the UK not in the EU it would simply enact something pretty well identical.
So there is all this talk of 'strangling' red tape from the EU, but I can't see it and a challenge to the EU-frothers:
Name me 10 regulations from the EU that you think would not simply be re-enacted in a similar form by the UK government if we left the EU.
And just to be clear I can think of loads of perfectly home-grown red tape (i.e. regulations we have to comply with in the UK that are simply unthinkable in other EU countries) which are hugely bureaucratic and costly.
And that is from my experience of public and private section, working in a University, as a school governor, owning a small business I started from scratch and being a Director of another SME.
Just one example - whenever we 'employ' someone we are required, due to Home Office regulations to prove they are able to work in the UK. This involves the 'employee' bringing in their passport and one of our current employees personally checking the passport, taking a copy, and filling out a rather lengthy form.
What's wrong with that you may ask. Well that applies to everyone whether or not they employment is paid, and has to be done every time. So in a University we have loads of people who might come to give a 1 hour lecture to our students, that is classed as employment and we have to go through that process. And if they come the following year to give the same 1 hour lecture we have to do it again, and again, and again. And that is the case if the person giving that one hour lecture is a UK citizen, born in the UK, never having lived anywhere but the UK. Each time we have to spend perhaps 30 minutes doing paperwork for this person giving a one hour lecture. It is bonkers, but perfectly home grown. Talk to my colleagues in France or Germany or Italy and they cannot believe the bureaucracy required in the UK for someone to give a one hour lecture or seminar.
And that's just one example - there are many, many more.
-
If we aren't leaving to get rid of EU red tape and certain laws we don't like, why are we leaving?
You seem quite vague on the reasons.
I've given you the reasons, less of a democratic deficit, we'll save money, allows us to control better control migration, allows us to negotiate own trade deals, allows us to better control profit divergence tactics from the likes of Google, higher wages for UK workers, etc.
Most of these have been discussed in this thread you haven't really engaged in any detail but constantly attacked straw men. I do wonder if you actually made up your mind on this issue on the basis of arguments or on the basis you didn't like the people making the arguments.
-
I can't see it and a challenge to the EU-frothers:
So those that disagree with you are "frothers" whilst those that agree are sweet nice people?
-
I've given you the reasons, less of a democratic deficit,
This is a mirage.
we'll save money,
This is false. The impact on our economy and the economy of our largest trading partner would negate any savings.
Another point, yes we are a net contributor to the EU but that is because our country is rich. Other countries are poor and it is to our advantage that they be rich too. I could save money by not paying taxes but I recognise that spending money so that everybody can afford healthcare, education, transport, law enforcement and soon makes the country a nicer place for me to live in.
Similarly helping poor countries in the EU makes the World a nicer place for the UK to exist in.
allows us to control better control migration,
This is false. We already have border controls even with other EU countries, not being part of the Schengen agreement. Of course, we have to allow free movement of labour within the EU at the moment, but nobody has explained to me why that is bad.
allows us to negotiate own trade deals,
Because somehow, little England with its GDP of 2.7 trillion dollars will be able to negotiate better deals than the EU with its GDP of 18 trillion dollars. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
allows us to better control profit divergence tactics from the likes of Google
We have a better chance of doing that in the EU. Unless we put up trade barriers to the EU, we won't be able to stop Google's tactics by ourselves.
, higher wages for UK workers, etc.
I doubt if that will be true, not with the economic disaster of Brexit.
Most of these have been discussed in this thread you haven't really engaged in any detail but constantly attacked straw men.
Saying I am using fallacies does not mean I am.
I do wonder if you actually made up your mind on this issue on the basis of arguments or on the basis you didn't like the people making the arguments.
I made up my mind based on the likely economic and foreign policy disaster that will be Brexit.
The World economy is not a zero sum game. If we leave the EU, it will be plunged into another economic crisis and that will be bad for us as it will be bad for the countries still in it.
-
This is a mirage.
No its an opinion, yours differs.
This is false. The impact on our economy and the economy of our largest trading partner would negate any savings.
We send £250 million a week to EU, is a fact, you can get that down to £120million a week net.
Another point, yes we are a net contributor to the EU but that is because our country is rich. Other countries are poor and it is to our advantage that they be rich too. I could save money by not paying taxes but I recognise that spending money so that everybody can afford healthcare, education, transport, law enforcement and soon makes the country a nicer place for me to live in.
Actually you'd be breaking the law if you didn't pay taxes. I agree its good to help others in society but I view the society I live to extend to the UK not the EU, you have a different view.
Similarly helping poor countries in the EU makes the World a nicer place for the UK to exist in.
Wouldn't the world be a nicer place if you helped the poorest countries in the World not just the EU?
This is false. We already have border controls even with other EU countries, not being part of the Schengen agreement. Of course, we have to allow free movement of labour within the EU at the moment, but nobody has explained to me why that is bad.
Its no false. You would agree we have a housing crisis? You would agree that adding 300,000 to our population isn't gong to help this situation?
Because somehow, little England with its GDP of 2.7 trillion dollars will be able to negotiate better deals than the EU with its GDP of 18 trillion dollars. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Its pretty simple trade deals need to agreement of all countries in the EU, our trade deals would need the agreement of one. Our economy is not the same as every country in the EU so more bespoke deals could be done.
We have a better chance of doing that in the EU. Unless we put up trade barriers to the EU, we won't be able to stop Google's tactics by ourselves.
No about trade barriers but laws.
I doubt if that will be true, not with the economic disaster of Brexit.
#projectfear
Saying I am using fallacies does not mean I am.
When you attack an argument I haven't made or position I do not hold then you are attacking a strawman. Saying you don't doesn't mean you are not, not doing in future would.
I made up my mind based on the likely economic and foreign policy disaster that will be Brexit.
Good, likewise, might help convince others if you stopped the #projectfear with words like "disaster".
The World economy is not a zero sum game. If we leave the EU, it will be plunged into another economic crisis and that will be bad for us as it will be bad for the countries still in it.
Wow really that is a new argument I've not heard before, will have a think about it, what is your evidence for this new EU economic crisis?
-
No its an opinion, yours differs.
We send £250 million a week to EU, is a fact, you can get that down to £120million a week net.
"It's the economy, stupid"
What we get back is more than just the direct grants from the EU, it is in our interest that all of the economies of the EU are healthy.
Actually you'd be breaking the law if you didn't pay taxes. I agree its good to help others in society
It was an illustration. You don't think it is OK for Google to use legal means to reduce their UK tax bill and yet you advocate exactly the same sort of thing with respect to the UK and the EU.
but I view the society I live to extend to the UK not the EU.
Bingo. In reply #619 I denied that Brexiters are not isolationists and here you are being isolationist.
Wouldn't the world be a nicer place if you helped the poorest countries in the World not just the EU?
Yes it would and we don't help them nearly enough. Since exiting the EU would be calamatous for the economy, I fail to see how Brexit will help them more.
Its no false. You would agree we have a housing crisis? You would agree that adding 300,000 to our population isn't gong to help this situation?
How is leaving the EU going to stop 300,000 migrants coming here? Wouldn't it be better to fix the housing crisis than stop the free movement of labour?
Its pretty simple trade deals need to agreement of all countries in the EU, our trade deals would need the agreement of one. Our economy is not the same as every country in the EU so more bespoke deals could be done.
Good trade deals are about removing barriers to trade. Why would we need more or fewer barriers than the Republic of Ireland?
No about trade barriers but laws.
What is the point of us making a law to stop Google from avoiding tax in the UK if they can just base themselves in Ireland? We need a coordinated approach to tax laws and we won't get that if we are outside of the EU.
#projectfear
You should be afraid of the possible consequences too.
When you attack an argument I haven't made or position I do not hold then you are attacking a strawman.
But I'm not doing that. I am attacking your arguments and the arguments of other Brexiters.
Good, likewise, might help convince others if you stopped the #projectfear with words like "disaster".
I call it like I see it.
Wow really that is a new argument I've not heard before, will have a think about it, what is your evidence for this new EU economic crisis?
We have one of the top three economies in the EU and are therefore one of the biggest contributors. If a country only the size of Greece can cause the chaos it did in the EU, the waves that we would cause by leaving will be significantly greater. I could even see it leading to the break up of the EU.
-
"It's the economy, stupid"
What we get back is more than just the direct grants from the EU, it is in our interest that all of the economies of the EU are healthy.
So you assert.
It was an illustration. You don't think it is OK for Google to use legal means to reduce their UK tax bill and yet you advocate exactly the same sort of thing with respect to the UK and the EU.
Not quite from Google's POV its ok from the British public's POV it isn't, I'm looking at it from British public's POV.
Bingo. In reply #619 I denied that Brexiters are not isolationists and here you are being isolationist.
You need to stop before positing this rubbish, an isolationist would advocate we stay out of foreign affairs, a nationalist would be more accurate.
Yes it would and we don't help them nearly enough. Since exiting the EU would be calamatous for the economy, I fail to see how Brexit will help them more.
So we are not arguing for Brexit and then using the £250 million a week to help the poorest nations in the world.
How is leaving the EU going to stop 300,000 migrants coming here? Wouldn't it be better to fix the housing crisis than stop the free movement of labour?
Freedom of movement of Labour, do you need a diagram? Yes the infrastructure of the entire country needs to be controlled in line with immigration. I think immigration is greatly beneficial to a country, massive uncontrolled immigration is dangerous. Not least because mainstream political parties have a tendency to ignore views for fear of being called names by the likes of you and Prof, which drives support for the hard right, UKIP etc.
Good trade deals are about removing barriers to trade. Why would we need more or fewer barriers than the Republic of Ireland?
Its not about the number but the content, Ireland might not have a struggling steel industry and not wish to impose tariffs on Chinese steel at the same level as the UK who does have a struggling steel industry.
What is the point of us making a law to stop Google from avoiding tax in the UK if they can just base themselves in Ireland? We need a coordinated approach to tax laws and we won't get that if we are outside of the EU.
They wouldn't be able to invoice us from Ireland for translations taking place in the UK if we left the EU and passed a law to that effect.
You should be afraid of the possible consequences too.
Concerned but I'm not buying your disaster rhetoric thanks.
But I'm not doing that. I am attacking your arguments and the arguments of other Brexiters.
You need to attack my arguments, attacking the argument of 'others' is the definition of a straw-man.
Example
I spoke to a bloke whose in the remain campaign and he hates brown people but likes whites from Poland he thinks staying in will keep brown people out, remain people are racist.
Can you see how that would be unfair?
I call it like I see it.
Fine.
We have one of the top three economies in the EU and are therefore one of the biggest contributors. If a country only the size of Greece can cause the chaos it did in the EU, the waves that we would cause by leaving will be significantly greater. I could even see it leading to the break up of the EU.
The issue with Greece wasn't to do with its contributions, do you want another go, tip: think Euro!
-
Well said, JeremyP.
-
I've given you the reasons, less of a democratic deficit,
I think if we are worried about democratic deficit we need to start right here at home:
2015 General Election
Tories supported by 24% of the eligible electorate
Gain 36.9% of the votes cast
Win over 50% of the seats and
Have 100% of the power post election
And also
UKIP - 12.6% of the vote, just 1 seat (i.e. 0.15% of the seats)
Greens - 3.8% of the vote, just 1 seat
Yet
SNP - 4.7% of the vote and 56 seats
DUP - 0.6% of the vote and 8 seats
Compare that with the 2014 EU election
UKIP - 26% of the vote, gained 33% of the seats
Greens - 6% of the vote, 4% of the seats
SNP - 2.4% of the vote, 2.6% of the seats
So where exactly is the democratic deficit.
And that's before we factor in the fact that there is no democratic process for selecting members of the UK second chamber.
we'll save money,
No we won't, the net effect will be a substantial reduction in GDP, when the net direct contributions and negative effects on the economy of leaving the EU are taken into account.
allows us to control better control migration
We already can - except for EU citizens, but if we try to restrict free movement from the EU we will be fit with detrimental trade arrangements and that will further affect our economy.
allows us to negotiate own trade deals
Why is that an advantage - we already have great trade deals and negotiating as the EU means we get better deals and also are more likely to be a priority for deals for other countries, which is critical as deals take years and years to negotiate.
allows us to better control profit divergence tactics from the likes of Google,
Rubbish - the best way to ensure multinationals pay their way is through concerted action from lots of countries - and that is much easier within the EU.
higher wages for UK workers, etc.
pure speculation, but unlikely given the overall negative effect on the economy. And how high will the wages be for those workers laid off at those companies who are only in the UK, because it is within the EU and will be making plans for relocation to another EU country on 24th June if there is vote to leave.
-
I think if we are worried about democratic deficit we need to start right here at home:
2015 General Election
Tories supported by 24% of the eligible electorate
Gain 36.9% of the votes cast
Win over 50% of the seats and
Have 100% of the power post election
And also
UKIP - 12.6% of the vote, just 1 seat (i.e. 0.15% of the seats)
Greens - 3.8% of the vote, just 1 seat
Yet
SNP - 4.7% of the vote and 56 seats
DUP - 0.6% of the vote and 8 seats
Compare that with the 2014 EU election
UKIP - 26% of the vote, gained 33% of the seats
Greens - 6% of the vote, 4% of the seats
SNP - 2.4% of the vote, 2.6% of the seats
So where exactly is the democratic deficit.
And that's before we factor in the fact that there is no democratic process for selecting members of the UK second chamber.
No we won't, the net effect will be a substantial reduction in GDP, when the net direct contributions and negative effects on the economy of leaving the EU are taken into account.
We already can - except for EU citizens, but if we try to restrict free movement from the EU we will be fit with detrimental trade arrangements and that will further affect our economy.
Why is that an advantage - we already have great trade deals and negotiating as the EU means we get better deals and also are more likely to be a priority for deals for other countries, which is critical as deals take years and years to negotiate.
Rubbish - the best way to ensure multinationals pay their way is through concerted action from lots of countries - and that is much easier within the EU.
pure speculation, but unlikely given the overall negative effect on the economy. And how high will the wages be for those workers laid off at those companies who are only in the UK, because it is within the EU and will be making plans for relocation to another EU country on 24th June if there is vote to leave.
You and I have already debated those issues and have disagreed, lets not do the entire thing again.
-
You and I have already debated those issues and have disagreed, lets not do the entire thing again.
In which I asked you to provide a link to research from a credible source to back up your assertions.
You have still failed to do so.
Why should anyone take your views seriously when they are about as cogent as a UKIP soundbite. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some credible evidence to back up your assertions.
Otherwise it is fantasy economic territory. Which is of course what the SNP did prior to the independence referendum, and what the 'Leavers' are doing now. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. The SNP wanted oil to be endless and at sky high prices - it isn't and it crashed. The Brixters want to pretend that there will be no economic hit on the UK if we leave - it is fantasy - there will be. I am happy to debate whether that's a 'price worth paying' (I don't believe it is) but to pretend there will be no price is simply fantasy la-la land stuff.
-
So you assert.
A study from the CBI was cited earlier. It's funny but I thiought ignoring evidence was not your style.
Not quite from Google's POV its ok from the British public's POV it isn't, I'm looking at it from British public's POV.
So am I, as a member of the British public. You think Google needs to pay fair taxes in Britain, but, on the other hand, Britain should not pay "taxes" in Europe. I think you have double standards.
You need to stop before positing this rubbish, an isolationist would advocate we stay out of foreign affairs, a nationalist would be more accurate.
No. You need to read what you wrote. Your concerns end with the UK border apparently. That is isolationist thinking.
So we are not arguing for Brexit and then using the £250 million a week to help the poorest nations in the world.
What £250 million per week? You say this as though there are no financial negatives from leaving the EU. the £250 million will not exist because of the economic down turn that will result from leaving the biggest trade bloc in the World.
Freedom of movement of Labour, do you need a diagram?
The question was how do you think leaving the EU will stop the 300,000 migrants coming here. You can use a diagram if you like to help explain your answer.
Yes the infrastructure of the entire country needs to be controlled in line with immigration.
And how will leaving the EU help us to get our own house in order?
I think immigration is greatly beneficial to a country, massive uncontrolled immigration is dangerous.
0.5% of our population every year is massive uncontrolled immigration is it?
Not least because mainstream political parties have a tendency to ignore views for fear of being called names by the likes of you and Prof, which drives support for the hard right, UKIP etc.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here? I'm pretty much in favour of letting anybody in who wants to come here. How is that driving support for UKIP?
Its not about the number but the content, Ireland might not have a struggling steel industry and not wish to impose tariffs on Chinese steel at the same level as the UK who does have a struggling steel industry.
If our steel industry struggles, it is because it can't compete on price with other countries. Trade tariffs are really not the answer to that problem. Such tariffs are the antithesis of good trade deals. The other country would impose tit-for-tat tariffs that hurt everybody.
They wouldn't be able to invoice us from Ireland for translations taking place in the UK if we left the EU and passed a law to that effect.
Why not? Would we not have a trade deal that allows companies in the EU to trade with us? Are we going to insist that anybody who wants to sell things in the UK needs a UK based office? That won't fly.
Concerned but I'm not buying your disaster rhetoric thanks.
I'll take "concerned". So you admit the possibility that we will be worse off following Brexit? Please think about what that would mean for the people of the UK.
You need to attack my arguments, attacking the argument of 'others' is the definition of a straw-man.
Nope. A straw man is making up an argument and attacking that. Just because I address my posts as responses to your posts does not mean I can't attack arguments by other Brexiters.
Example
I spoke to a bloke whose in the remain campaign and he hates brown people but likes whites from Poland he thinks staying in will keep brown people out, remain people are racist.
That's not a legitimate argument for remaining in the EU and it's certainly not a position I would defend. I condemn whichever remainer made that argument. Who was it?
The issue with Greece wasn't to do with its contributions
Who said it was? I saisd that an economy the size of Greece caused chaos, I didn't say anything about Greece's contributions.
do you want another go, tip: think Euro!
Brexit is not about the Euro. The Euro was always a basd idea.
-
Why should anyone take your views seriously when they are about as cogent as a UKIP sound bite.
You claim to have no flag to fly but that above is plain rubbish, and just a dog whistle for the Lefties. Judging by what you have been saying, and its heavy bias for the EU, you must have several dogs in the race!!!
-
You claim to have no flag to fly but that above is plain rubbish, and just a dog whistle for the Lefties. Judging by what you have been saying, and its heavy bias for the EU, you must have several dogs in the race!!!
Dogs? Race? Does anyone have a clue what JK is on about ???
Another comment about as cogent as a UKIP sound bite - albeit rather longer.
-
Dogs? Race? Does anyone have a clue what JK is on about ???
Another comment about as cogent as a UKIP sound bite - albeit rather longer.
When somebody says they have "no dog in the race" it means they don't see the outcome as affecting them in any way. So what Jack is saying is that you believe you will be personally affected by the outcome of the referendum. This is, of course, blatantly true: we are all going to be affected if the country votes for Brexit, probably in a bad way.
-
When somebody says they have "no dog in the race" it means they don't see the outcome as affecting them in any way. So what Jack is saying is that you believe you will be personally affected by the outcome of the referendum. This is, of course, blatantly true: we are all going to be affected if the country votes for Brexit, probably in a bad way.
Well of course we will be affected by Brexit - what a bonkers suggestion that your view is somehow invalidated or diminished by being affected. Without doubt the Brexit brigade also think they will be affected if we leave the EU - why else would they be campaigning for it. The point isn't whether Brexit will affect us - it will - it is about whether or not we feel that will be a positive or a negative change. I, of course think that change would be deeply negative, backward looking and regressive. And that is on all sorts of grounds, not just economic. Brexiters have a different view, but still think that Brexit will affect them.
If you don't want change and the referendum to have an effect, vote to stay.
Still unclear as to why I have two dogs in the race though.
-
Still unclear as to why I have two dogs in the race though.
In my opinion, the minimum count for "several" is three. Two would be "a couple of".
-
In my opinion, the minimum count for "several" is three. Two would be "a couple of".
Yup you are right - I wonder what all these dogs are then.
-
A study from the CBI was cited earlier. It's funny but I thiought ignoring evidence was not your style.
If you someone wants to consider the CBI an authority on all things economic then they need to accept all of their studies. If they cherry pick then that would be confirmation bias.
So am I, as a member of the British public. You think Google needs to pay fair taxes in Britain, but, on the other hand, Britain should not pay "taxes" in Europe. I think you have double standards.
No one is a company and the other is a country.
No. You need to read what you wrote. Your concerns end with the UK border apparently. That is isolationist thinking.
No opposing foreign aid would be isolationist not wanting to be part of the EU isn't.
What £250 million per week? You say this as though there are no financial negatives from leaving the EU. the £250 million will not exist because of the economic down turn that will result from leaving the biggest trade bloc in the World.
The effective £250 million we send to the EU. The negatives are based on your opinion.
The question was how do you think leaving the EU will stop the 300,000 migrants coming here. You can use a diagram if you like to help explain your answer.
In my opinion the Uk will have a free trade deal without free movement of labour.
And how will leaving the EU help us to get our own house in order?
It will lower demand whilst we fix the issue of supply.
0.5% of our population every year is massive uncontrolled immigration is it?
Its immigration, the EU part of it is uncontrolled and 300,000 is a massive number.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here? I'm pretty much in favour of letting anybody in who wants to come here. How is that driving support for UKIP?
Regardless of any consequences?
If our steel industry struggles, it is because it can't compete on price with other countries. Trade tariffs are really not the answer to that problem. Such tariffs are the antithesis of good trade deals. The other country would impose tit-for-tat tariffs that hurt everybody.
So China can continue to dump steel in the UK resulting in thousands without jobs.
Why not? Would we not have a trade deal that allows companies in the EU to trade with us? Are we going to insist that anybody who wants to sell things in the UK needs a UK based office? That won't fly.
No but anyone who earns money from advertising shown on UK computers by UK citizens should pay tax in the UK.
I'll take "concerned". So you admit the possibility that we will be worse off following Brexit? Please think about what that would mean for the people of the UK.
There are risks both ways, the collapse of the Euro could have dire consequences for the Uk if we remain to name just one example.
Nope. A straw man is making up an argument and attacking that. Just because I address my posts as responses to your posts does not mean I can't attack arguments by other Brexiters.
If you are replying to me an attack a position or argument I have not forwarded it is a straw man. You can argue against other arguments but please ensure you cite who made those arguments.
That's not a legitimate argument for remaining in the EU and it's certainly not a position I would defend. I condemn whichever remainer made that argument. Who was it?
It was an example of a strawman.
Who said it was? I saisd that an economy the size of Greece caused chaos, I didn't say anything about Greece's contributions.
Brexit is not about the Euro.
You mentioned our contributions claiming suggesting it would cause a crisis.
The Euro was always a basd idea.
So you want us to remain in a political union with countries who use a currency is a bad idea.
-
Dogs? Race? Does anyone have a clue what JK is on about ???
Another comment about as cogent as a UKIP sound bite - albeit rather longer.
You claimed that you were not bias for the EU but that your views were based on reasoning things out. Well my statement basically called you a liar. Now that's not to hard for you to understand is it?
-
Well of course we will be affected by Brexit - what a bonkers suggestion that your view is somehow invalidated or diminished by being affected. Without doubt the Brexit brigade also think they will be affected if we leave the EU - why else would they be campaigning for it. The point isn't whether Brexit will affect us - it will - it is about whether or not we feel that will be a positive or a negative change. I, of course think that change would be deeply negative, backward looking and regressive. And that is on all sorts of grounds, not just economic. Brexiters have a different view, but still think that Brexit will affect them.
If you don't want change and the referendum to have an effect, vote to stay.
Still unclear as to why I have two dogs in the race though.
Neil Kinnock has a dog in the EU race because if we leave he will lose his sinecure and pension. He is therefore bias. We all have something to risk here but as that is common to all it cancels itself out leaving the special cases. As Davey is so pushy about staying in he must have a dog in the race in a similarly way that Kinnock does.
-
Neil Kinnock has a dog in the EU race
We were talking about Professor Davy, not Neil Kinnock.
However, since you bring it up, if we leave the EU, lots of British people working in countries in it will lose their jobs.
As Davey is so pushy about staying in he must have a dog in the race in a similarly way that Kinnock does.
That doesn't follow at all. If we leave the EU and the economy has a downturn as a result, everybody in the UK will lose. Everybody in the UK has a dog in this race. However, it's a strange race because, if the wrong decision is made, everybody loses. As I said before, the economy is not a zero sum game.
-
We were talking about Professor Davy, not Neil Kinnock.
I used Neil Kinnock as an example of what I was saying with the dog-in-the-race thing.
That doesn't follow at all. If we leave the EU and the economy has a downturn as a result, everybody in the UK will lose. Everybody in the UK has a dog in this race. However, it's a strange race because, if the wrong decision is made, everybody loses. As I said before, the economy is not a zero sum game.
But some have even more to lose like an EU pension or something, and the way Davey is going at it, for the Remain lot, he must have something extra to lose than the rest of us. And we all have something to lose whether we Leave or Stay.
-
But some have even more to lose like an EU pension or something
If PD and I are right, and we leave, lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs. I would suggest that is almost as calamitous as losing your pension.
-
If PD and I are right, and we leave, lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs. I would suggest that is almost as calamitous as losing your pension.
You know as a fact that they will lose their jobs? This is just guess work on your part!
If we stay in the EU we will lose many jobs because the EU is falling apart. See I can do it too!!! ;D
-
You know as a fact that they will lose their jobs? This is just guess work on your part!
If we stay in the EU we will lose many jobs because the EU is falling apart. See I can do it too!!! ;D
People should be voting with an eye to their jobs, their job security, pay and conditions and health and safety and with a view to who is going to be running the country by the end of the year.
-
You know as a fact that they will lose their jobs? This is just guess work on your part!
It's a risk that needs to be taken into account.
If we stay in the EU we will lose many jobs because the EU is falling apart. See I can do it too!!! ;D
So now you are saying that the EU does create more jobs. Well done.
-
People should be voting with an eye to their jobs, their job security, pay and conditions and health and safety and with a view to who is going to be running the country by the end of the year.
That doesn't say which side of the fence you fall. Both options have their risks, it all depends on the way one pitches it as to how it is all seen.
-
People should be voting with an eye to their jobs, their job security, pay and conditions and health and safety and with a view to who is going to be running the country by the end of the year.
I completely disagree. People ought to be voting with an eye to the British and European economies, to the long-term prospects for the UK both within and without the EU, and also to the welfare of the populations of both blocs. Jobs and everything associated with work are always going to be dependent on the economy, local and global.
-
It's a risk that needs to be taken into account.
That's true on both sides of the fence or argument. But a lot of the Remain's arguments on this are just project fear.
So now you are saying that the EU does create more jobs. Well done.
You need to take your time and read posts carefully. What you say here is non-sense as a response to my post. Something you do quite a lot.
-
If PD and I are right, and we leave, lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs. I would suggest that is almost as calamitous as losing your pension.
I suspect that job losses will occur whichever way the vote goes. The global, and therefore the British economy is currently on a very rocky basis.
-
That's true on both sides of the fence or argument. But a lot of the Remain's arguments on this are just project fear.
You make it sound like this is a symmetrical thing. The choice is actually between what we are doing now and changing direction. The question should be framed as "will we be better off or worse off if we leave"?
You need to take your time and read posts carefully. What you say here is non-sense as a response to my post. Something you do quite a lot.
You need to read your posts more carefully. You said that, if the EU collapses, a lot of people will lose their jobs. This can only mean that the EU has created many jobs.
-
I suspect that job losses will occur whichever way the vote goes.
If we vote to leave, there will be job losses as a direct consequence of the the decision.
If we vote to stay, there may be job losses if there is a global economic down turn but that won't be a consequence of the decision.
Incidentally, Brexit would be a huge economic shock for the EU. If anything can cause a global downturn that will be it.
-
If we vote to leave, there will be job losses as a direct consequence of the the decision.
If we vote to stay, there may be job losses if there is a global economic down turn but that won't be a consequence of the decision.
Incidentally, Brexit would be a huge economic shock for the EU. If anything can cause a global downturn that will be it.
They said the same about us not joining the Euro. There will be a free trade agreement and an end to political union need not impact the economy at all.
-
They said the same about us not joining the Euro. There will be a free trade agreement and an end to political union need not impact the economy at all.
I'm afraid it is vote for your Job time.
I'm afraid I don't know what employment will be like under a Brexit regime sans pro EU conservatives.
I don't know who will receive the benefits of Brexit but since the post referendum govt will be right wing, workers rights denying conservatives I expect we will all have to wait for trickle down as per usual until we can put things a bit straighter in 2020.
Care to answer those quezzies Jack?
-
That's true on both sides of the fence or argument. But a lot of the Remain's arguments on this are just project fear.
Over the last 3 or 4 months, I've read a fair amount of articles and op-eds on the pros and cons of our remaining or leaving. Whilst a few of the 'Remain' articles have had a sense of fear in them, I have yet to read an 'Out' article that isn't all about fear. I therefore have to say that I find the 'Out' campaign's constant harping on about 'Project Fear' to be sort of self-descriptive.
-
If PD and I are right, and we leave, lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs. I would suggest that is almost as calamitous as losing your pension.
PD - is that me?
If so I don't think I did say that I think that leave will be the result. If I gave that impression it wasn't intended. I think that remain will win and I want them to do so. I think the key is that people, particularly the undecideds, tend to swing toward the status quo when push comes to shove. We say think in the indyref and I think we will see it again in June.
I also agree that there would be major economic problems were the UK to vote to leave and those would extend for years which would be the length of time it would take to unravel ourselves from the EU and to get to a point of certainty again. And even then we would be weakened economically as we would no longer be part of the largest economic free trade block on the planet.
-
And even then we would be weakened economically as we would no longer be part of the largest economic free trade block on the planet.
Whilst I'm not in favour of leaving the Union, the pride in which some talk about free trade zones worries me. Free trade can often mean unfair trading practices and policies.
-
I'm afraid it is vote for your Job time.
I'm afraid I don't know what employment will be like under a Brexit regime sans pro EU conservatives.
I don't know who will receive the benefits of Brexit but since the post referendum govt will be right wing, workers rights denying conservatives I expect we will all have to wait for trickle down as per usual until we can put things a bit straighter in 2020.
Care to answer those quezzies Jack?
You have made assertions can't see any questions.
-
You make it sound like this is a symmetrical thing. The choice is actually between what we are doing now and changing direction. The question should be framed as "will we be better off or worse off if we leave"?
No one can predict the future so it all boils down to arguments and speculations. Nothing about symmetry.
You need to read your posts more carefully. You said that, if the EU collapses, a lot of people will lose their jobs. This can only mean that the EU has created many jobs.
No, it means if we stay on the sinking ship the EU Titanic it will drag everything of the UK down with it, even the stuff not strongly related to or affected by the EU and its directives.
So my answer to your first bit is that all the pro and con arguments are superfluous because the EU is a sinking entity and though it won't be great in the lifeboats it is better than swimming with the fishes.
-
1) I'm afraid it is vote for your Job time.
2) I'm afraid I don't know what employment will be like under a Brexit regime sans pro EU conservatives.
3) I don't know who will receive the benefits of Brexit but since the post referendum govt will be right wing, workers rights denying conservatives I expect we will all have to wait for trickle down as per usual until we can put things a bit straighter in 2020.
Care to answer those quezzies Jack?
1) It is a vote for your children's future time and the future of the UK. It would be wrong and stupid to be myopic with this referendum by just focusing on the here and now selfish needs.
2) I'm guessing you probably don't. But there again who knows what the future will bring regardless of the circumstances and conditions that are at hand. Those in good times have been surprised how good has turned into bad times.
3) You really think the Conservatives are going to just go back to business as usual as they were 2015? I reckon there is going to be a massive fight in the party if it is a Brexit. Cameron and Osborne can't survive, they have messed up too much, and offended too many of their fellow Tories, to stay in office. There may even be an early GE.
-
Over the last 3 or 4 months, I've read a fair amount of articles and op-eds on the pros and cons of our remaining or leaving. Whilst a few of the 'Remain' articles have had a sense of fear in them, I have yet to read an 'Out' article that isn't all about fear. I therefore have to say that I find the 'Out' campaign's constant harping on about 'Project Fear' to be sort of self-descriptive.
I don't think you quite understand, Hope. Project fear is about creating straw men (i.e lies) to provide vehicles to instil that fear into the people. What the Leave people are doing are just presenting the facts of the matter. Just because the facts are scary does not mean that the facts are a project fear endeavour - they are the facts of the situation and the referendum!!!
-
They said the same about us not joining the Euro.
Do you realise that, if anything, that point supports staying in the EU i.e. the status quo.
Of course, in reality it's irrelevant to the present question.
There will be a free trade agreement and an end to political union need not impact the economy at all.
You really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Let me try to put it in simple steps.
Yes, there probably will be a free trade agreement, but while it is being negotiated, there will be uncertainty which is never good for the economy.
If we vote for Brexit, the second biggest economy in the EU will no longer be a part of it. That can only be catastrophically destabilising for the EU. If the EU economy goes into meltdown (which is entirely possible) that is bad for the UK.
-
No one can predict the future so it all boils down to arguments and speculations. Nothing about symmetry.
Yes, the choice is
- carry on as we are now and we know more or less what that future is: more of the same
- make a massive change and see how it pans out.
I would suggest that the risk in the first option is vastly lower than the risk in the second.
No, it means if we stay on the sinking ship the EU Titanic it will drag everything of the UK down with it
You only have your small minded prejudice to say that the EU is sinking. It's not.
-
Do you realise that, if anything, that point supports staying in the EU i.e. the status quo.
Of course, in reality it's irrelevant to the present question.
You really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Let me try to put it in simple steps.
Yes, there probably will be a free trade agreement, but while it is being negotiated, there will be uncertainty which is never good for the economy.
If we vote for Brexit, the second biggest economy in the EU will no longer be a part of it. That can only be catastrophically destabilising for the EU. If the EU economy goes into meltdown (which is entirely possible) that is bad for the UK.
No the scare stories on parade when we considered joining the EURO which proved to be nonsense are relevant if they are much the same scare stories.
We have two years to negotiate a free trade agreement which is the agreement in place already. How can the UK remaining part of the an economy (the Free Trade area) be catastrophically destabilising when it ends political union.
Name calling only further undermines your argument.
-
Yes, the choice is
- carry on as we are now and we know more or less what that future is: more of the same
- make a massive change and see how it pans out.
I would suggest that the risk in the first option is vastly lower than the risk in the second.
But your conclusion to staying in the EU is wrong. It isn't the same in the long run. The EU is failing and falling apart and the Eurozone will become a dominate part dragging everybody who is in this club to Ever-Closer-Union. The status quo is not an option here.
You only have your small minded prejudice to say that the EU is sinking. It's not.
It is neither small nor prejudice but based on fact. Your bias is clouding your vision and your ability to see common sense. Plus possibly a monetary incentive which you are dreading losing...
-
No the scare stories on parade when we considered joining the EURO which proved to be nonsense are relevant if they are much the same scare stories.
But this is not a referendum about joining a currency, it is a referendum about leaving the EU.
We have two years to negotiate a free trade agreement which is the agreement in place already.
That's rather presumptuous of you. You have no idea if we will be able to get the same deal as we have now. In fact we couldn't. The deal we have now gives us some say in the rules that apply to the EU trade area.
How can the UK remaining part of the an economy (the Free Trade area) be catastrophically destabilising when it ends political union.
Why do you think politics and economics are independent things? For example, do you honestly think we can leave the EU without causing massive uncertainty in the European stock markets? Do you honestly think that our contribution to the EU budget will not be missed?
Name calling only further undermines your argument.
What name did I call you?
-
The EU is failing and falling apart
So you keep saying but without any argument to back you up.
and the Eurozone will become a dominate part dragging everybody who is in this club to Ever-Closer-Union.
Ha! After Greece, do you really think that is still going to happen?
Your bias is clouding your vision and your ability to see common sense. Plus possibly a monetary incentive which you are dreading losing...
I don't understand why you aren't dreading the loss of the monetary incentive. If the EU economy tanks after Brexit, we will all be worse off.
-
Dear Fellow Europeans,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36039925
My thoughts exactly, move along, nothing to see here, why are we even having this discussion, well I suppose the Cameron's and Farage's of this world have been useful, the EU does need reforming, looked at, scrutinized but as Mr Corbyn advises, better to do that from within.
Gonnagle.
-
...the EU does need reforming, looked at, scrutinized but as Mr Corbyn advises, better to do that from within.
Absolutely.
-
But this is not a referendum about joining a currency, it is a referendum about leaving the EU.
From which flows debate, and one side of the debate used the same arguments to support the deabte around joining the EURO.
That's rather presumptuous of you. You have no idea if we will be able to get the same deal as we have now. In fact we couldn't.
I think we could get a free trade deal and have seen no convincing argument why we couldn't. Asserting that we can't is presumptuous, makes you a hypocrite as well.
The deal we have now gives us some say in the rules that apply to the EU trade area.
We'll still be part of the free trade area and will have some say in what rules apply. We'll also re-take our seat at the WTO.
Why do you think politics and economics are independent things?
I never claimed they were.
For example, do you honestly think we can leave the EU without causing massive uncertainty in the European stock markets?
If the UK has a free trade agreement then no uncertainty will follow.
Do you honestly think that our contribution to the EU budget will not be missed?
It will be replaced by other EU countries with developed economies contributing more, or, EU countries with less developed economies getting less. Meanwhile we can spend that money on better services for British people.
What name did I call you?
Accused me of 'living in cloud cuckoo land'.
-
So you keep saying but without any argument to back you up.
Just holding a mirror up to your vacuous style.
Ha! After Greece, do you really think that is still going to happen?
You know the EU they aren't going to allow reality to get in the way. But you do admit, in saying this, that the EZ is stuffed and rotten and will fall apart - so hay there's hope for you yet, just keep on trying and common sense will win the day!!! ;D
I don't understand why you aren't dreading the loss of the monetary incentive. If the EU economy tanks after Brexit, we will all be worse off.
Because what will be will be. Because there is no way out, no way to avoid it. The EU, the banking system and Neo-Liberal project et al will, without doubt, hit a brick wall. We are all between a rock and a hard place, but it will be better (relative term) to be on the outside of the EU and its madness than deeper into its shit.
-
Dear Fellow Europeans,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36039925
My thoughts exactly, move along, nothing to see here, why are we even having this discussion, well I suppose the Cameron's and Farage's of this world have been useful, the EU does need reforming, looked at, scrutinized but as Mr Corbyn advises, better to do that from within.
How?
If it is so obvious that it needs to be reformed why aren't those at the top table and in power there doing it? Because they like it the way it is because it is making them rich and even more powerful (a bit like the Soviet Union and Moscow) and they don't care about anyone else only their wet dream federal project of Ever-Closer-Union. They have the power and they are not going to listen to some turd like Corbyn et al for one minute. Look at how they treated Greece!!!!!!
-
Was Corbyn's speech yesterday a Brexit speech disguised as a pro-EU speech, or a pro-EU speech disguised as a Brexit speech? ;)
-
Dear Jack,
Well today we see the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain deciding to share information on the very largest tax dodgers,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36052142
A small step but a European small step, but you are right, the way Greece was treated needs to be examined, examined from within, we need to look at our own failings.
Dear Hope,
A lot of fuss has been made about Mr Corbyn's speech, U turns, toeing the party line, I think the man has just examined his conscience and decided what is best for the country, problem with Mr Corbyn, he is not a great orator, he talks sense but does not get the blood stirring.
Gonnagle.
-
Was Corbyn's speech yesterday a Brexit speech disguised as a pro-EU speech, or a pro-EU speech disguised as a Brexit speech? ;)
It would appeal to socialists I suppose.
-
Was Corbyn's speech yesterday a Brexit speech disguised as a pro-EU speech, or a pro-EU speech disguised as a Brexit speech? ;)
It was him trying to keep his party at peace just in the same way he has criticised Cameron for doing the same by offering this referendum...
-
Dear Jack,
Well today we see the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain deciding to share information on the very largest tax dodgers,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36052142
A small step but a European small step, but you are right, the way Greece was treated needs to be examined, examined from within, we need to look at our own failings.
Two points, one how do you examine from within if the forces that operate there are way to strong for the likes of Corbyn to deal with? And two, if it was as easy as you imply how come it hasn't been done already and why was the abuse of Greece not stopped by this method long ago by the type of people you want to examine things and put things right?
The answer is, of course, that the EU elites will do what they want and all those naïve twats like Corbyn who talk about changing the EU will be kicked into touch and left to rot.
Dear Hope,
A lot of fuss has been made about Mr Corbyn's speech, U turns, toeing the party line, I think the man has just examined his conscience and decided what is best for the country, problem with Mr Corbyn, he is not a great orator, he talks sense but does not get the blood stirring.
Gonnagle.
No, he sees he is vulnerable in his own party on this point and caved in i.e. what is best for his leadership.
-
It would appeal to socialists I suppose.
If they are stupid I guess it would.
-
Dear Jack,
You keep mentioning Corbyn, it will not just be Corbyn, it will be our government who hopefully will be our voice.
A little insight into me and I don't think I am alone, the comment on Question Time was made last night, do we even know who our MEP's are, the Tory who was on the panel and all for Brexit made that very point.
The majority of people in this country don't know who their MEP's are or care, but now this EU referendum debackle is in our face, I now see what you have been chuntering on about and agree with most of what you are saying, you are right but I don't see that turning our back and walking away will cure the problem, stay in and fight these faceless wonders, change it from within for the better.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jack,
You keep mentioning Corbyn, it will not just be Corbyn, it will be our government who hopefully will be our voice.
A little insight into me and I don't think I am alone, the comment on Question Time was made last night, do we even know who our MEP's are, the Tory who was on the panel and all for Brexit made that very point.
The majority of people in this country don't know who their MEP's are or care, but now this EU referendum debackle is in our face, I now see what you have been chuntering on about and agree with most of what you are saying, you are right but I don't see that turning our back and walking away will cure the problem, stay in and fight these faceless wonders, change it from within for the better.
Gonnagle.
Corbyn, Cameron, whoever, it makes no odds Brussels is too strong because it is run by the bankers and big corporations and they have the money that talks. Most of the Brussels lot are bought off so the ones like Corbyn who probably won't be will have no voice because they will be out voted - the rules are stacked in favour for this Ever-Closer-Union stuff; centralised power where the bankers etc. can rule with absolute power. This only leaves for the people to rebel i.e. civil war!!! There is no easy way out of this every turn leads to conflict.
-
If they are stupid I guess it would.
Well they are socialists. :)
-
... you are right but I don't see that turning our back and walking away will cure the problem, stay in and fight these faceless wonders, change it from within for the better.
Is that what you said about in the Scottish referendum?
-
Dear Jakswan,
Yes that was it exactly, we are all in it together, London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester etc etc etc.
Gonnagle.
-
Yes that was it exactly, we are all in it together, London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester etc etc etc.
I thought you voted for independence?
-
... problem with Mr Corbyn, he is not a great orator, he talks sense but does not get the blood stirring.
and unfortunately, he didn't get his stats correct ;)
-
Dear Jakswan,
I thought you voted for independence?
aye that was me, I voted for a independent Glasgow, nae Eastcoasters, nae teuchters, nae southern twats, just us, Gods glorious chosen few, Glaswegians, but we lost, I am now ruled from Edinbugger, home of the deep pocket and short arm brigade.
But come the glorious revolution, all Scots who are not Glaswegian will be put up against the wall and forced to buy their round, failure to do so will result in them buying a season ticket to Parkhead.
Just to add, the Greatest football occasion in the history of football will happen this Sunday, the Gers are back, 1966, a mere blip in the history of the Gentleman's game.
Gonnagle.
-
aye that was me, I voted for a independent Glasgow,
Wouldn't surprise me if you actually thought that was what the referendum was about. :)
the Gers are back
Yes from the 101st most competitive football league in the world to the 100th. :)
-
With all this control and money coming back to the UK the out campaign should be a ble to say whose pockets...er...sorry, How many immigrants there will be and how much will go to the public services and How much to farmers etc.
-
With all this control and money coming back to the UK the out campaign should be a ble to say whose pockets...er...sorry, How many immigrants there will be and how much will go to the public services and How much to farmers etc.
There wouldn't be much of a GREXIT bonus - of our £18bn contribution, we all ready get a rebate of £5bn. more than £4bn comes back to the UK, so on the face of it there could be around £8-9bn saving - BUT if we were outside the EU, we would certainly have to make a payment to access the single market in the same way that Switzerland and Norway do, so that figure would certainly come down significantly.
As for the immigrants - we would still need the majority of them.
-
There wouldn't be much of a GREXIT bonus - of our £18bn contribution, we all ready get a rebate of £5bn. more than £4bn comes back to the UK, so on the face of it there could be around £8-9bn saving - BUT if we were outside the EU, we would certainly have to make a payment to access the single market in the same way that Switzerland and Norway do, so that figure would certainly come down significantly.
As for the immigrants - we would still need the majority of them.
We wouldn't want to be part of the single market because that is as good as being in the EU i.e. part of its political project.
We wouldn't need the majority of the EU immigrants as they have no skills we need. There are better trained peoples outside the EU.
-
We wouldn't want to be part of the single market because that is as good as being in the EU i.e. part of its political project.
You must be referring to Gove's Fantasy Land where we are magically given all the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs. That's not going to happen!
Either we will not get free access to the market or we will have to pay a significant financial cost
We wouldn't need the majority of the EU immigrants as they have no skills we need. There are better trained peoples outside the EU.
There are certainly plenty of people outside the EU who would be very keen to work in the UK, but I'm not sure that most people in this country would regards a flood of immigrants from none EU countries to be an improvement on our current arrangements.
-
It is interesting that the Brexit campaigners have studiously avoided stating how much an exit would cost the UK. For instance, following a 'Leave' vote, it will take 6 months to a year (if not longer) to get all the exiting bonds with Europe properly severed - and would we still be paying our £18bn-£5bn a year over that period? Would we still be receiving the £4bn that we get back? What about the European money that is already coming in and which is ear-marked to 2020?
On top of that, there will be business uncertainty; there will be several years-worth of negotiation regarding trade agreements with both the new-look Europe and other nations which we currently have EU-trade agreements with. How much will all that cost the UK's industrial sector? How would UK steel production fare in that climate?
etc., etc.
-
It is interesting that the Brexit campaigners have studiously avoided stating how much an exit would cost the UK. For instance, following a 'Leave' vote, it will take 6 months to a year (if not longer) to get all the exiting bonds with Europe properly severed - and would we still be paying our £18bn-£5bn a year over that period? Would we still be receiving the £4bn that we get back? What about the European money that is already coming in and which is ear-marked to 2020?
On top of that, there will be business uncertainty; there will be several years-worth of negotiation regarding trade agreements with both the new-look Europe and other nations which we currently have EU-trade agreements with. How much will all that cost the UK's industrial sector? How would UK steel production fare in that climate?
etc., etc.
It will take years to untangle, in part, as you suggest because there are already major funding commitments that will not be complete until perhaps 2025 - the plug couldn't simply be pulled, so either UK government would have to step in and cover the costs or there will need to be a 'cool off' period where we will still need to pay in (perhaps with a taper arrangement) while funding continues to come back from the EU.
And that's just one aspect.
Another example - we have been told to expect a University's Bill in parliament in the summer ... unless there is Brexit in which case for a considerable period of time government will be paralysed due to the need to put in place vast amounts of new legislation to replace that currently from the EU. So all those regulations, on safety, workers rights, financial measures etc etc that we are currently signed up to at EU level will need to be rewritten and reenacted for by the UK parliament. In most cases the actually regulations won't be different (indeed they couldn't be if we are to get a free trade deal) so we will block up the legislative programme of government for years in order to achieve exactly the position we currently have - madness. And in doing so government will take its eye off the ball of all other policy programmes. Some people might see that as a good thing (as current plans end up in the long grass) but actually the result will be effectively planning blight on a massive governmental level.
-
It is interesting that the Brexit campaigners have studiously avoided stating how much an exit would cost the UK. For instance, following a 'Leave' vote, it will take 6 months to a year (if not longer) to get all the exiting bonds with Europe properly severed - and would we still be paying our £18bn-£5bn a year over that period? Would we still be receiving the £4bn that we get back? What about the European money that is already coming in and which is ear-marked to 2020?
. . .
etc., etc.
I noticed that while Gove dismissed the Treasury predictions as scaremongering, he didn't actually give us an in-depth analysis of his own economic modelling.
-
I noticed that while Gove dismissed the Treasury predictions as scaremongering, he didn't actually give us an in-depth analysis of his own economic modelling.
This is their only argument when presented with expert opinion and evidence - scaremongering and 'project fear'. Pathetic - why not role out the IMF, OBR, treasury, OECD or any other reputable economic organisation etc etc to present the boost from Brexit - oh, I forgot there aren't any that suggest anything other than a very sizeable hit on GDP and the economy. Sure there is argument over how bad the hit will be, but no argument that there will be a major hit.
-
I also notice that the 'Leave' campaign (including people on this board) deem all the comments by the 'Remain' campaign to be 'scaremongering' or 'fear tactics'. They must be massively blinkered not to have noticed that that is, to all intents and purposes, what Farage and others have been involved in for the last 2 or 3 years.
PD, I seem to have said much the same as you - I was composing mine at about the same time as you posted.
-
This is their only argument when presented with expert opinion and evidence - scaremongering and 'project fear'. Pathetic - why not role out the IMF, OBR, treasury, OECD or any other reputable economic organisation etc etc to present the boost from Brexit - oh, I forgot there aren't any that suggest anything other than a very sizeable hit on GDP and the economy. Sure there is argument over how bad the hit will be, but no argument that there will be a major hit.
It seems to me that the 'Plan' of the BREXITors is simply to quit the EU then hope that the rest of the world will offer us attractive trade deals - which seems a little optimistic. I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to sell us stuff, for example the Chinese have 'quite a lot' of steel they would like to get rid of at bargain prices, but would that be a 'good' thing?
I've got a feeling that obtaining the kinds of trade agreements that are in our long term interests would not be so easy.
-
It is interesting that the Brexit campaigners have studiously avoided stating how much an exit would cost the UK.
On of the reasons to leave is how much we would save.
On top of that, there will be business uncertainty; there will be several years-worth of negotiation regarding trade agreements with both the new-look Europe and other nations which we currently have EU-trade agreements with. How much will all that cost the UK's industrial sector?
Nothing changes for two years and once a trade agreement is reached 'lets keep it the same' nothing changes.
How would UK steel production fare in that climate?
Actually the problem with cheap steel in the UK a lot of it comes from EU so unless you don't want a free trade deal, not a lot. Oh UK would be free to intervene if it so wished freed from EU laws.
-
It will take years to untangle, in part, as you suggest because there are already major funding commitments that will not be complete until perhaps 2025 - the plug couldn't simply be pulled, so either UK government would have to step in and cover the costs or there will need to be a 'cool off' period where we will still need to pay in (perhaps with a taper arrangement) while funding continues to come back from the EU.
And that's just one aspect.
Why is that a major problem?
Another example - we have been told to expect a University's Bill in parliament in the summer ... unless there is Brexit in which case for a considerable period of time government will be paralysed due to the need to put in place vast amounts of new legislation to replace that currently from the EU.
As I understand it EU directives and made into UK law. UK law remains as is.
So all those regulations, on safety, workers rights,
I don't think so.
-
I noticed that while Gove dismissed the Treasury predictions as scaremongering, he didn't actually give us an in-depth analysis of his own economic modelling.
I'll do it for him, by 2030 each household will be £43,000 better off, there I just made something up just like Osborne. :)
-
This is their only argument when presented with expert opinion and evidence - scaremongering and 'project fear'. Pathetic - why not role out the IMF, OBR, treasury, OECD or any other reputable economic organisation etc etc to present the boost from Brexit - oh, I forgot there aren't any that suggest anything other than a very sizeable hit on GDP and the economy. Sure there is argument over how bad the hit will be, but no argument that there will be a major hit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/18/economists-blast-one-sided-treasury-warning-on-brexit/
-
It seems to me that the 'Plan' of the BREXITors is simply to quit the EU then hope that the rest of the world will offer us attractive trade deals - which seems a little optimistic. I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to sell us stuff, for example the Chinese have 'quite a lot' of steel they would like to get rid of at bargain prices, but would that be a 'good' thing?
I've got a feeling that obtaining the kinds of trade agreements that are in our long term interests would not be so easy.
The plan of the Bremainers is simply to follow the EU like a lapdog.
-
Take note
If the French and Germans want us to stay in.What better reason could you have to vote OUT.
~TW~
-
Take note
If the French and Germans want us to stay in.What better reason could you have to vote OUT.
~TW~
using that argument, I would say: Because UKIP want us out we should stay in.
-
using that argument, I would say: Because UKIP want us out we should stay in.
So you want to be ruled by and from Brussels.
~TW~
-
So you want to be ruled by and from Brussels.
~TW~
I would say that accepting some trade regulations from Brussels is infinitely preferable to being at the mercy of Beijing and Washington. Britain would be a small player facing the 'Big Boys' alone.
-
I'll do it for him, by 2030 each household will be £43,000 better off, there I just made something up just like Osborne. :)
It may be an imperfect process, but the Treasury do spend quite a lot of time and money developing computer models of our economy. If the BREXITors disagree with the predictions, it would be useful if they explained exactly why they are dismissing results that politicians in normal circumstances would take very seriously.
-
It may be an imperfect process, but the Treasury do spend quite a lot of time and money developing computer models of our economy. If the BREXITors disagree with the predictions, it would be useful if they explained exactly why they are dismissing results that politicians in normal circumstances would take very seriously.
I dismiss the results because its hard to predict GDP for one year in the future its impossible to do it for 14 years.
I also dismiss the results because when Osborne says (based on his guesses) 'each household will £4,300 poorer' he is lying.
The worse case model predicts we will be richer, so we'll be richer, independent and free.
Funny all the doom mongers 'we won't be able to feed ourselves' yet the report you rely shows we will be 31% better off in GDP terms!
-
It may be an imperfect process, but the Treasury do spend quite a lot of time and money developing computer models of our economy. If the BREXITors disagree with the predictions, it would be useful if they explained exactly why they are dismissing results that politicians in normal circumstances would take very seriously.
Let me give you some advice go to your front door look around and ask yourself are you happy with the state and condition of this country,If yes stick around and I will try to open your eyes.
~TW~
-
Dear TW,
Just did, some nice tree's beginning to bud, bit of traffic, pub across the road is open, a few punters going in for a pint and a sandwich, what else, oh! the local butchers is open and he has lots of customers, all seems fine to me ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear TW,
Just did, some nice tree's beginning to bud, bit of traffic, pub across the road is open, a few punters going in for a pint and a sandwich, what else, oh! the local butchers is open and he has lots of customers, all seems fine to me ;)
Gonnagle.
Yes Gonna that is typical of you beer pubs and food you have been dead to world around you for years,this is what you miss.So get out more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yySHkGmKY
~TW~
-
Not seen the slightest good argument to remain now I discover I'm on the same side as TW. Time to buy an EU flag and start humming the EU national anthem! :)
-
Not seen the slightest good argument to remain now I discover I'm on the same side as TW. Time to buy an EU flag and start humming the EU national anthem! :)
Well at least you have the brains to be right about something I AM IMPRESSED really IMPRESSED keep up the good work Jack for these lost souls need you. :)
~TW~
-
I dismiss the results because its hard to predict GDP for one year in the future its impossible to do it for 14 years.
I also dismiss the results because when Osborne says (based on his guesses) 'each household will £4,300 poorer' he is lying.
I accept that economic models can never be perfect, but you can't just dismiss them out of hand - where is the BREXIT economic model? What are they offering apart from Gove's fantasy Free Trade Zone. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36086987
The worse case model predicts we will be richer, so we'll be richer, independent and free.
We can never be "independent and free" in the way that the BREXIT camp pretend, apart from the Super Powers, no country can. We will always have to comply to international agreements that we have entered into, and some of them won't be popular.
-
I accept that economic models can never be perfect, but you can't just dismiss them out of hand - where is the BREXIT economic model? What are they offering apart from Gove's fantasy Free Trade Zone. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36086987
We can never be "independent and free" in the way that the BREXIT camp pretend, apart from the Super Powers, no country can. We will always have to comply to international agreements that we have entered into, and some of them won't be popular.
LA I was around before the EU and I am telling you, we,you,me,and all,will have a better life outside.
~TW~
-
LA I was around before the EU and I am telling you, we,you,me,and all,will have a better life outside.
~TW~
Yup we all had a fantastic life through the first half of the 20thC before the EU existed didn't we. A period of unprecedented peace and prosperity. :o
-
Yup we all had a fantastic life through the first half of the 20thC before the EU existed didn't we. A period of unprecedented peace and prosperity. :o
Ah the good old days when you could go out and buy a luxury yacht and still have change from half a crown.
-
Ah the good old days when you could go out and buy a luxury yacht and still have change from half a crown.
In between the two world wars that resulted in millions of dead in europe, and of course just about the biggest recession we've known sandwiched between them.
Good times indeed.
-
Ah the good old days when you could go out and buy a luxury yacht and still have change from half a crown.
Yes was you around ? I was.Not only that the yacht was made in England
~TW~.
-
The sun must be over the yardarm ::)
-
Yes was you around ?
Good God man, you can't even write in the King's English!
-
The sun must be over the yardarm ::)
Yes but no cuckoos in the crows nest have a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM
~TW~
-
LA I was around before the EU and I am telling you, we,you,me,and all,will have a better life outside.
~TW~
I'm sure we are all getting-on a bit TW and some of us may have a tendency to look back to a 'Golden Age' when Britannia Ruled the Waves - but for better of worse - I'm afraid all that has gone forever.
-
We are better off in the EU than out of it, it was a good day when we joined.
-
I'm sure we are all getting-on a bit TW and some of us may have a tendency to look back to a 'Golden Age' when Britannia Ruled the Waves - but for better of worse - I'm afraid all that has gone forever.
Yes true but it has been given an almighty shove since,------ in the EU.Look what it has done to floo complete la la.
~TW~
-
I used to get more sweets for an old penny too.
Then they went all metric :(
Mind you I wouldn't want to go back to old money it was too complicated. ( although I didn't think so at the time and hated the new money)
There were twenty (20) shillings per pound.
The shilling was subdivided into twelve (12) pennies.
The penny was further sub-divided into two halfpennies or four farthings (quarter pennies).
2 farthings = 1 halfpenny
2 halfpence = 1 penny (1d)
3 pence = 1 thruppence (3d)
6 pence = 1 sixpence (a 'tanner') (6d)
12 pence = 1 shilling (a bob) (1s)
2 shillings = 1 florin ( a 'two bob bit') (2s)
2 shillings and 6 pence = 1 half crown (2s 6d)
5 shillings = 1 Crown (5s)
Can you imagine going back to that? :o
Some good old days are best left to memories.
I still have a soft spot for the old thruppenny bit though :-*
-
I accept that economic models can never be perfect, but you can't just dismiss them out of hand - where is the BREXIT economic model? What are they offering apart from Gove's fantasy Free Trade Zone. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36086987
You offer Osborne's fantasy I'll refute you with another fantasy.
We can never be "independent and free" in the way that the BREXIT camp pretend, apart from the Super Powers, no country can. We will always have to comply to international agreements that we have entered into, and some of them won't be popular.
All countries have to comply with international agreements.
-
Jackswan I must go away again but I do hope you are not the only one on here with the sense to see how evil this EU is,and I hope these clowns,and they are clowns might see that they are being duped big time.
I will try to look in, best of blessing Jack, fly the flag.
~TW~
-
You offer Osborne's fantasy I'll refute you with another fantasy.
Osborne makes no outrageous claims, he offers basically the status quo plus the renegotiated reforms. it's Gove's who claims that we will be a part of "a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to" - which seems like a really attractive idea - except that such a free trade zone does not exist and no one has any immediate plans for forming one.
All countries have to comply with international agreements.
In theory yes, in practice:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/982f8146e10942b2b7f6a07e2077576d/trump-nafta-trade-deal-disaster-says-hed-break-it
-
Osborne makes no outrageous claims, he offers basically the status quo plus the renegotiated reforms.
Its outrageous to make any claim about what a countries GDP would be in 14 years time, you would more accurate rolling a dice. Again, even if you rely on this, the country is still 31% richer than it is now. The report also assumes immigration remains at high levels.
So lets look at this £4,300 per household nonsense, this is GDP divided by number of households, which today is £60,000 ish, yet average income today is c. £40,000, so its already at least 50% inflated. The number of predicted households is flawed (immigration figures wrong) and your £4,300 is quite likely to turn into nothing.
Also don't forget the £4,300 is not less then what you have now, the report which you rely on predicts if we leave we'll be richer in 14 years time.
it's Gove's who claims that we will be a part of "a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to" - which seems like a really attractive idea - except that such a free trade zone does not exist and no one has any immediate plans for forming one.
There is a an area from Iceland to Turkey in which there are no tariffs, the phrase 'free trade zone' seems accurate description of that area.
In theory yes, in practice:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/982f8146e10942b2b7f6a07e2077576d/trump-nafta-trade-deal-disaster-says-hed-break-it
Breaking a free trade deal is an option for all countries.
-
Its outrageous to make any claim about what a countries GDP would be in 14 years time, you would more accurate rolling a dice. Again, even if you rely on this, the country is still 31% richer than it is now. The report also assumes immigration remains at high levels.
So lets look at this £4,300 per household nonsense, this is GDP divided by number of households, which today is £60,000 ish, yet average income today is c. £40,000, so its already at least 50% inflated. The number of predicted households is flawed (immigration figures wrong) and your £4,300 is quite likely to turn into nothing.
Also don't forget the £4,300 is not less then what you have now, the report which you rely on predicts if we leave we'll be richer in 14 years time.
Things would have to be fairly disastrous if our economy didn't grow at all in 14 years, but the model predicts that we would do better if we were inside the EU.
There is a an area from Iceland to Turkey in which there are no tariffs, the phrase 'free trade zone' seems accurate description of that area.
Gove talks of this Free Trade area encompassing all this area, even to the borders of Russia with " full access to the European market but we would be free from EU regulation."
It would be a good trick if he could pull it off but the plan is a bit short on detail.
Breaking a free trade deal is an option for all countries.
Yes, but the big ones can get away with it.
-
You must be referring to Gove's Fantasy Land where we are magically given all the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs. That's not going to happen!
Either we will not get free access to the market or we will have to pay a significant financial cost
Why? If they penalise us they get penalised as we won't buy so much of their goods and some German and French firms won't like that.
There are certainly plenty of people outside the EU who would be very keen to work in the UK, but I'm not sure that most people in this country would regards a flood of immigrants from none EU countries to be an improvement on our current arrangements.
What makes you think it would be a flood? That's just stupid, we would be in control, something we don't have now.
-
Things would have to be fairly disastrous if our economy didn't grow at all in 14 years, but the model predicts that we would do better if we were inside the EU.
The worst case scenario is that the UK economy would grow by 31% over 14 years if it left the UK.
Gove talks of this Free Trade area encompassing all this area, even to the borders of Russia with " full access to the European market but we would be free from EU regulation."
It would be a good trick if he could pull it off but the plan is a bit short on detail.
Turkey is not bound by the laws of the EU, no tricks required.
Yes, but the big ones can get away with it.
So you want us to remain in the Eu in order that we can be big enough to break trade agreements?
-
The worst case scenario is that the UK economy would grow by 31% over 14 years if it left the UK.
Citation required
Turkey is not bound by the laws of the EU, no tricks required.
So why do they want to join the union?
-
Anm interesting breakdown of the apparent £252 a year for every person in the country that we contibute to the EU.
Yes, this is the case, but when rebates (equivalent to £76/person), repayments (87)and all Institute for Fiscal Studies adjustments (£29), each of us pays £60 a year to the EU. This indicates that the population of the UK is about 74.6 million (The current population of the United Kingdom is 65,032,197 as of Tuesday, April 19, 2016, based on the latest United Nations estimates. www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/)
OK, you can argue that is a sizeable sum of money, even if the maths is somewhat rusty, but is there not a case for providing the less-well off with some of our wealth?
-
Citation required
The report produced by Osborne says we'll be 31% better off in 2030 but argues 39% better off if we stay.
So why do they want to join the union?
No idea.
-
It may be an imperfect process, but the Treasury do spend quite a lot of time and money developing computer models of our economy. If the BREXITors disagree with the predictions, it would be useful if they explained exactly why they are dismissing results that politicians in normal circumstances would take very seriously.
They couldn't predict our situation 3 months in advance, what chance have they of doing it for 14 years!!!
-
They couldn't predict our situation 3 months in advance, what chance have they of doing it for 14 years!!!
Morning jack,
If you are trying to start up a business venture of some kind, you will need to present a 'Business Plan' to your backers. Everyone knows that it will be imperfect, but it at least demonstrates that you have thought things out and have considered the risks.
From what they tell us the BREXIT brigade's 'Business Plan' appears to be to fantasise about a Europe wide free trade zone and hope that the rest of the world offer us really generous trade deals.
Your right, the Treasury forecasts won't be spot-on, but they are a million time better than Goves day-dreams.
-
They couldn't predict our situation 3 months in advance, what chance have they of doing it for 14 years!!!
Jack, have the Leave campaign produced any properly costed predictions for the first few years of the UK being outside of the EU? If so, perhaps you can direct us to them.
On a different issue, I can sort of understand the concerns about Obama wading into the debate - after all, there is the TTIP process though which the US want to have a far greater influence on and in European policies and practices. The very fact that this agreement between the US and the EU remains largely secret as far as its details are concerned worries me, since if something is being negotiated 'on my behalf' I'd like to know what its all about before it is finally agreed.
http://ind.pn/1vKDnyU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership
(I'd probably trust the former slightly over the latter)
-
Your right, the Treasury forecasts won't be spot-on, but they are a million time better than Goves day-dreams.
6.2% is not a 'million times'. #projectfear in full flow this morning.
-
Anm interesting breakdown of the apparent £252 a year for every person in the country that we contibute to the EU.
Yes, this is the case, but when rebates (equivalent to £76/person), repayments (87)and all Institute for Fiscal Studies adjustments (£29), each of us pays £60 a year to the EU. This indicates that the population of the UK is about 74.6 million (The current population of the United Kingdom is 65,032,197 as of Tuesday, April 19, 2016, based on the latest United Nations estimates. www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/)
OK, you can argue that is a sizeable sum of money, even if the maths is somewhat rusty, but is there not a case for providing the less-well off with some of our wealth?
Yes of course there is. We do it almost without thinking about it in the UK. Money flows from the rich parts of the country to the poor parts of the country pretty much automatically. If London made a successful bid for independence, everywhere else would be stuffed.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU because it is rich. That the rich should help the poor is a guiding principle of a healthy society.
-
6.2% is not a 'million times'. #projectfear in full flow this morning.
Can you offer a clearer explanation of what the BREXITors plans would be if they won the vote?
-
Can you offer a clearer explanation of what the BREXITors plans would be if they won the vote?
The problem is that they don't agree either. They can't say what post Brexit looks like because:
1. Gove disagrees fundamentally with Farage - Johnson's only concern is that Brexit equals Johnson PM etc etc.
2. Many of the key decisions that will shape what post Brexit looks like aren't under the control of the Brexiter or the UK, but (irony of ironies) the EU - because it is the remaining EU members, not the UK who will have the deciding say on what the relationship between an exited UK and the rest of the EU look like.
3. They aren't actually interested in detail, partly because they know that as soon as anyone credible looks at the economic forecast it isn't pretty reading, and partly because the hard-line Brexiters, who are running the campaign, see exist as the be all and end all - simply being out of the EU is enough for them, whatever the consequences on jobs, economy etc.
In most, but not all respects, this is the same as the Pro-Indy campaigners in the Indy-ref but even worse. At least largely they agreed on point 1 (albeit much of what they wanted wasn't in their control - see point 2). Also, although it was most likely that independence would be negative economically expert opinion was more balanced - so that with a following wind (i.e. oil prices remaining massively high) Scotland could have been better off - the issue was risk and lack of economic diversity and as we've seen the best case scenario has crumbled to dust on oil. By contrast there is no credible economic opinion that indicates that leaving the EU, in itself, would be anything other that economically damaging.
In fact the only report that suggests any kind of boost (when isn't specified) is (I think) from Open Europe, who aren't really a credible economic organisation, more a campaign group and they only suggest a tiny boost (0.7%), but critically this isn't actually due to leaving the EU, but due to their dogmatic desire for free market right wing deregulation policies that would make Thatcher look hard left wing - sort of Redwood plus. But that isn't going to happen even if we left the EU, because in order for it to happen we'd also need to elect (and continue to retain in power) a hard economic right wrong government more extreme than we've ever seen - it won't happen.
And actually leaving the EU isn't even a prerequisite for this theoretical (but never going to happen) possibility. If the EU member states also voted hard right economic governments this could happen EU wide. Indeed that is the only actual way their pipe dream could happen, because if the UK left, even if it had the requisite uber-right wing government, its ability to trade with the EU would be limited by the views of the remaining EU countries who will undoubtedly require adherence to certain fundamental levels of economic regulation as a prerequisite for free trade.
-
The problem is that they don't agree either. They can't say what post Brexit looks like because:
1. Gove disagrees fundamentally with Farage - Johnson's only concern is that Brexit equals Johnson PM etc etc.
2. Many of the key decisions that will shape what post Brexit looks like aren't under the control of the Brexiter or the UK, but (irony of ironies) the EU - because it is the remaining EU members, not the UK who will have the deciding say on what the relationship between an exited UK and the rest of the EU look like.
3. They aren't actually interested in detail, partly because they know that as soon as anyone credible looks at the economic forecast it isn't pretty reading, and partly because the hard-line Brexiters, who are running the campaign, see exist as the be all and end all - simply being out of the EU is enough for them, whatever the consequences on jobs, economy etc.
In most, but not all respects, this is the same as the Pro-Indy campaigners in the Indy-ref but even worse. At least largely they agreed on point 1 (albeit much of what they wanted wasn't in their control - see point 2). Also, although it was most likely that independence would be negative economically expert opinion was more balanced - so that with a following wind (i.e. oil prices remaining massively high) Scotland could have been better off - the issue was risk and lack of economic diversity and as we've seen the best case scenario has crumbled to dust on oil. By contrast there is no credible economic opinion that indicates that leaving the EU, in itself, would be anything other that economically damaging.
In fact the only report that suggests any kind of boost (when isn't specified) is (I think) from Open Europe, who aren't really a credible economic organisation, more a campaign group and they only suggest a tiny boost (0.7%), but critically this isn't actually due to leaving the EU, but due to their dogmatic desire for free market right wing deregulation policies that would make Thatcher look hard left wing - sort of Redwood plus. But that isn't going to happen even if we left the EU, because in order for it to happen we'd also need to elect (and continue to retain in power) a hard economic right wrong government more extreme than we've ever seen - it won't happen.
And actually leaving the EU isn't even a prerequisite for this theoretical (but never going to happen) possibility. If the EU member states also voted hard right economic governments this could happen EU wide. Indeed that is the only actual way their pipe dream could happen, because if the UK left, even if it had the requisite uber-right wing government, its ability to trade with the EU would be limited by the views of the remaining EU countries who will undoubtedly require adherence to certain fundamental levels of economic regulation as a prerequisite for free trade.
This crystal ball reading did you get it from newnature.
~TW~
-
This crystal ball reading did you get it from newnature.
~TW~
Ecomonic experts from internationally credible organisations making predictive models of economic performance in the future based an credible assumptions and tried and tested methodologies isn't crystal ball gazing, it is sessile planning. And when all the organisations and their models tell the same story it is extremely unlikely they are all wrong.
All the Brexiters do is go 'you're wrong' to the IMF, 'you're wrong' to the OECD, 'you're wrong' to the G7, 'you're wrong' to the Treasury, 'you're wrong' to the OBR, 'you're wrong' to the Bank of England, 'you're wrong' to the world bank etc etc, without having a shred of credibility in making predictions themselves and frankly not providing any evidence whatsoever to sustain a claim that we will be OK economically.
Their approach is effectively, 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening, they're all wrong - guess what it will be great, cos I say so'.
Laughable and increasingly the public are seeing through it. If you want the public to vote for the biggest change we will have seen in decades you have to provide a clear vision of what that future will be like (none is forthcoming) and credible evidence on the effect of that change on our jobs, wages, livelihood, public services etc etc - which is completely absent.
-
The problem is that they don't agree either. They can't say what post Brexit looks like because:
We can agree that we'd be £250 million a week better off, EU will not have a hand in directing our laws, more independent, more control over immigration, etc.
1. Gove disagrees fundamentally with Farage - Johnson's only concern is that Brexit equals Johnson PM etc etc.
Applies to both sides, as you would expect, Corbyn disagrees with Cameron, e.g. vision of a socialist EU.
2. Many of the key decisions that will shape what post Brexit looks like aren't under the control of the Brexiter or the UK, but (irony of ironies) the EU - because it is the remaining EU members, not the UK who will have the deciding say on what the relationship between an exited UK and the rest of the EU look like.
Nonsense a relationship is a two way thing. You might be scared of the big EU not everyone feels the UK will be bullied into utter subservience.
3. They aren't actually interested in detail, partly because they know that as soon as anyone credible looks at the economic forecast it isn't pretty reading, and partly because the hard-line Brexiters, who are running the campaign, see exist as the be all and end all - simply being out of the EU is enough for them, whatever the consequences on jobs, economy etc.
31% growth by 2030 is pretty reading.
In most, but not all respects, this is the same as the Pro-Indy campaigners in the Indy-ref but even worse. At least largely they agreed on point 1 (albeit much of what they wanted wasn't in their control - see point 2). Also, although it was most likely that independence would be negative economically expert opinion was more balanced - so that with a following wind (i.e. oil prices remaining massively high) Scotland could have been better off - the issue was risk and lack of economic diversity and as we've seen the best case scenario has crumbled to dust on oil. By contrast there is no credible economic opinion that indicates that leaving the EU, in itself, would be anything other that economically damaging.
31% growth by 2030.
[/quote]
In fact the only report that suggests any kind of boost (when isn't specified) is (I think) from Open Europe, who aren't really a credible economic organisation, more a campaign group and they only suggest a tiny boost (0.7%), but critically this isn't actually due to leaving the EU, but due to their dogmatic desire for free market right wing deregulation policies that would make Thatcher look hard left wing - sort of Redwood plus. But that isn't going to happen even if we left the EU, because in order for it to happen we'd also need to elect (and continue to retain in power) a hard economic right wrong government more extreme than we've ever seen - it won't happen.[/quote]
31% growth by 2030.
And actually leaving the EU isn't even a prerequisite for this theoretical (but never going to happen) possibility. If the EU member states also voted hard right economic governments this could happen EU wide. Indeed that is the only actual way their pipe dream could happen, because if the UK left, even if it had the requisite uber-right wing government, its ability to trade with the EU would be limited by the views of the remaining EU countries who will undoubtedly require adherence to certain fundamental levels of economic regulation as a prerequisite for free trade.
What economic regulation?
-
Can you offer a clearer explanation of what the BREXITors plans would be if they won the vote?
I'll use your tactics, it will be a million times better. :)
-
Ecomonic experts from internationally credible organisations making predictive models of economic performance in the future based an credible assumptions and tried and tested methodologies isn't crystal ball gazing, it is sessile planning. And when all the organisations and their models tell the same story it is extremely unlikely they are all wrong.
All the Brexiters do is go 'you're wrong' to the IMF, 'you're wrong' to the OECD, 'you're wrong' to the G7, 'you're wrong' to the Treasury, 'you're wrong' to the OBR, 'you're wrong' to the Bank of England, 'you're wrong' to the world bank etc etc, without having a shred of credibility in making predictions themselves and frankly not providing any evidence whatsoever to sustain a claim that we will be OK economically.
Their approach is effectively, 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening, they're all wrong - guess what it will be great, cos I say so'.
Another series of strawmen, its ridiculous to claim what would happen in 2030 but since you value that sort of analysis you are bound by it, so you have to accept that UK will be 31% better off than it is now by 2030.
Laughable and increasingly the public are seeing through it. If you want the public to vote for the biggest change we will have seen in decades you have to provide a clear vision of what that future will be like (none is forthcoming) and credible evidence on the effect of that change on our jobs, wages, livelihood, public services etc etc - which is completely absent.
Its very close, far closer than your hysterical rants suggest.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
-
Ecomonic experts from internationally credible organisations making predictive models of economic performance in the future based an credible assumptions and tried and tested methodologies isn't crystal ball gazing, it is sessile planning. And when all the organisations and their models tell the same story it is extremely unlikely they are all wrong.
All the Brexiters do is go 'you're wrong' to the IMF, 'you're wrong' to the OECD, 'you're wrong' to the G7, 'you're wrong' to the Treasury, 'you're wrong' to the OBR, 'you're wrong' to the Bank of England, 'you're wrong' to the world bank etc etc, without having a shred of credibility in making predictions themselves and frankly not providing any evidence whatsoever to sustain a claim that we will be OK economically.
Their approach is effectively, 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening, they're all wrong - guess what it will be great, cos I say so'.
Laughable and increasingly the public are seeing through it. If you want the public to vote for the biggest change we will have seen in decades you have to provide a clear vision of what that future will be like (none is forthcoming) and credible evidence on the effect of that change on our jobs, wages, livelihood, public services etc etc - which is completely absent.
So you still read The Dandy :-[
~TW~
-
We can agree that we'd be £250 million a week better off
No we can't - whether or not we are better off is a product of the effect of net contribution to the EU (which when all grants etc received is less than £250M) adjusted for the difference in economic performance that leaving the EU would make compared with remaining.
Even using your inflated £250M per week (or £13billion per year) and given that our GDP is about £2,000 billion, that £13 billion 'saving' would be completely wiped out with just a 0.6% drop in GDP for the leave situation compared to the remain. That is below even the most optimistic expectations (and I'm not talking 2030 estimates, but short range). The mid level is about 3% drop in GDP, which would mean that we would be about £47billion a year worse off, or £900million a week if you prefer.
The costs associated with being a member of the EU are an investment, you cannot simply state the cost and not the return.
So are you prepared to be £900million a week worse off? Sounds like a lot, but thats what the analysis suggests.
-
EU will not have a hand in directing our laws
Yes they will if we want free trade.
more independent
Hmm, what like Norway - has to abide with pretty well all EU regulation, yet has no say - doesn't sound like independence to me - sounds like a mugs game.
more control over immigration, etc.
I'm perfectly happy with our current position thanks very much. I don't want yet more home grown red tap thrown at employers (and yup most is very much home grown). So an example, a real one. Earlier this week I interviewed a couple of candidates for a research position. From about 30 applicants we interviewed the two standout candidates. One is Irish, currently living in London, the other German, did her PhD in London, currently working in Paris. We chose the latter, but the good news of course is that we could appoint either red-tape free. Unless you want a continuation of free movement of labour, in which case there would be no change in the immigration state, then presumably I would have to wrestle with red tape, jump through hoops, have to get involved in additional and unnecessary bureaucracy to have to employ either of these non-UK, but EU nationals. Frankly I don't want to do that - I think it is great that I can employ the best person for the job.
-
Nonsense a relationship is a two way thing. You might be scared of the big EU not everyone feels the UK will be bullied into utter subservience.
You are using exactly the same kind of fantasy argument that the indy-Ref nats used on membership of the EU. Like you they claimed that they would automatically be allowed entry, just cos they wanted it. That is fantasy as is your view.
Without an agreement the default will be (after 2 years) that UK-EU trade will be subject to standard tariffs. Indeed to do otherwise would likely be challenged in international law as the UK would be being given special treatment which would fall could of competitiveness rules.
And there can only be an agreement if both sides agree. One side cannot unilaterally impose an agreement on the other. So what this means is that the UK can veto an agreement, as can the EU but the UK cannot force an agreement on the UK. So there will only be an agreement if (and when) not only the UK wants it but all remaining 27 members of the EU agree. And the key point is that the consequences of not getting an agreement on the remaining EU countries is massively less significant than it is for the UK.
So you are, of course, correct that if the UK feels it is being bullied into a deal it doesn't like it can refuse to sign and continue to be hit with the standard trading tariffs. Doesn't sound quite as rosy when you work in the world of reality rather than fantasy as you clearly do.
-
Applies to both sides, as you would expect, Corbyn disagrees with Cameron, e.g. vision of a socialist EU.
No it doesn't - if remain wins we will have the same situation as now - ie. the status quo. If Corbyn wants something different then he can make that case at a general election and the electorate can then decide whether they prefer Corbyn's or Cameron's (or his successor's) view - but the future is clear with 'remain'.
That isn't the case with 'leave' - there will be no status quo - we don't know what the future looks like, so it is essential that the 'leave' brigade are clear about what voting 'leave' means - is it a Norway style deal, is it isolationist little Englander, is it (even) a stick to drive a better renegotiate to then actually remain. Remember key 'leave' campaigners have suggested all of these.
One of the things the Brexiters often trot out is 'well we voted in 1975 to be in a common market, we didn't vote for this' - OK fair enough, but following the 1975 vote they got exactly what they voted for, there has been an evolution of the EU over the subsequent 41 years. But no-one has a clue what the future looks like if we vote for 'leave' - we are being asked to vote completely blind. That is 100 times worse than the situation with the 1975 vote which Brexiters complain about - that's rank hypocrisy.
Why are you so scared - let's have the official line on what a post-exit UK would be like in terms of its relationships with the remaining EU etc etc. But you won't do, because you can't.
-
Yes they will if we want free trade.
Hmm, what like Norway - has to abide with pretty well all EU regulation, yet has no say - doesn't sound like independence to me - sounds like a mugs game.
if you export to any country your p[roducts have to comply with the regulations of that country. The law that applies in Norway is decided by Norway not EU bureaucrats.
I'm perfectly happy with our current position thanks very much. I don't want yet more home grown red tap thrown at employers (and yup most is very much home grown). So an example, a real one. Earlier this week I interviewed a couple of candidates for a research position. From about 30 applicants we interviewed the two standout candidates. One is Irish, currently living in London, the other German, did her PhD in London, currently working in Paris. We chose the latter, but the good news of course is that we could appoint either red-tape free. Unless you want a continuation of free movement of labour, in which case there would be no change in the immigration state, then presumably I would have to wrestle with red tape, jump through hoops, have to get involved in additional and unnecessary bureaucracy to have to employ either of these non-UK, but EU nationals. Frankly I don't want to do that - I think it is great that I can employ the best person for the job.
Rather discriminating to anyone from India, US, Australia, etc that could have applied.
-
You are using exactly the same kind of fantasy argument that the indy-Ref nats used on membership of the EU. Like you they claimed that they would automatically be allowed entry, just cos they wanted it. That is fantasy as is your view.
No I'm claiming a relationship is a two way thing no dictated by one side.
Without an agreement the default will be (after 2 years) that UK-EU trade will be subject to standard tariffs. Indeed to do otherwise would likely be challenged in international law as the UK would be being given special treatment which would fall could of competitiveness rules.
Unless we sign a free trade agreement which is likely given how big a customer we are of the EU.
And there can only be an agreement if both sides agree. One side cannot unilaterally impose an agreement on the other. So what this means is that the UK can veto an agreement, as can the EU but the UK cannot force an agreement on the UK. So there will only be an agreement if (and when) not only the UK wants it but all remaining 27 members of the EU agree. And the key point is that the consequences of not getting an agreement on the remaining EU countries is massively less significant than it is for the UK.
Given we import more than we export you could argue this the other way, a free trade agreement is mutually beneficial to EU and the new free independent UK.
So you are, of course, correct that if the UK feels it is being bullied into a deal it doesn't like it can refuse to sign and continue to be hit with the standard trading tariffs. Doesn't sound quite as rosy when you work in the world of reality rather than fantasy as you clearly do.
Sigh grow up.
-
Why are you so scared - let's have the official line on what a post-exit UK would be like in terms of its relationships with the remaining EU etc etc. But you won't do, because you can't.
We will negotiate a free trade deal, we won't have political union, its really not that complex.
-
We will negotiate a free trade deal, we won't have political union, its really not that complex.
Nope nothing like good enough, because as we are absolutely clear abiding by EU regulations is linked to free trade and contribution to the EU - on a spectrum - so the freer the trade the more the regulations that will need to be adhered to and the greater the contribution required.
So where on the spectrum will we be - will we be Norway - free trade but one of the largest net contributors to the EU and also has to abide with effectively all the EU rules.
Or if we want not to accept EU regulations, and payments what level of tariff are we prepared to accept.
We really need to know - because none of us have a clue (and nor do the Brexit leadership) and if you don't know what 'leave' looks like, how on earth can you vote leave.
-
Nope nothing like good enough, because as we are absolutely clear abiding by EU regulations is linked to free trade and contribution to the EU - on a spectrum - so the freer the trade the more the regulations that will need to be adhered to and the greater the contribution required.
So where on the spectrum will we be - will we be Norway - free trade but one of the largest net contributors to the EU and also has to abide with effectively all the EU rules.
Or if we want not to accept EU regulations, and payments what level of tariff are we prepared to accept.
We really need to know - because none of us have a clue (and nor do the Brexit leadership) and if you don't know what 'leave' looks like, how on earth can you vote leave.
Could you forget other countries for the time being.This is a two way street,them and us can you understand that.
~TW~
-
Given we import more than we export you could argue this the other way, a free trade agreement is mutually beneficial to EU and the new free independent UK.
Classic muddled thinking - it doesn't matter that we import more than we export, the issue is what proportion of our trade is with the other 27 and what proportion of the other 27 is with us. So trade with the EU is proportionately far, far more significant to us, than trade from (for example) Germany is with us.
Try it this way - image I am a small company with a turnover of £1M and 50% of that turnover depends on bilateral trade with Tesco, and they buy more from me than I buy from them. So £500k of their trade is with me, which represents 0.0008% of their turnover. Who is the deal more important to - not rocket science. Now I now this is a more extreme example than UK/rest of EU trade but the principle remains trade from the other 27 with the UK represents a vastly small proportion of their trade or GDP than trade from UK to the other 27 represents for the UK.
So we are screwed if we don't get a deal, for many of the other EU countries it would have very little effect. And for some there is very little trade at all - Bulgaria, for example. And there may be other issues far more important to the Bulgarian government and people than a tiny loss of trade, for example free movement of labour.
But of course Bulgaria has an absolute veto on any deal, so if Bulgaria decides not to play ball unless the UK allows free movement, then the deal is dead and up come the tariffs once the 2 year moratorium is over and there is absolutely nothing the UK can do about it. Indeed this is why there remains no deal in place with Canada, despite Boris (never one to actually understand detail) claiming that was the kind of deal we wanted, i.e. one that isn't in place 8 years after the start of formal process and 12 years after the agreement to sort out a deal. And of course one that even if enacted it doesn't cover services, which just might be a teeny, tiny problem for the UK.
There is also, of course, the politics. There will almost certainly be countries that will want to give the UK a very hard ride if it leaves, on the basis of deterring others from leaving. Now you might think that's pathetic, and silly, but your view is irrelevant - if Portugal for example thinks holding the EU project together is more important than a bit of trade with the UK, then we are in trouble. And of course this is what the UK government did in advance of IndyRef
-
Could you forget other countries for the time being.This is a two way street,them and us can you understand that.
~TW~
No it isn't - it is a 28 way street - us and 27 others and every one of the 27 can veto a deal with the UK.
-
No it isn't - it is a 28 way street - us and 27 others and every one of the 27 can veto a deal with the UK.
wrong the 27 others are 1 Brussels rules.They need us.The majority are facing bankruptcy.
~TW~
-
wrong the 27 others are 1 Brussels rules.They need us.The majority are facing bankruptcy.
~TW~
Wrong as ever.
If there is a potential deal on the table between the UK and the EU, once the UK has left that deal must be ratified by all 27 member states - the power rests with each member state not with the EU in Brussels. So if just one rejects it, then there is no deal.
And on your other point, wrong again. The EU isn't bankrupt - I think you will find that it is the UK with the most problematic trade deficit and also has just about the worst deficit as a proportion of GDP in the EU (only Greece and Spain are worse) and the UK's levels at 4.4% are twice that of the EU as a whole at 2.2% (and of course that would be better still without the UK).
-
So you want to be ruled by and from Brussels.
~TW~
Look Pal, Brexit can't tell us anything about what will actually happen when we leave either they don't know or they are afraid to tell us, immigration, Brexit has shifted that from cutting immigration to controlling immigration, why not cutting eh?
Finally Gove and Johnson wish to silence dissenting or advisory voices and are therefore treating us like children.
My advice as usual is vote for your job...not Gove's
-
Look Pal, Brexit can't tell us anything about what will actually happen when we leave either they don't know or they are afraid to tell us, immigration, Brexit has shifted that from cutting immigration to controlling immigration, why not cutting eh?
Finally Gove and Johnson wish to silence dissenting or advisory voices and are therefore treating us like children.
My advice as usual is vote for your job...not Gove's
Although the remain campaign hasn't set the world afire the Brexit campaign so far has been an utter, utter shambles. There seems to be a complete confusion of messages, no leadership and the most appalling evasion I've seen in a campaign for a very, very long time.
Shouting 'your wrong' at every expert, every highly respected senior political figure, every bit of evidence while trumpeting the playground slogan of 'project fear' isn't a campaign.
What they don't seem to have understood is in a referendum where the choice is the status quo or change you have to make the case for change, you have to be clear about why it is better. If you don't people will vote for status quo, because people don't opt for change without a reason.
I think there is a problem that so many of the rabid Brexiters are so entrenched, so dogmatically driven in their views that they simply can't understand that there are millions of people who don't agree with them. They are sort of like the pub bore, going on and on and on about something, blurting out the old 'well its common sense' kind of cliches. And sure for a quiet life we'll nod and go 'of course, yes, absolutely' all the while thinking they are bonkers and trying to find the earliest excuse to politely leave their company. That's the problem with the Brexiters - they think that everyone thinks that the EU is awful, the worst thing ever - but guess what there are plenty of us who think that the EU is a thoroughly good thing on all sorts of levels.
They might rant and froth and be angry all you like, but when we are in the privacy of the polling booth that will cut no ice. And I'm pretty confident that this referendum will be like most others, with a late swing to the status quo particularly from the undecideds - unless Brexit come up with some compelling positive argument to leave (they've come nowhere close yet) why would an undecided vote for the huge uncertainty of massive change - they won't.
-
We are better off in the EU than out of it, it was a good day when we joined.
We joined the EEC not the EU. That abortion came latter.
-
The ridiculous pish about Obama's ancestral heritage and the bust of Churchill, combining dog whistle racism and lying from Johnson and Garage today makes them look inept as well as offensive.
-
Morning jack,
If you are trying to start up a business venture of some kind, you will need to present a 'Business Plan' to your backers. Everyone knows that it will be imperfect, but it at least demonstrates that you have thought things out and have considered the risks.
From what they tell us the BREXIT brigade's 'Business Plan' appears to be to fantasise about a Europe wide free trade zone and hope that the rest of the world offer us really generous trade deals.
Your right, the Treasury forecasts won't be spot-on, but they are a million time better than Goves day-dreams.
I was going on about Osborne's track record, which is pretty poor.
Why wouldn't the EU do a nice deal with us? WE hold many of the trump cards.
And once free of the EU's clutches we will be able to form trade deals with the rest of the world. True in the short term it will be difficult but once things get going and we have things in place the rest of the EU members will be dying to leave too. ;D
-
The ridiculous pish about Obama's ancestral heritage and the bust of Churchill, combining dog whistle racism and lying from Johnson and Garage today makes them look inept as well as offensive.
Obama dared to state the bleeding obvious - that the EU is of more economic importance to the USA than Little England.
(God! who are these cretins who couldn't see that)
-
Jack, have the Leave campaign produced any properly costed predictions for the first few years of the UK being outside of the EU? If so, perhaps you can direct us to them.
Why so myopic? Why not appreciate the long term advantages?
On a different issue, I can sort of understand the concerns about Obama wading into the debate - after all, there is the TTIP process though which the US want to have a far greater influence on and in European policies and practices. The very fact that this agreement between the US and the EU remains largely secret as far as its details are concerned worries me, since if something is being negotiated 'on my behalf' I'd like to know what its all about before it is finally agreed.
http://ind.pn/1vKDnyU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership
(I'd probably trust the former slightly over the latter)
TTIP sums up the EU et al and the corporate elites. We need to get rid of all of them. Obama is a sap, to put it nicely.
-
TTIP sums up the EU et al and the corporate elites. We need to get rid of all of them. Obama is a sap, to put it nicely.
If you believe that, you really would be sending us into an economic backwater. Who do you propose we trade with - North Korea?
-
The problem is that they don't agree either. They can't say what post Brexit looks like because:
1. Gove disagrees fundamentally with Farage - Johnson's only concern is that Brexit equals Johnson PM etc etc.
2. Many of the key decisions that will shape what post Brexit looks like aren't under the control of the Brexiter or the UK, but (irony of ironies) the EU - because it is the remaining EU members, not the UK who will have the deciding say on what the relationship between an exited UK and the rest of the EU look like.
3. They aren't actually interested in detail, partly because they know that as soon as anyone credible looks at the economic forecast it isn't pretty reading, and partly because the hard-line Brexiters, who are running the campaign, see exist as the be all and end all - simply being out of the EU is enough for them, whatever the consequences on jobs, economy etc.
In most, but not all respects, this is the same as the Pro-Indy campaigners in the Indy-ref but even worse. At least largely they agreed on point 1 (albeit much of what they wanted wasn't in their control - see point 2). Also, although it was most likely that independence would be negative economically expert opinion was more balanced - so that with a following wind (i.e. oil prices remaining massively high) Scotland could have been better off - the issue was risk and lack of economic diversity and as we've seen the best case scenario has crumbled to dust on oil. By contrast there is no credible economic opinion that indicates that leaving the EU, in itself, would be anything other that economically damaging.
In fact the only report that suggests any kind of boost (when isn't specified) is (I think) from Open Europe, who aren't really a credible economic organisation, more a campaign group and they only suggest a tiny boost (0.7%), but critically this isn't actually due to leaving the EU, but due to their dogmatic desire for free market right wing deregulation policies that would make Thatcher look hard left wing - sort of Redwood plus. But that isn't going to happen even if we left the EU, because in order for it to happen we'd also need to elect (and continue to retain in power) a hard economic right wrong government more extreme than we've ever seen - it won't happen.
And actually leaving the EU isn't even a prerequisite for this theoretical (but never going to happen) possibility. If the EU member states also voted hard right economic governments this could happen EU wide. Indeed that is the only actual way their pipe dream could happen, because if the UK left, even if it had the requisite uber-right wing government, its ability to trade with the EU would be limited by the views of the remaining EU countries who will undoubtedly require adherence to certain fundamental levels of economic regulation as a prerequisite for free trade.
2 is wrong.
3. In 14 years time things will be much better. See I can do an Osborne. The EU would have crashed and burned and all the EU members would be wishing they had done as we had done.
Add to this the TTIP agreement and the EU would be sucked dry by US or global companies, stuffing your last comment.
-
Ecomonic experts from internationally credible organisations making predictive models of economic performance in the future based an credible assumptions and tried and tested methodologies isn't crystal ball gazing, it is sessile planning. And when all the organisations and their models tell the same story it is extremely unlikely they are all wrong.
All the Brexiters do is go 'you're wrong' to the IMF, 'you're wrong' to the OECD, 'you're wrong' to the G7, 'you're wrong' to the Treasury, 'you're wrong' to the OBR, 'you're wrong' to the Bank of England, 'you're wrong' to the world bank etc etc, without having a shred of credibility in making predictions themselves and frankly not providing any evidence whatsoever to sustain a claim that we will be OK economically.
Their approach is effectively, 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening, they're all wrong - guess what it will be great, cos I say so'.
Laughable and increasingly the public are seeing through it. If you want the public to vote for the biggest change we will have seen in decades you have to provide a clear vision of what that future will be like (none is forthcoming) and credible evidence on the effect of that change on our jobs, wages, livelihood, public services etc etc - which is completely absent.
But these so called credible organisations' past records are not good. In fact all economic bodies have never got anything substantially right. The IMF have been shit at it. They predicted that Osborne austerity plan would trash the UK but it didn't.
-
You are using exactly the same kind of fantasy argument that the indy-Ref nats used on membership of the EU. Like you they claimed that they would automatically be allowed entry, just cos they wanted it. That is fantasy as is your view.
Without an agreement the default will be (after 2 years) that UK-EU trade will be subject to standard tariffs. Indeed to do otherwise would likely be challenged in international law as the UK would be being given special treatment which would fall could of competitiveness rules.
And there can only be an agreement if both sides agree. One side cannot unilaterally impose an agreement on the other. So what this means is that the UK can veto an agreement, as can the EU but the UK cannot force an agreement on the UK. So there will only be an agreement if (and when) not only the UK wants it but all remaining 27 members of the EU agree. And the key point is that the consequences of not getting an agreement on the remaining EU countries is massively less significant than it is for the UK.
So you are, of course, correct that if the UK feels it is being bullied into a deal it doesn't like it can refuse to sign and continue to be hit with the standard trading tariffs. Doesn't sound quite as rosy when you work in the world of reality rather than fantasy as you clearly do.
You're talking as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. If we can't get our stuff from the EU we can go elsewhere. And I'm sure BMW will be a bit niffed if we stop buying their cars and the French with their goods. The EU will be poorer first because they won't have our membership fee anymore and secondly we won't be buying some much of their goods. Then with the Eurozone mess looming in the horizon once more and the migrant problem starting to go out of control even though they have tried to mitigate it. They will be begging us to sign up to a sweet deal for us!!!
-
No it doesn't - if remain wins we will have the same situation as now - ie. the status quo. If Corbyn wants something different then he can make that case at a general election and the electorate can then decide whether they prefer Corbyn's or Cameron's (or his successor's) view - but the future is clear with 'remain'.
That isn't the case with 'leave' - there will be no status quo - we don't know what the future looks like, so it is essential that the 'leave' brigade are clear about what voting 'leave' means - is it a Norway style deal, is it isolationist little Englander, is it (even) a stick to drive a better renegotiate to then actually remain. Remember key 'leave' campaigners have suggested all of these.
One of the things the Brexiters often trot out is 'well we voted in 1975 to be in a common market, we didn't vote for this' - OK fair enough, but following the 1975 vote they got exactly what they voted for, there has been an evolution of the EU over the subsequent 41 years. But no-one has a clue what the future looks like if we vote for 'leave' - we are being asked to vote completely blind. That is 100 times worse than the situation with the 1975 vote which Brexiters complain about - that's rank hypocrisy.
Why are you so scared - let's have the official line on what a post-exit UK would be like in terms of its relationships with the remaining EU etc etc. But you won't do, because you can't.
In the long run the status quo is not on offer, it's Ever-Closer-Union!!!
So you want to stick with the abusive and corrupt EU?
-
Nope nothing like good enough, because as we are absolutely clear abiding by EU regulations is linked to free trade and contribution to the EU - on a spectrum - so the freer the trade the more the regulations that will need to be adhered to and the greater the contribution required.
So where on the spectrum will we be - will we be Norway - free trade but one of the largest net contributors to the EU and also has to abide with effectively all the EU rules.
Or if we want not to accept EU regulations, and payments what level of tariff are we prepared to accept.
We really need to know - because none of us have a clue (and nor do the Brexit leadership) and if you don't know what 'leave' looks like, how on earth can you vote leave.
What are you wittering on about - contributions?
-
In the long run the status quo is not on offer, it's Ever-Closer-Union!!!
It is the continuation of the road we are on - we understand what that means - it is the status quo.
So you want to stick with the abusive and corrupt EU?
You are welcome to your opinion, but in mine the EU is no more corrupt than the UK government and is certainly not abusive - what on earth do you mean by that. As far as I am concerned the EU is a thoroughly good thing and we benefit massively from our membership in many, many ways.
-
Nope nothing like good enough, because as we are absolutely clear abiding by EU regulations is linked to free trade and contribution to the EU - on a spectrum - so the freer the trade the more the regulations that will need to be adhered to and the greater the contribution required.
If we sell to the US we need to abide by US regulations, if the EU sell to us they need to abide by Uk regulations.
So where on the spectrum will we be - will we be Norway - free trade but one of the largest net contributors to the EU and also has to abide with effectively all the EU rules.
Maybe South Korea or maybe the 5th largest economy will be able to negotiate its own unique trade deal.
Or if we want not to accept EU regulations, and payments what level of tariff are we prepared to accept.
If you are exporting to the US, Australia, India, Germany the products need to conform to their regulations and vice versa.
We really need to know - because none of us have a clue (and nor do the Brexit leadership) and if you don't know what 'leave' looks like, how on earth can you vote leave.
There are close to a few hundred countries that are not in the EU it can't be that hard to get a clue.
-
Classic muddled thinking - it doesn't matter that we import more than we export, the issue is what proportion of our trade is with the other 27 and what proportion of the other 27 is with us. So trade with the EU is proportionately far, far more significant to us, than trade from (for example) Germany is with us.
The epitome of muddled thinking is example of your post.
Try it this way - image I am a small company with a turnover of £1M and 50% of that turnover depends on bilateral trade with Tesco, and they buy more from me than I buy from them. So £500k of their trade is with me, which represents 0.0008% of their turnover. Who is the deal more important to - not rocket science. Now I now this is a more extreme example than UK/rest of EU trade but the principle remains trade from the other 27 with the UK represents a vastly small proportion of their trade or GDP than trade from UK to the other 27 represents for the UK.
Imagine it this way you are the MD of BMW and Merkel says 'yo, we think we are going to impose trade barriers to exporting to the UK' when its one your biggest markets, what do you think BMW will say?
So we are screwed if we don't get a deal, for many of the other EU countries it would have very little effect. And for some there is very little trade at all - Bulgaria, for example. And there may be other issues far more important to the Bulgarian government and people than a tiny loss of trade, for example free movement of labour.
If screwed is 31% richer, free and independent by 2030 bring it on!
But of course Bulgaria has an absolute veto on any deal, so if Bulgaria decides not to play ball unless the UK allows free movement, then the deal is dead and up come the tariffs once the 2 year moratorium is over and there is absolutely nothing the UK can do about it. Indeed this is why there remains no deal in place with Canada, despite Boris (never one to actually understand detail) claiming that was the kind of deal we wanted, i.e. one that isn't in place 8 years after the start of formal process and 12 years after the agreement to sort out a deal. And of course one that even if enacted it doesn't cover services, which just might be a teeny, tiny problem for the UK.
There you are relegating the UK to be as relevant as Bulgaria.
There is also, of course, the politics. There will almost certainly be countries that will want to give the UK a very hard ride if it leaves, on the basis of deterring others from leaving. Now you might think that's pathetic, and silly, but your view is irrelevant - if Portugal for example thinks holding the EU project together is more important than a bit of trade with the UK, then we are in trouble. And of course this is what the UK government did in advance of IndyRef
You and my view may be irrelevant, the arguments may not be and as the polls show your arguments are not as convincing as you like to think.
-
If screwed is 31% richer, free and independent by 2030 bring it on!
You keep wittering on about 31% - where does this come from.
What credible organisation has suggested that by 2030 we'd be 31% richer (what does that mean, GDP, personal household income?) if we left the EU than if we remain.
-
Look Pal, Brexit can't tell us anything about what will actually happen when we leave either they don't know or they are afraid to tell us, immigration, Brexit has shifted that from cutting immigration to controlling immigration, why not cutting eh?
Finally Gove and Johnson wish to silence dissenting or advisory voices and are therefore treating us like children.
My advice as usual is vote for your job...not Gove's
You overlook we are ruled by them right now.
~TW~
-
Imagine it this way you are the MD of BMW and Merkel says 'yo, we think we are going to impose trade barriers to exporting to the UK' when its one your biggest markets, what do you think BMW will say?
Imagine it this way you are the MD of BMW and Johnson or Farage says 'yo, we think the UK is going to leave the EU' when its one your biggest markets, what do you think BMW will say?
There is an obvious way to ensure that we can still trade freely throughout the EU and that is to stay in the EU. Leaving is massively risky and even if we get a deal will never get a deal better than we have at present, but could very well get one considerably worse.
-
You keep wittering on about 31% - where does this come from.
What credible organisation has suggested that by 2030 we'd be 31% richer (what does that mean) if we left the EU than if we remain.
The one from the treasury that you keep wittering on about, as i recall it claims if we leave gdp will grow by 31%, if we stay 36%.
-
The one from the treasury that you keep wittering on about, as i recall it claims if we leave gdp will grow by 31%, if we stay 36%.
So you have just accepted that we will be considerably worse off if we leave than if we remain. Foot, gun, aim, shoot.
-
Imagine it this way you are the MD of BMW and Johnson or Farage says 'yo, we think the UK is going to leave the EU' when its one your biggest markets, what do you think BMW will say?
There is an obvious way to ensure that we can still trade freely throughout the EU and that is to stay in the EU. Leaving is massively risky and even if we get a deal will never get a deal better than we have at present, but could very well get one considerably worse.
There are risks to staying, lots of them, Greece has already cost billions hearing strong rumours they will need yet another bail out soon as they're EU run economy is in free fall, Italy could go the same way but cost a lot more, Turkey joining, migrant crisis, TTIP, etc. All in the hands of unaccountable bureaucracy.
-
So you have just accepted that we will be considerably worse off if we leave than if we remain. Foot, gun, aim, shoot.
No I think it's a nonsense to predict gdp that far ahead, you seem to think its credible, you therefore have to concede we will be better even if we leave. Your foot is bleeding. :)
-
There are risks to staying, lots of them, Greece has already cost billions hearing strong rumours they will need yet another bail out soon as they're EU run economy is in free fall, Italy could go the same way but cost a lot more, Turkey joining, migrant crisis, TTIP, etc. All in the hands of unaccountable bureaucracy.
Project fear.
Pathetic.
And of course all of these things will affect us whether or not we are in the EU. I don't think we are part of the USA, but when their financial system imploded in 2007 so did ours. I don't think we are part of China but the slow down in their economy has substantially affected the UK - just ask people in Port Talbot. And if there is another financial crisis we will almost certainly be affected worse if we aren't part of the largest economic block on the planet.
-
No I think it's a nonsense to predict gdp that far ahead, you seem to think its credible, you therefore have to concede we will be better even if we leave. Your foot is bleeding. :)
That's right - just dismiss expert opinion if you don't like it.
So you accept that there is no evidence that the UK would be better off or even the same if we leave, while there is huge amounts of evidence that we will be very much worse off, and will be hit particularly hard in the next 10 years or so due to the complexities and uncertainly associated with leaving.
You OK with that. Happy to make other people poorer just to pander to you petty nationalist isolationism. Maybe you should agree to make up the shortfall in their incomes from your own pocket - that would at least be an honourable position to take if you are committing people to being poorer because of your political dogma.
-
There you are relegating the UK to be as relevant as Bulgaria.
I nave said that although your comment is rather arrogant and patronising towards Bulgaria.
What I am saying is that if Bulgaria (or any other of the 27 member states left if we leave) decided they don't like a potential trade deal between the UK and the remaining EU they can veto it. And the big risk for the UK, or rather for those that see restricting EU migration as key, is that for some countries in the EU maintenance of free movement of labour is much more important to them than the rather tiny amount of trade they do with the UK.
I used Bulgaria because they are likely to be in that category. So if Bulgaria thinks that removing free movement of people lies beyond their 'red line' they can effectively say 'you either maintain free movement of labour, or there will be no trade deal'. And if they do that the UK cannot do anything about it. They can either accept that there won't be a ratified trade deal in place or they can agree to free movement of labour from Bulgaria (and presumably from all of the rest of the EU). To suggest we are in charge of those decisions and can some how demand free trade deals that suit us (but might not suit the other 27) but can also demand restrictions on migration that suit us (but might not suit the other 27) is ludicrous and also naive and arrogant.
Any agreement must be agreed by all 28 countries - and every one has an equal veto, in other words if they don't like it and refuse to ratify then there will be no deal.
-
Project fear.
Pathetic.
We were talking about risks, we have to discuss what they are. Project fear would be if all of our arguments were about risks, like, this was all we had as an argument, hold up a mirror.
And of course all of these things will affect us whether or not we are in the EU. I don't think we are part of the USA, but when their financial system imploded in 2007 so did ours. I don't think we are part of China but the slow down in their economy has substantially affected the UK - just ask people in Port Talbot. And if there is another financial crisis we will almost certainly be affected worse if we aren't part of the largest economic block on the planet.
Well done the global economy effects the UK regardless of remain or leave, what are you coming up with next 'Pope is Catholic' or 'bear shits in woods'. If we are discussing this as a risk, then its to what extent it effects the UK economy not if it effects the UK economy.
Greece and other Euro economies needing further bail outs is a risk, not so much because it costs the EU but because if the EURO fails the EU fails.
If we're in as it fails its going to have a massive effect on the UK, it will have less effect if we are out.
I actually don't subscribe to your 'big is best' ideology, Iceland was in a worse state than Greece but are free to run their own economy, unlike Greece (who have to do what the EU tells them to do), and things have gone well.
To be consistent with the whole big is best thing; do you want the UK to join the Eurozone?
-
Turkey joining
I'll pick this example just to show what nonsense you are spouting.
No new member state can join the EU without agreement from all existing member states. So if you don't want Turkey to join that decision is entirely within the power of the UK government. If they say no (even if the other 27 say yes) then it doesn't happen.
And actually if you are concerned about Turkey joining, presumably because you think we will be 'overrun' with Turkish migrants leaving is much more of a threat. While we remain we can veto Turkey joining. If we leave we have no say, the other 27 can allow Turkey in even if we would have opposed. But as it is very likely that a trade deal will be inextricably linked to the free movement of labour from all EU countries even though we wouldn't have wanted them to join, by leaving the EU will will no longer have a say, yet we will be bound by rules allowing free movement from Turkey if it joins.
So to use Norway as an example. If they were in the EU they could prevent Turkey joint and de facto prevent free migration from Turkey. As they aren't a member they cannot prevent Turkey from joining but are bound to allow free migration from Turkey if they join.
-
I nave said that although your comment is rather arrogant and patronising towards Bulgaria.
What I am saying is that if Bulgaria (or any other of the 27 member states left if we leave) decided they don't like a potential trade deal between the UK and the remaining EU they can veto it. And the big risk for the UK, or rather for those that see restricting EU migration as key, is that for some countries in the EU maintenance of free movement of labour is much more important to them than the rather tiny amount of trade they do with the UK.
Well your comments are rather arrogant and patronising towards the UK. You forget the influence and power Germany and France have in the EU.
I used Bulgaria because they are likely to be in that category. So if Bulgaria thinks that removing free movement of people lies beyond their 'red line' they can effectively say 'you either maintain free movement of labour, or there will be no trade deal'. And if they do that the UK cannot do anything about it. They can either accept that there won't be a ratified trade deal in place or they can agree to free movement of labour from Bulgaria (and presumably from all of the rest of the EU). To suggest we are in charge of those decisions and can some how demand free trade deals that suit us (but might not suit the other 27) but can also demand restrictions on migration that suit us (but might not suit the other 27) is ludicrous and also naive and arrogant.
What is ludicrous and also naive and arrogant is not to negotiate and fly the white flag.
Any agreement must be agreed by all 28 countries - and every one has an equal veto, in other words if they don't like it and refuse to ratify then there will be no deal.
Which is why the EU can never ever be reformed. So if you were Bulgaria you would apply your veto, don't get free movement of labour to the UK and piss off France and Germany, blimey hopefully they don't call you to run their country.
As I understand it 2.2% of all exports from Bulgaria go to the UK and 1.5% of imports come from UK, ohhhh no, your other foot is bleeding now!
-
We were talking about risks, we have to discuss what they are. Project fear would be if all of our arguments were about risks, like, this was all we had as an argument, hold up a mirror.
Given that the Brexiters have been shouting 'project fear' any time anyone mentions a risk of leaving the EU it would appear that your approach is as follows.
If a remain campaigner mentions a risk of leaving (usually backed up by huge amounts of expert opinion) that is 'project fear'.
If Brexiters mention a risk (usually vague hand waving without a shred of evidence) that is simply sensibly mentioning risks.
There is a word for that, it beings with a 'h' and includes 'y' twice 's', 'p', 'c', 'r', 'i' and 'o' although not necessarily in that order.
-
As I understand it 2.2% of all exports from Bulgaria go to the UK and 1.5% of imports come from UK, ohhhh no, your other foot is bleeding now!
Which is a tiny percentage - what proportion of UK exports and imports are with other EU countries Jaks - isn't that around 40-50%.
At 2.2% I would be pretty certain that free movement of labour from Bulgaria to Britain will be a much more important issue than a tiny amount of trade.
-
Given that the Brexiters have been shouting 'project fear' any time anyone mentions a risk of leaving the EU it would appear that your approach is as follows.
If a remain campaigner mentions a risk of leaving (usually backed up by huge amounts of expert opinion) that is 'project fear'.
If Brexiters mention a risk (usually vague hand waving without a shred of evidence) that is simply sensibly mentioning risks.
There is a word for that, it beings with a 'h' and includes 'y' twice 's', 'p', 'c', 'r', 'i' and 'o' although not necessarily in that order.
Oh I spy cry?
-
Which is a tiny percentage - what proportion of UK exports and imports are with other EU countries Jaks - isn't that around 40-50%.
At 2.2% I would be pretty certain that free movement of labour from Bulgaria to Britain will be a much more important issue than a tiny amount of trade.
So if you were running Bulgaria you'd end up with risking 2.2% of your exports, have pissed off Germany & France and not get free movement of our people to UK. Lose, lose, lose, you have run out of feet! :)
-
So if you were running Bulgaria you'd end up with risking 2.2% of your exports, have pissed off Germany & France and not get free movement of our people to UK. Lose, lose, lose, you have run out of feet! :)
Nope you'd hold out to ensure that any deal included free movement of labour, which would of course be in the best interests of the people of Bulgaria, and I'm sure you'd expect the primary concern of the Bulgarian government in deciding whether or not to agree to a deal will be what is in the best interests of the people of Bulgaria.
But of course the best scenario would be for the UK to remain within the EU so that the best possible trade deal will remain, plus free movement of labour will also remain and there will be no uncertainty.
But, of course, were the UK to leave it would only take one of the other 27 countries to block a deal, for whatever reason.
-
Nope you'd hold out to ensure that any deal included free movement of labour, which would of course be in the best interests of the people of Bulgaria, and I'm sure you'd expect the primary concern of the Bulgarian government in deciding whether or not to agree to a deal will be what is in the best interests of the people of Bulgaria.
But of course the best scenario would be for the UK to remain within the EU so that the best possible trade deal will remain, plus free movement of labour will also remain and there will be no uncertainty.
But, of course, were the UK to leave it would only take one of the other 27 countries to block a deal, for whatever reason.
Free movement isn't going to be up for negotiation.
-
Free movement isn't going to be up for negotiation.
Then nor will free trade without restrictions. The EU isn't going to permit one without the other.
So which is more important to you - restricting migration from the EU or maintaining free trade, because you sure as hell aren't going to be able to achieve both.
-
Sorry to butt in, but I have a question. How many refugees and migrants has America taken to help Europe out? Perhaps Obama would have a point if his country allowed us more freedom to live there.
-
Then nor will free trade without restrictions. The EU isn't going to permit one without the other.
So which is more important to you - restricting migration from the EU or maintaining free trade, because you sure as hell aren't going to be able to achieve both.
I disagree.
-
I disagree.
You can disagree all you like but your opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant are the principles of the EU. The fundamental principles of the EU include complete free trade and complete free movement of labour. They will not accept one without the other - to do so would run coach and horses through the basic principles of the EU and they won't do it on principle and no deal on that basis would be agreed in practice as there is no way all 27 remaining states would ever agree.
-
Classic muddled thinking - it doesn't matter that we import more than we export, the issue is what proportion of our trade is with the other 27 and what proportion of the other 27 is with us. So trade with the EU is proportionately far, far more significant to us, than trade from (for example) Germany is with us.
Try it this way - image I am a small company with a turnover of £1M and 50% of that turnover depends on bilateral trade with Tesco, and they buy more from me than I buy from them. So £500k of their trade is with me, which represents 0.0008% of their turnover. Who is the deal more important to - not rocket science. Now I now this is a more extreme example than UK/rest of EU trade but the principle remains trade from the other 27 with the UK represents a vastly small proportion of their trade or GDP than trade from UK to the other 27 represents for the UK.
So we are screwed if we don't get a deal, for many of the other EU countries it would have very little effect. And for some there is very little trade at all - Bulgaria, for example. And there may be other issues far more important to the Bulgarian government and people than a tiny loss of trade, for example free movement of labour.
But of course Bulgaria has an absolute veto on any deal, so if Bulgaria decides not to play ball unless the UK allows free movement, then the deal is dead and up come the tariffs once the 2 year moratorium is over and there is absolutely nothing the UK can do about it. Indeed this is why there remains no deal in place with Canada, despite Boris (never one to actually understand detail) claiming that was the kind of deal we wanted, i.e. one that isn't in place 8 years after the start of formal process and 12 years after the agreement to sort out a deal. And of course one that even if enacted it doesn't cover services, which just might be a teeny, tiny problem for the UK.
There is also, of course, the politics. There will almost certainly be countries that will want to give the UK a very hard ride if it leaves, on the basis of deterring others from leaving. Now you might think that's pathetic, and silly, but your view is irrelevant - if Portugal for example thinks holding the EU project together is more important than a bit of trade with the UK, then we are in trouble. And of course this is what the UK government did in advance of IndyRef
Your argument is back to front, we buy more off them than they do off us.
So what you are saying is that the EU is stymying itself, or that each country is so by being in the EU, because being that all their interests are different one or two of them will veto nearly every deal with the rest of the world leaving themselves to trade with themselves; with the successful Eurozone!!! ;D Which raises the issues of the albatross around the EU's neck...
And add to this that they will be missing our membership fee!!!
-
Wrong as ever.
If there is a potential deal on the table between the UK and the EU, once the UK has left that deal must be ratified by all 27 member states - the power rests with each member state not with the EU in Brussels. So if just one rejects it, then there is no deal.
And on your other point, wrong again. The EU isn't bankrupt - I think you will find that it is the UK with the most problematic trade deficit and also has just about the worst deficit as a proportion of GDP in the EU (only Greece and Spain are worse) and the UK's levels at 4.4% are twice that of the EU as a whole at 2.2% (and of course that would be better still without the UK).
I think debt to GDP is a better indicator and on that we are about the same.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/269684/national-debt-in-eu-countries-in-relation-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
The only difference is that especially the EZ and the EU are stagnating, we're growing as more and more of our exports go to the world and less to the EU.
-
If you believe that, you really would be sending us into an economic backwater. Who do you propose we trade with - North Korea?
You haven't understood my post which is why yours doesn't make sense. You do know who I'm referring to by the elites?
-
It is the continuation of the road we are on - we understand what that means - it is the status quo.
You deluded fool!!!
You are welcome to your opinion, but in mine the EU is no more corrupt than the UK government and is certainly not abusive - what on earth do you mean by that. As far as I am concerned the EU is a thoroughly good thing and we benefit massively from our membership in many, many ways.
Laughably deluded!!!
Look at what they did to Greece!
You are usually sensible and level headed but you are coming across as troll.
-
Moderator: quoted content removed.
Are you really suggesting that BMW wouldn't prefer the UK to remain in the EU - if you do then you are completely nuts - of course they do.
-
I'll pick this example just to show what nonsense you are spouting.
No new member state can join the EU without agreement from all existing member states. So if you don't want Turkey to join that decision is entirely within the power of the UK government. If they say no (even if the other 27 say yes) then it doesn't happen.
And actually if you are concerned about Turkey joining, presumably because you think we will be 'overrun' with Turkish migrants leaving is much more of a threat. While we remain we can veto Turkey joining. If we leave we have no say, the other 27 can allow Turkey in even if we would have opposed. But as it is very likely that a trade deal will be inextricably linked to the free movement of labour from all EU countries even though we wouldn't have wanted them to join, by leaving the EU will will no longer have a say, yet we will be bound by rules allowing free movement from Turkey if it joins.
So to use Norway as an example. If they were in the EU they could prevent Turkey joint and de facto prevent free migration from Turkey. As they aren't a member they cannot prevent Turkey from joining but are bound to allow free migration from Turkey if they join.
What you are saying is crap because when you say we or them in terms of members' governments they are not 'we'. They are being bought off by the EU and so making them pro-EU. We, that is us on this forum, won't be in Brussels declaring our veto. I have no faith in our career politicians or the Westminster bubble as it is now and so Brexit is also a vote to get rid of them or their bias use of power in Brussels.
-
Nope you'd hold out to ensure that any deal included free movement of labour, which would of course be in the best interests of the people of Bulgaria, and I'm sure you'd expect the primary concern of the Bulgarian government in deciding whether or not to agree to a deal will be what is in the best interests of the people of Bulgaria.
But of course the best scenario would be for the UK to remain within the EU so that the best possible trade deal will remain, plus free movement of labour will also remain and there will be no uncertainty.
But, of course, were the UK to leave it would only take one of the other 27 countries to block a deal, for whatever reason.
Nope, free movement would be off the table and I would wait for the Germans to either bribe the Bulgarian leaders or twist their balls by saying that their EU aid would be cut. That's how Moscow would have done it during the Soviet era.
-
You can disagree all you like but your opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant are the principles of the EU. The fundamental principles of the EU include complete free trade and complete free movement of labour. They will not accept one without the other - to do so would run coach and horses through the basic principles of the EU and they won't do it on principle and no deal on that basis would be agreed in practice as there is no way all 27 remaining states would ever agree.
"what is relevant are the principles of the EU."
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
:o The EU has principles? ? ? ? ? ?
-
Are you really suggesting that BMW wouldn't prefer the UK to remain in the EU - if you do then you are completely nuts - of course they do.
But it is not their choice, so that must be the drugs you're taking talking to think they have a vote in our referendum.
-
You can disagree all you like but your opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant are the principles of the EU. The fundamental principles of the EU include complete free trade and complete free movement of labour. They will not accept one without the other - to do so would run coach and horses through the basic principles of the EU and they won't do it on principle and no deal on that basis would be agreed in practice as there is no way all 27 remaining states would ever agree.
I have a vote my opinion isn't irrelevant. Those principles don't apply to many with free trade agreements, e.g. South Korea, or neither will they apply to TTIP or Canada.
-
But it is not their choice, so that must be the drugs you're taking talking to think they have a vote in our referendum.
Nor is it their choice whether Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) chose to ratify a proposed EU/Uk trade deal following Brexit.
BMW can wish all they want - if Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) decide that maintaining free movement of their people to the UK is more important the tariff free trade on a tiny proportion of their imports and exports then there is absolutely nothing that BMW can do. And of course there is nothing the UK can do if if Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) decide that way and therefore refuse to agree any deal that doesn't include free movement of labour.
Don't forget that the reason the Canada deal is still not ratified is for exactly that reason - refusal of one EU country to agree due to restrictions on movement of people.
-
I have a vote my opinion isn't irrelevant.
You have a vote in the referendum - you don't have a vote to ratify any future trade deal, and even if you did (which you don't) 27 other countries have a veto.
Those principles don't apply to many with free trade agreements, e.g. South Korea, or neither will they apply to TTIP or Canada.
None of those agreements come close to the liberalisation of free trade the UJK currently enjoys with the rest of the EU. And of course don't forget that the TTIP and Canada deals still aren't ratified despite years and years of negotiation. Remember the Canada 'deal' (i.e. a non deal at present) doesn't include services, which of course are a huge part of our trade with the rest of the EU.
And actually the reason why the Canada deal hasn't been completed is a dispute over movement of people which has been deemed unacceptable to some of the EU states who have therefore refused to ratify the deal.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36120560
I think the whole issue of TTIP is probably more important than whether we stay in the EU or not. It is tied up with that debate, but I'd be interested to know whether our leaving the EU would remove us from its embrace.
-
Boris Johnson shows both his own true colours and the contempt that he has for the people who read his column. Excellent slap didn from
Obama.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36112694
-
Boris Johnson shows both his own true colour's and the contempt that he has for the people who read his count. Excellent slap didn from
Obama.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36112694
Obama really is a class act.
-
You can disagree all you like but your opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant are the principles of the EU. The fundamental principles of the EU include complete free trade and complete free movement of labour. They will not accept one without the other - to do so would run coach and horses through the basic principles of the EU and they won't do it on principle and no deal on that basis would be agreed in practice as there is no way all 27 remaining states would ever agree.
If we can't get a deal with the EU we will have to trade with tariffs and get free trade deals elsewhere. Freed from the bureaucracy we should be able to do this quickly over the two year changeover period.
I know your poised to tell us they will be the end of the world but I'll save you the trouble. The treasury report (the most pessimistic so far) shows they we will still be better off then we are now ( by 2030 27% as opposed to 31% with a Canada type deal) and fails to account for the effect of any free trade deals with rest of the World.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36120560
I think the whole issue of TTIP is probably more important than whether we stay in the EU or not. It is tied up with that debate, but I'd be interested to know whether our leaving the EU would remove us from its embrace.
Well Obama has been talking about the prospects of the US/UK deal in terms of time (back of the queue etc) but presumably the content would be pretty similar to the TTIP, although of course the UK would have far, far less influence in negotiations than the EU has so it would likely be more favourable to the US and less favourable to the UK than TTIP.
But the whole issue over TTIP highlights a couple of other points.
First time to get negotiations sorted and ratified. The TTIP negotiations have been ongoing for 5 years already and we haven't actually need approved by anyone yet. It still needs ratification from 29 countries - the USA and the EU 28, and requires all 29 to agree, if just one doesn't it is back to the drawing board. That gives a clear indication of the likely timescale for any USA/UK deal (which Obama indicated yesterday as 5-10 years) and for any EU/UK deal.
The second point is over ratification. The link in Hope's post shows the controversy and opposition in certain places. If this is sufficient to persuade just one EU country to fail to ratify then the TTIP is dead in its current form. There will of course be similar controversy (although perhaps on different aspects, probably free movement of labour) about any UK/EU deal and it is quite possible that after perhaps 6 years of negotiations one or more country in the EU will find aspects of the deal unacceptable and will refuse to ratify. And remember our period of grace on trade (no tariffs) lasts for just 2 years from the point when we announce we are leaving, so after that 2 year period the tariffs automatically come in force.
-
If we can't get a deal with the EU we will have to trade with tariffs and get free trade deals elsewhere. Freed from the bureaucracy we should be able to do this quickly over the two year changeover period.
You are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is not a cat in hell's chance that you will be able to develop free trade deals in two years. And don't forget that the 2 year grace period only applies to the EU - the day after exit the deal with South Korea (that you seem so keen on) becomes invalid as is is a deal with the EU and we won't be part of the EU.
So just to get some context as far as I am aware the minimum period for a EU bilateral trade deal to be in place from start of formal negotiations is 4 years, average 7 years maximum 11 years - and that's only for deals that concluded successfully, so doesn't include the 5 years and counting for the TTIP which still isn't in place or the 8 years and counting for the Canada deal which still isn't in place. There is evidence that other deals are similarly very protracted and the two main complicating factors are first number of countries involved and secondly cross regional deals. Problem for the UK is that virtually all of the deals it needs to strike fall into those categories as the 'local' deal will be with the EU and involving 28 countries, and virtually all significant other ones will be cross regional, e.g. with the USA or Japan or South Korea or Brazil for example.
I know your poised to tell us they will be the end of the world but I'll save you the trouble. The treasury report (the most pessimistic so far) shows they we will still be better off then we are now ( by 2030 27% as opposed to 31% with a Canada type deal) and fails to account for the effect of any free trade deals with rest of the World.
And 37% if we remain in the EU - other foot, gun, aim, shoot.
-
You are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is not a cat in hell's chance that you will be able to develop free trade deals in two years. And don't forget that the 2 year grace period only applies to the EU - the day after exit the deal with South Korea (that you seem so keen on) becomes invalid as is is a deal with the EU and we won't be part of the EU.
So just to get some context as far as I am aware the minimum period for a EU bilateral trade deal to be in place from start of formal negotiations is 4 years, average 7 years maximum 11 years - and that's only for deals that concluded successfully, so doesn't include the 5 years and counting for the TTIP which still isn't in place or the 8 years and counting for the Canada deal which still isn't in place. There is evidence that other deals are similarly very protracted and the two main complicating factors are first number of countries involved and secondly cross regional deals. Problem for the UK is that virtually all of the deals it needs to strike fall into those categories as the 'local' deal will be with the EU and involving 28 countries, and virtually all significant other ones will be cross regional, e.g. with the USA or Japan or South Korea or Brazil for example.
And 37% if we remain in the EU - other foot, gun, aim, shoot.
Yes an EU trade deal takes an age, if we are a free independent country we can work faster.
According to the report you rely we will be better off than we are now by 2030 even if we leave, far from the disaster that Bremainers claim.
-
wrong the 27 others are 1 Brussels rules.They need us.The majority are facing bankruptcy.
~TW~
Let's assume for a moment that this is true.
Is it a good idea to let the majority of the EU states go bankrupt?
-
In 14 years time things will be much better. See I can do an Osborne. The EU would have crashed and burned and all the EU members would be wishing they had done as we had done.
If that turns out to be true, our economy will crash and burn too because half of our oversees trade will have disappeared. If we are in the EU we can help prevent it, if we are out, all we can do is watch while they go down taking us with them.
-
Yes an EU trade deal takes an age, if we are a free independent country we can work faster.
Not when negotiating with the single largest trading block in the world that accounts for abut 50% of our trade, in other words the EU. And it isn't just trade deals involving the EU that take an age, all do and those across regions take longer. And that will account for virtually all the other deals we will need to strike outside of the deal with the EU.
And of course other countries don't have an infinite supply of trade negotiation experts, so if, for example the South Korean negotiation teams are already up to their eyes in negotiations with a range of other places they aren't going to simply drop those and start on ours just because we want one. We won't even get on to the starting blocks until their capacity is available. And of course that goes for us too - the notion that our limited team of negotiators is going to be able to work on dozens and dozens of deals all at once is naive.
According to the report you rely we will be better off than we are now by 2030 even if we leave, far from the disaster that Bremainers claim.
As you have so ably demonstrated we will be considerably worse of if we leave than if we stay - that's all that matters. And just because an economy may grow by 30% in the next 14 years doesn't imply that we will actually be better off in real terms as cost of living etc also rises.
-
Nope, free movement would be off the table
We won't get a good deal then.
-
If we can't get a deal with the EU we will have to trade with tariffs and get free trade deals elsewhere. Freed from the bureaucracy we should be able to do this quickly over the two year changeover period.
It's not just a question of having the deals, our companies have also got to sell the stuff.
Unfortunately some of them will have gone out of business. If you lose an important market, it doesn't take two years to go bust.
All of this fantasising, when translated to reality is gambling with real people's livelihoods.
-
We won't get a good deal then.
And the other point on this is that the deal will be with the EU and therefore will have to apply equally to all member states, there cannot be one approach for Ireland and another for Greece. So we will have to have the same migration policy for all current (and future) EU member states.
So try this one as a quite likely scenario in which Scotland becomes independent and becomes a member of the EU and Turkey also joins. Remember we will then, under any deal, be obliged to adopt the same migration policy for people from Scotland and Turkey. So either we have passport control at Gretna Green and no right for people from Dumfries to work in Carlisle, or we relax that and also have to have the same relaxation for people from Turkey.
Bit challenging for those little Englander Brexiters when you given to add some reality to the discussion rather than fantasy.
-
All of this fantasising, when translated to reality is gambling with real people's livelihoods.
This to me is the single most important point in the whole debate. The whole lets take a bit of a risk strategy of BREXIT is deeply unsettling to me. But then I'm not a gambling man - gambling being one of the few issues I get foamingly moralistic about.
-
Not when negotiating with the single largest trading block in the world that accounts for abut 50% of our trade, in other words the EU. And it isn't just trade deals involving the EU that take an age, all do and those across regions take longer. And that will account for virtually all the other deals we will need to strike outside of the deal with the EU.
And of course other countries don't have an infinite supply of trade negotiation experts, so if, for example the South Korean negotiation teams are already up to their eyes in negotiations with a range of other places they aren't going to simply drop those and start on ours just because we want one. We won't even get on to the starting blocks until their capacity is available. And of course that goes for us too - the notion that our limited team of negotiators is going to be able to work on dozens and dozens of deals all at once is naive.
We can always extend negotiations for Brexit.
As you have so ably demonstrated we will be considerably worse of if we leave than if we stay - that's all that matters. And just because an economy may grow by 30% in the next 14 years doesn't imply that we will actually be better off in real terms as cost of living etc also rises.
No according to figures you consider authoritative if we leave we will be better off then we are now.
-
This to me is the single most important point in the whole debate. The whole lets take a bit of a risk strategy of BREXIT is deeply unsettling to me. But then I'm not a gambling man - gambling being one of the few issues I get foamingly moralistic about.
Life is a gamble.
-
And the other point on this is that the deal will be with the EU and therefore will have to apply equally to all member states, there cannot be one approach for Ireland and another for Greece. So we will have to have the same migration policy for all current (and future) EU member states.
This is a lie, currently we have one policy that applies to people that come from Ireland and another that applies to people coming from Spain.
Bit challenging for those little Englander Brexiters when you given to add some reality to the discussion rather than fantasy.
More hysterical gibberish, I'm not even English.
-
Life is a gamble.
Possibly - but some bets are safer than others.
-
This is a lie, currently we have one policy that applies to people that come from Ireland and another that applies to people coming from Spain.
Wrong - people from all EU member states have the same rights to travel to and work in the UK. The only difference is the type of identity documentation they may need to show, but that doesn't alter their fundamental rights, outside of any temporary transitional arrangements that are sometimes enacted for newly joined member states.
So if there is a deal with the EU, which would necessarily involve migration it would not be possible for that deal to allow Irish citizens (or even Scottish citizens if they gained independence) free right to enter and work, yet not allow Romanian citizens.
-
We can always extend negotiations for Brexit.
But once the 2 year grace period is over then in the absence of a deal the tariffs go on. And of course they'd go on from day 1 for non EU countries which have preferential deals with the EU as the UK would no longer be part of that deal
No according to figures you consider authoritative if we leave we will be better off then we are now.
Not necessarily as you need to take account of cost of living increases. But that isn't the key point - which is, of course, whether we'd be better off in 2030 if we remain in the UK or if we leave. And given that you seem obsessed with the treasury figures then you must clearly accept that we would be significantly better off remaining than leaving.
-
Wrong - people from all EU member states have the same rights to travel to and work in the UK. The only difference is the type of identity documentation they may need to show, but that doesn't alter their fundamental rights, outside of any temporary transitional arrangements that are sometimes enacted for newly joined member states.
That is no what you wrote originally.
So if there is a deal with the EU, which would necessarily involve migration it would not be possible for that deal to allow Irish citizens (or even Scottish citizens if they gained independence) free right to enter and work, yet not allow Romanian citizens.
Your crystal ball again?
-
But once the 2 year grace period is over then in the absence of a deal the tariffs go on. And of course they'd go on from day 1 for non EU countries which have preferential deals with the EU as the UK would no longer be part of that deal.
The 2 year period can be extended.
Not necessarily as you need to take account of cost of living increases. But that isn't the key point - which is, of course, whether we'd be better off in 2030 if we remain in the UK or if we leave. And given that you seem obsessed with the treasury figures then you must clearly accept that we would be significantly better off remaining than leaving.
If the key point is 'whether we'd be better off in 2030 if we remain in the UK or if we leave' as you confess and you consider the treasury figures to be authoritative (I don't, I've repeatedly told you this) then you have lost the argument.
What did the treasury report predict the cost of living would be by 2030?
-
Nor is it their choice whether Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) chose to ratify a proposed EU/Uk trade deal following Brexit.
BMW can wish all they want - if Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) decide that maintaining free movement of their people to the UK is more important the tariff free trade on a tiny proportion of their imports and exports then there is absolutely nothing that BMW can do. And of course there is nothing the UK can do if if Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) decide that way and therefore refuse to agree any deal that doesn't include free movement of labour.
Don't forget that the reason the Canada deal is still not ratified is for exactly that reason - refusal of one EU country to agree due to restrictions on movement of people.
As I have said I don't think Germany and France will be too pleased with them if they bloke the sale of their goods to the UK. So what they will do is threaten to cut of the aid to those countries if they don't agree to a nice deal for us Brits. ;D
That is something Canada doesn't have that's a history of buying more from the EU than selling to them.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36120560
I think the whole issue of TTIP is probably more important than whether we stay in the EU or not. It is tied up with that debate, but I'd be interested to know whether our leaving the EU would remove us from its embrace.
Yes it would because it is with the EU. So if we leave we would be free from it. However, from what I'm hearing it looks as if it won't be ratified as opposition to it is growing rapidly now.
-
Well Obama has been talking about the prospects of the US/UK deal in terms of time (back of the queue etc) but presumably the content would be pretty similar to the TTIP, although of course the UK would have far, far less influence in negotiations than the EU has so it would likely be more favourable to the US and less favourable to the UK than TTIP.
I'm not sure we need a FTA with the US because we trade with them now. We buy £57 billion of goods off them now and I'm sure they are not going to lose that over some petty idiocy.
First time to get negotiations sorted and ratified. The TTIP negotiations have been ongoing for 5 years already and we haven't actually need approved by anyone yet. It still needs ratification from 29 countries - the USA and the EU 28, and requires all 29 to agree, if just one doesn't it is back to the drawing board. That gives a clear indication of the likely timescale for any USA/UK deal (which Obama indicated yesterday as 5-10 years) and for any EU/UK deal.
Obama has pretty much back tracked on this back of the queue stuff in an interview, and they are not exactly snowed under with lots of trades deals going on now.
-
Life is a gamble.
And in what way do you think that answers the criticism that the Brexiters are gambling with everybody's livelihoods?
I don't mind you gambling your livelihood on any deal you like. I just don't want you to do it with mine too.
-
The 2 year period can be extended.
How?
-
If that turns out to be true, our economy will crash and burn too because half of our oversees trade will have disappeared. If we are in the EU we can help prevent it, if we are out, all we can do is watch while they go down taking us with them.
And how can we prevent it when the idiots in Brussels can't be budged on any issue. They think they can solve things by kicking the can down the road and that they are gods and can control everything. They are deluded fools and we need to cut ourselves free from them.
If what you say is right why aren't they doing something now, because they have been told, instead of carrying on with policies the insane would have dropped years ago? Nothing is being faced up to in Brussels. The 'Emperor has no clothes on' and no one has the balls to say so and face up to the fact.
The UK is the second/third largest contributor to the EU and yet even with this massive threat of losing this the only concessions they gave Cameron was a 'bucket of piss'!!! With this lack of a grip on reality on their part and nothing to bargain with, with them, thinking that staying in to try to influence them to see sense is a grade A delusion.
-
Not when negotiating with the single largest trading block in the world that accounts for abut 50% of our trade, in other words the EU. And it isn't just trade deals involving the EU that take an age, all do and those across regions take longer. And that will account for virtually all the other deals we will need to strike outside of the deal with the EU.
That's not true. It is 45% of our exports. Our exports are about 30-35% of all our trade. So that's 45% of 30-35%.
-
We won't get a good deal then.
Either we will because we hold many of the trump cards or they will lose out due to their stupidity - which will lead to the EU crashing, which it will do anyway at some point in the near future.
-
This to me is the single most important point in the whole debate. The whole lets take a bit of a risk strategy of BREXIT is deeply unsettling to me. But then I'm not a gambling man - gambling being one of the few issues I get foamingly moralistic about.
It's a risk to stay in! So what are you going to do?
-
And in what way do you think that answers the criticism that the Brexiters are gambling with everybody's livelihoods?
I don't mind you gambling your livelihood on any deal you like. I just don't want you to do it with mine too.
The Bremainers vote and gamble to stay, we live in a democracy.
-
How?
Mutual agreement.
-
The Bremainers vote and gamble to stay, we live in a democracy.
You mean, neither the Bremainers or the Brexiters have the slighest idea what will happen in the event of an 'Out' vote? Tell us something new!!
-
It's a risk to stay in! So what are you going to do?
Me I'm going to vote to stay in as I perceive it to be less of a risk to the UK. Nothing that the BREXIT side have suggested has convinced me that there will not be a huge destabilisation of our economy with the flight of financial services to other centres like Frankfurt, etc.
Much though I would like it to be otherwise we are reliant on the banking sector for our much vaunted 5th largest economy claim. To ignore the destabilising effect that exit will have on that sector, is highly irresponsible.
-
It's a risk to stay in! So what are you going to do?
It's no less of a risk to leave, JK. "So what are you going to do?". Risk the future of the UK and/or its component parts?
-
Me I'm going to vote to stay in as I perceive it to be less of a risk to the UK. Nothing that the BREXIT side have suggested has convinced me that there will not be a huge destabilisation of our economy with the flight of financial services to other centres like Frankfurt, etc.
Much though I would like it to be otherwise we are reliant on the banking sector for our much vaunted 5th largest economy claim. To ignore the destabilising effect that exit will have on that sector, is highly irresponsible.
Well put, Trent. Can I borrow this for use on other forums and discussion places I'm involved with? :)
-
Well put, Trent. Can I borrow this for use on other forums and discussion places I'm involved with? :)
I think that may be a first ;) But of course you can.
-
Me I'm going to vote to stay in as I perceive it to be less of a risk to the UK.
What a gambler! :)
Nothing that the BREXIT side have suggested has convinced me that there will not be a huge destabilisation of our economy with the flight of financial services to other centres like Frankfurt, etc.
Likewise but vice versa.
Much though I would like it to be otherwise we are reliant on the banking sector for our much vaunted 5th largest economy claim. To ignore the destabilising effect that exit will have on that sector, is highly irresponsible.
I could argue to ignore the risks of staying is highly irresponsible, I wouldn't though, politics often descends into tribalism as one side demonise the other.
-
That's not true. It is 45% of our exports. Our exports are about 30-35% of all our trade. So that's 45% of 30-35%.
Wrong.
The latest official figures - published on 13th April indicate that 44% of our exports and 53% of our imports are to/from the rest of the EU. So my summary of 'about 50%' is spot on.
-
Mutual agreement.
And why would the other 27 countries agree, as this would effectively mean you could leave and retain all the benefits. It won't happen not least because France and Germany are committed to the EU project and won't risk doing anything that might result in further exits.
In reality this is yet more Brexit fantasy - bit like the SNP fantasies of 'we will automatically become members of the EU' and 'we will have an automatic right to continue to use the pound as our official currency, backed up by the Bank of England'. La, la land stuff.
-
It's a risk to stay in! So what are you going to do?
Why is it a risk to stay in - I see no risk, we will continue as we currently are.
-
What is really so desperate about this situation is that the true purpose of this referendum has nothing to do with leaving or remaining in the EU. It was a device dreamed up by David Cameron in order to keep the Conservative Party under control. He assumed that the majority of the electorate were satisfied with UK membership and their vote would shut the neanderthals up. This, of course, was the reason Harold Wilson called a similar referendum 40 years ago - to silence Tony Benn.
Whatever the result, using this tactic for party control purposes together with his inadequate action following the Scottish referendum will ensure that Cameron will enter history books as the most disastrous prime minister of modern times.
It should never be forgotten that he had only a single qualification for being party leader in the first place: his name was not Kenneth Clarke.
-
And why would the other 27 countries agree, as this would effectively mean you could leave and retain all the benefits. It won't happen not least because France and Germany are committed to the EU project and won't risk doing anything that might result in further exits.
This is with regard to why would the other countries agree to an extension to the two years.
In reality this is yet more Brexit fantasy - bit like the SNP fantasies of 'we will automatically become members of the EU' and 'we will have an automatic right to continue to use the pound as our official currency, backed up by the Bank of England'. La, la land stuff.
Maybe if you engaged with the point being made instead of assuming the point being made you might actually have a chance of making some ground in this debate.
-
Why is it a risk to stay in - I see no risk, we will continue as we currently are.
So you can guarantee the EU will remain as it is now forever, no Euro crisis, no Turkey joining, no TTIP?
-
What is really so desperate about this situation is that the true purpose of this referendum has nothing to do with leaving or remaining in the EU. It was a device dreamed up by David Cameron in order to keep the Conservative Party under control. He assumed that the majority of the electorate were satisfied with UK membership and their vote would shut the neanderthals up. This, of course, was the reason Harold Wilson called a similar referendum 40 years ago - to silence Tony Benn.
What is on the ballot paper isn't 'does David Cameron suck'!
-
The Bremainers vote and gamble to stay, we live in a democracy.
You have mischaracterised the decision. The choice is to take a massive gamble or not to gamble. We are in the EU. The choice is to continue to be in the EU or take a massive leap into the unknown.
-
Mutual agreement.
Which implies the other side will be amenable to our demands.
-
So you can guarantee the EU will remain as it is now forever
No, but if we are in it, we can have an input into the way it changes.
no Euro crisis,
The EU will weather any Euro crisis better with us in it.
no Turkey joining
What's wrong with Turkey joining the EU?
, no TTIP?
If we are in the EU, we can stop it.
-
You have mischaracterised the decision. The choice is to take a massive gamble or not to gamble. We are in the EU. The choice is to continue to be in the EU or take a massive leap into the unknown.
All choices are gambles.
Its your opinion leaving is a massive gamble, its my opinion staying is a massive gamble.
-
No, but if we are in it, we can have an input into the way it changes.
If we are out of it the effects of change in the EU on the UK will be much less severe.
The EU will weather any Euro crisis better with us in it.
How?
What's wrong with Turkey joining the EU?
If we are in the EU, we can stop it.
The fact that you don't know what the issues are with Turkey joining should be enough to persuade anyone to vote leave. A country run by Europhiles is a scary prospect.
-
All choices are gambles.
The choice between putting all your money on black and not betting at all is a choice between a gamble and not gambling. So no, you are wrong.
Its your opinion leaving is a massive gamble, its my opinion staying is a massive gamble.
It's obviously a massive gamble to leave. You Brexiters clearly have no idea what is going to happen and it does not fill me with confidence that you seem to be completely naive about international politics and economics.
Staying in is, by comparison, a relative known quantity. It will probably be pretty much the same going forward as it is now.
-
If we are out of it the effects of change in the EU on the UK will be much less severe.
No, they won't. We do not live in a vacuum, we live on the edge of the largest trading bloc in the World and 50% of our trade is with it. If you think change in the EU will not affect us, you are terribly out of touch with the way the World is.
The fact that you don't know what the issues are with Turkey joining should be enough to persuade anyone to vote leave.
The fact that you are unable to articulate your reasons for being worried about Turkey joining the EU and are instead insulting me persuades me that you do not know what you are talking about. Prove me wrong: tell me what the problems are.
-
If we are out of it the effects of change in the EU on the UK will be much less severe.
I'd argue that it would be more severe. Currently as part of the EU if there are economic difficulties the EU (largest economy on the planet) will work to support the whole of the EU in solving those problems. While we are in that includes us - the EU will help us to ride the storm. Once we are out the EU will continue to focus on helping its member states but that won't include us anymore so we will no longer be supported making it more difficult to ride the storm.
-
What a gambler! :)
Likewise but vice versa.
I could argue to ignore the risks of staying is highly irresponsible, I wouldn't though, politics often descends into tribalism as one side demonise the other.
As I've already said I am not a gambler your remark seems pointless. ???
Likewise but vice versa - you mean if we stay in financial services centred in London will suddenly upsticks and move because there has been no change. A very strange suggestion.
Well give me the risks of staying in then - I am not (as I imagine most people are not) totally immune to arguments from either side - but not to give them and instead offer the excuse that we will descend into tribalism seems a cop out to me.
-
I still haven't totally made my mind up about this one - but at the moment, I'm more inclined to fall into the Brexit camp. But that has more to do with my absolute hatred of Dodgy Dave and his money laundering mates and the sleazy way they seem to use this market to shift their profits!!
My favourite websites for the Pro is: http://infacts.org/
Batting for the other side is: https://fullfact.org/
But my goto site for the neutral corner has got to be: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/
-
I still haven't totally made my mind up about this one - but at the moment, I'm more inclined to fall into the Brexit camp. But that has more to do with my absolute hatred of Dodgy Dave and his money laundering mates and the sleazy way they use this market to shift their profits!!
My favourite websites for the Pro is: http://infacts.org/
Batting for the other side is: https://fullfact.org/
But my goto site for the neutral corner has got to be: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/
Dodgy Dave will be gone in a couple of years - leaving the EU and the negative effects that will result from that decision will affect us detrimentally for decades.
Also I fail to see why leaving the EU would improve your concerns about 'money laundering mates and the sleazy way they use this market to shift their profits!!' Quite the reverse - I think that Brexit would remove some of the moderating control and regulation that helps prevent the worst excesses of the right wing uber-free market capitalist agenda. So I think were we to leave the things that concern you would get worse, not better.
-
I'm more inclined to fall into the Brexit camp. But that has more to do with my absolute hatred of Dodgy Dave and his money laundering mates and the sleazy way they seem to use this market to shift their profits!!
Please don't vote based on personalities, especially one who is only going to be around for a couple of years. Also, think about what Rupert Murdoch said:
"When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice"
-
The choice between putting all your money on black and not betting at all is a choice between a gamble and not gambling. So no, you are wrong.
I disagree, but hey ho don't vote then, there you go well done you have not made any gamble.
It's obviously a massive gamble to leave. You Brexiters clearly have no idea what is going to happen and it does not fill me with confidence that you seem to be completely naive about international politics and economics.
You Bremainers do not fill me with confidence and likewise you come across to me as naive as well.
Staying in is, by comparison, a relative known quantity. It will probably be pretty much the same going forward as it is now.
probably - what a gamble.
-
No, they won't. We do not live in a vacuum, we live on the edge of the largest trading bloc in the World and 50% of our trade is with it. If you think change in the EU will not affect us, you are terribly out of touch with the way the World is.
I never claimed 'change in the EU will not affect us', but that it will affect us less.
The fact that you are unable to articulate your reasons for being worried about Turkey joining the EU and are instead insulting me persuades me that you do not know what you are talking about. Prove me wrong: tell me what the problems are.
You want to a political union with this:-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/15/turkish-composer-fazil-say-convicted-blasphemhy
-
I disagree,
You disagree that the risk in my example is asymmetrical? That's just daft.
but hey ho don't vote then, there you go well done you have not made any gamble.
I have to vote because the Brexiters want to force a risk on me that I do not want to take.
You Bremainers do not fill me with confidence and likewise you come across to me as naive as well.
That's because you don't understand the arguments.
probably - what a gamble.
A prime example of you not understanding the arguments. Gambles are not all or nothing and risks are relative.
-
I'd argue that it would be more severe. Currently as part of the EU if there are economic difficulties the EU (largest economy on the planet) will work to support the whole of the EU in solving those problems. While we are in that includes us - the EU will help us to ride the storm. Once we are out the EU will continue to focus on helping its member states but that won't include us anymore so we will no longer be supported making it more difficult to ride the storm.
Last time I looked Greece was not exactly having a great time with EU 'help', rumour has it another bail out is going to be needed, Spain & Italy also on the edge.
-
I never claimed 'change in the EU will not affect us', but that it will affect us less.
Which is a naive point of view. Changes to the EU will affect us more severely if we are not in it because there will be nobody standing up for our interests in the debates about change.
You want to a political union with this:-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/15/turkish-composer-fazil-say-convicted-blasphemhy
No, I want a union that would help things like that stop happening. Before joining the EU, Turkey would have to reform in several ways including allowing freedom of expression.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9La0WGBgwiA
Vote leave
~TW~
-
Aww fuck.. ~tweedlU~ says leave..
I'm for staying then...
-
But seriously.. What exactly the fuck would happen if we voted to stay or leave.
I'm guessing fuck all.. The banksters and their mates would scratch their heads and find another way to channel their profits in such a way to profit them and fuck the rest of us.
Why do we still have the pound if it wasn't collateral for the damage Gidiot is inflicting? Surely he and his mates will lose out if we cut off their money laundering rackets?
-
Also, a quick wander through this topic shows me that the TTIP question as to why Dodgy Dave and his mates endorse it is sorely lacking.
Why are you comfortable with TTIP steamrolling over small businesses?
-
Last time I looked Greece was not exactly having a great time with EU 'help', rumour has it another bail out is going to be needed, Spain & Italy also on the edge.
And where would Greece be without the support of the EU in the form of a bailout! It is bizarre to claim that a country would be better off outside of an organisation that effectively stopped it going completely to the wall by bailing them out.
And if another bailout is needed and the EU does this again they are clearly providing further help. Would Greece be better off without the opportunity of help from the EU - of course not.
-
And in what way do you think that answers the criticism that the Brexiters are gambling with everybody's livelihoods?
I don't mind you gambling your livelihood on any deal you like. I just don't want you to do it with mine too.
It's a gamble staying in with the failing Eurozone, the migration problem and by voting to stay the EU will take that as a vote by the British people to give them a green light to take us fully into the Ever-Closer-Union project. And to spite us they will always out vote us so we have to comply and get gradually sucked in into their madness.
-
Me I'm going to vote to stay in as I perceive it to be less of a risk to the UK. Nothing that the BREXIT side have suggested has convinced me that there will not be a huge destabilisation of our economy with the flight of financial services to other centres like Frankfurt, etc.
Much though I would like it to be otherwise we are reliant on the banking sector for our much vaunted 5th largest economy claim. To ignore the destabilising effect that exit will have on that sector, is highly irresponsible.
Except HSBC has recently voted to stay in the UK even though they knew this referendum was on the near horizon - I think that says loads. And several big businesses have said they are not worried by a Brexit. The more I hear about all this the better I feel about a Brexit. Yes the change at first may be a bit bumpy but after that things will improve and the EU won't the threat some claim as the lose our membership fee will weaken them as others will have to pay more and the gainers will receive less, thus hastening its demise. ;D
-
It's no less of a risk to leave, JK. "So what are you going to do?". Risk the future of the UK and/or its component parts?
Trentvoyager said he was going to vote to stay in because it was a risk to leave implying it wasn't a risk to stay. So I corrected him and ask what he was going to do now, now that there was risk on both sides of the fence.
Me, I've always been a Leaver. The EU is just another version of the Soviet Union; state control by unelected criminal elites.
-
Wrong.
The latest official figures - published on 13th April indicate that 44% of our exports and 53% of our imports are to/from the rest of the EU. So my summary of 'about 50%' is spot on.
You didn't use the word exports you said trade. We trade about 70-65% of our goods within the UK.
-
And why would the other 27 countries agree, as this would effectively mean you could leave and retain all the benefits. It won't happen not least because France and Germany are committed to the EU project and won't risk doing anything that might result in further exits.
And this is the problem, of many, that the EU has. If they give us a bespoke deal then others will become invidious about it and want something, compensatory equivalencies, themselves or will want to leave the EU - this would be truer for the richer members who would see the UK grow more rapidly than they do, over time, as the EU grinds to a halt and holds them back. If they impose tariffs then some companies, like BMW, will be annoyed with Merkel and co. and lobby the Brussels' lot because of course tariffs will mean that the UK will buy less of the EU products and search for replacements else where in the world, including the home market.
-
Why is it a risk to stay in - I see no risk, we will continue as we currently are.
You see no risk? ::)
The status quo is not on the table. As the EZ consolidates it will have the votes to out vote anyone and the Germans will have everyone by the short and curlies forcing them into line with the Ever-Closer-Union. As you saw with Greece they can close the banks down in any EZ country thereby holding them all to ransom. In effect Germany will have 19 votes.
-
What is really so desperate about this situation is that the true purpose of this referendum has nothing to do with leaving or remaining in the EU. It was a device dreamed up by David Cameron in order to keep the Conservative Party under control. He assumed that the majority of the electorate were satisfied with UK membership and their vote would shut the neanderthals up. This, of course, was the reason Harold Wilson called a similar referendum 40 years ago - to silence Tony Benn.
Whatever the result, using this tactic for party control purposes together with his inadequate action following the Scottish referendum will ensure that Cameron will enter history books as the most disastrous prime minister of modern times.
It should never be forgotten that he had only a single qualification for being party leader in the first place: his name was not Kenneth Clarke.
What you say is true but there is one other factor that Cameron misjudged. Winning the 2015 election. The Tories manifesto was a dream list they thought they would never have to implement (well, not fully, anyway), and which now Osborne is trying to fulfil with his never ending Omni shambles. A dream list to please and keep on board their ever doubting voters. It was all a game of future promises which have come back to bite them.
-
You have mischaracterised the decision. The choice is to take a massive gamble or not to gamble. We are in the EU. The choice is to continue to be in the EU or take a massive leap into the unknown.
If you are on a sinking ship (the known part) and there are some lifeboats, but the sea is a bit choppy, then you can have a chance of saving yourselves by risking it (the unknown part). Or you can stay on the 'known part' the sinking ship. Which would you choose?
You could of course cling to the illusion that the ship isn't sinking but we known how that ends. My point being that your 'known' and 'unknown' logic here doesn't actually span out into common sense.
The EU is stagnating and falling apart and has a whole raft of problems which the idiots in Brussels haven't a chance of solving because they are stuck in the past, with its ideological blind arrogant thinking.
-
And where would Greece be without the support of the EU in the form of a bailout! It is bizarre to claim that a country would be better off outside of an organisation that effectively stopped it going completely to the wall by bailing them out.
And if another bailout is needed and the EU does this again they are clearly providing further help. Would Greece be better off without the opportunity of help from the EU - of course not.
Iceland say otherwise, they were in, arguably a worse state than Greece but have bounced back quickly. Iceland enacted policies by politicians voted on by the public. Greece did what Germany told them.
-
And where would Greece be without the support of the EU in the form of a bailout! It is bizarre to claim that a country would be better off outside of an organisation that effectively stopped it going completely to the wall by bailing them out.
And if another bailout is needed and the EU does this again they are clearly providing further help. Would Greece be better off without the opportunity of help from the EU - of course not.
What inane rubbish. The EZ caused Greece's problems in the first place. The EZ project was malformed from the very start and was destined to fail. They were allowed in when they weren't qualified to do so. They are bankrupt!!! You don't pile on more debt onto a debtor if they have no hope in hell of paying it off. You know nothing about finance and judging by your post to date on this thread nothing at all!!!
You are the one who is bizarre.
They would not necessarily go to the wall they would give their creditors a massive 'haircut'.
-
Iceland say otherwise, they were in, arguably a worse state than Greece but have bounced back quickly. Iceland enacted policies by politicians voted on by the public. Greece did what Germany told them.
So Iceland simply solved its own problems then did it.
Weird because I seem to remember there was a huge bail-out package, involving some $4.5billion from the IMF and also loans of about $6billion from a number of EU countries. So you might argue that Greece did what Germany told them but it is just as true that Iceland did what the IMF told them.
Also worth noting this from an article about the Icelandic financial crash and recovery.
'Finally, the third major factor behind the resolution of the financial crisis was the decision by the government of Iceland to apply for membership in the EU in July 2009. While views on the feasibility of EU membership are quite mixed in Iceland, this action has served to enhance the credibility of the country on international financial markets.'
So don't forget that one of the things that the Icelandic government did in 2009 in the aftermath of the crash was apply to join the EU - they can't have seen the EU at that point as something awful, could they.
-
You see no risk? ::)
The status quo is not on the table. As the EZ consolidates it will have the votes to out vote anyone and the Germans will have everyone by the short and curlies forcing them into line with the Ever-Closer-Union. As you saw with Greece they can close the banks down in any EZ country thereby holding them all to ransom. In effect Germany will have 19 votes.
Project fear.
Most of the key EU decisions require unanimity of member states - if there is something that the UK doesn't like it can veto it. Oh unless we aren't in the EU anymore in which case we can't stop things that we don't like but are likely to be required to enact then, as per Norway (and indeed Iceland).
Are you aware that the oft cited by Brexiters (for reasons that are beyond me) with Canada has failed to come into effect because Bulgaria and Romania refused to accept visa requirements that didn't apply to other EU member states, so they have vetoed it. I'm sure Germany are livid because the want it to happen, but there is nothing they can do - it requires all 28 member states to agree. 27 in favour 1 against means no deal - the UK can be that one if they don't like a deal while they remain in the EU.
-
And this is the problem, of many, that the EU has. If they give us a bespoke deal then others will become invidious about it and want something, compensatory equivalencies, themselves or will want to leave the EU - this would be truer for the richer members who would see the UK grow more rapidly than they do, over time, as the EU grinds to a halt and holds them back. If they impose tariffs then some companies, like BMW, will be annoyed with Merkel and co. and lobby the Brussels' lot because of course tariffs will mean that the UK will buy less of the EU products and search for replacements else where in the world, including the home market.
Bulgaria saw the visa requirements that Canada wanted to impose on them as more important than ratifying a trade deal - so they blocked it ensuring tariffs are maintained. It isn't a problem to them because trade with Canada is tiny for Bulgaria so to flex their muscles, block the deal and hold out for a better deal on migration.
Bad news for you Brexiters is that Bulgaria's trade with the UK is also tiny, so no skin off their nose if they block a trade deal. But of course migration to the UK is far more significant to the Bulgarians than migration with Canada, so if they were happy to veto a Canada deal ...
Go figure.
-
It's a gamble staying in with the failing Eurozone
But we aren't in the Eurozone.
the migration problem
What migration problem? Migration is only a problem to xenophobes.
and by voting to stay the EU will take that as a vote by the British people to give them a green light to take us fully into the Ever-Closer-Union project.
No they won't.
And to spite us they will always out vote us so we have to comply and get gradually sucked in into their madness.
Paranoid Jack, or what. Europe is really nothing to be frightened of.
-
But we aren't in the Eurozone.
Exactly
What migration problem? Migration is only a problem to xenophobes.
I agree that these is clearly a problem but that can only be solved by more countries taking more people who are escaping from a war zone that has destroyed their lives and the lives of their families - in some case literally destroyed, i.e. dead. But what is clear is that the current immigration rules of the UK, within the EU are such that the UK can decide, through its sovereign government, so take exactly as many or as few as it chooses. Currently the UK government has decided to take virtually none and the EU cannot force them to take more.
So for those xenophobes, I struggle to see the 'problem' - our government can (and has) chosen to take bugger all of the refugees from those war zones. For those like me who want to see a more humanitarian approach there is a problem and that problem lies with our government's pathetic response rather than with the EU.
-
So Iceland simply solved its own problems then did it.
Where did I say that?
Weird because I seem to remember there was a huge bail-out package, involving some $4.5billion from the IMF and also loans of about $6billion from a number of EU countries. So you might argue that Greece did what Germany told them but it is just as true that Iceland did what the IMF told them.
I'm not sure of the history but this is from Wiki:-
The "Nordic Tiger" period ended in a national financial crisis in 2008, when the country's major banks failed and were taken over by the government.
The Icelandic Central Bank approached the Bank of England in March 2008 for assistance to support its currency as confidence in its heavily indebted banking system began to ebb away.[3]
Following sharp inflation in the Icelandic króna during 2008, the three major banks in Iceland, Glitnir, Landsbanki and Kaupthing were placed under government control. A subsidiary of Landsbanki, Icesave, which operated in the UK and the Netherlands, was declared insolvent, putting the savings of thousands of UK and Dutch customers at risk.[4] It also transpired that over 70 local authorities in the UK held more than £550 million of cash in Icelandic banks.[5][6] In response to statements that the accounts of UK depositors would not be guaranteed, the British governments seized assets of the banks and of the Icelandic government.[7]
On 28 October 2008, Iceland's central bank raised its interest rate to 18 per cent to fight inflation.[8]
Following negotiations with the IMF,[9] a package of $4.6 billion was agreed on 19 November, with the IMF loaning $2.1 billion and another $2.5 billion in loans and currency swaps from Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. In addition, Poland has offered to lend $200 million and the Faroe Islands have offered 300 million Danish kroner ($50 million, about 3 per cent of Faroese GDP).[10] The Icelandic government also reported that Russia has offered $300 million.[11] The next day, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom announced a joint loan of $6.3 billion (€5 billion), related to the deposit insurance dispute.[12][13] (Dollar values are US dollars.)
Also worth noting this from an article about the Icelandic financial crash and recovery.
'Finally, the third major factor behind the resolution of the financial crisis was the decision by the government of Iceland to apply for membership in the EU in July 2009. While views on the feasibility of EU membership are quite mixed in Iceland, this action has served to enhance the credibility of the country on international financial markets.'
Source?
So don't forget that one of the things that the Icelandic government did in 2009 in the aftermath of the crash was apply to join the EU - they can't have seen the EU at that point as something awful, could they.
No really sure its relevant of it helps your case since Iceland have withdrawn their application now.
-
Are you aware that the oft cited by Brexiters (for reasons that are beyond me) with Canada has failed to come into effect because Bulgaria and Romania refused to accept visa requirements that didn't apply to other EU member states, so they have vetoed it. I'm sure Germany are livid because the want it to happen, but there is nothing they can do - it requires all 28 member states to agree. 27 in favour 1 against means no deal - the UK can be that one if they don't like a deal while they remain in the EU.
This underlines the entire reason to leave. A trade deal with Canada might suit UK, France and Germany but it doesn't suit Bulgaria eventually after a long long time a compromise will be made, it won't really suit anyone perfectly but that is the EU for in a nutshell. Same with Greece its people want to try a left wing solution to its economic crisis but Germany couldn't allow that, so for years now they have muddled through without any real solution.
If you ever want to know how apt the saying 'a camel is a horse designed by committee' then the EU offers a classic example.
-
What migration problem? Migration is only a problem to xenophobes.
I actually think migration is actually good for a country but there are points where is becomes an issue as it out paces infrastructure.
Just to confirm, your position is that it is never a problem, that is your position or was it more rhetoric on your part?
-
Just to confirm, your position is that it is never a problem, that is your position or was it more rhetoric on your part?
Immigration is good. There may be issues surrounding the integration of immigrants into British society, but these are better solved by tackling them directly rather than trying to keep immigrants out. We spend a fortune trying to make our borders impenetrable but I think the money would be better spent on infrastructure to cope with the influx.
-
Immigration is good. There may be issues surrounding the integration of immigrants into British society, but these are better solved by tackling them directly rather than trying to keep immigrants out. We spend a fortune trying to make our borders impenetrable but I think the money would be better spent on infrastructure to cope with the influx.
Can we afford it after the fine
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/664468/European-Commission-sue-Britain-weeks-before-Brexit-vote
-
Immigration is good. There may be issues surrounding the integration of immigrants into British society, but these are better solved by tackling them directly rather than trying to keep immigrants out. We spend a fortune trying to make our borders impenetrable but I think the money would be better spent on infrastructure to cope with the influx.
Immigration is good,yes people have been coming here for years long before the EU,saturation is not good a river flowing is good but when it is in flood it is not good. and immigration is in flood now and I, and many others do not want it.
~TW~
-
immigration is in flood now
No it isn't.
and I, and many others do not want it.
Because you are xenophobic small minded little Englanders.
-
No it isn't.
Because you are xenophobic small minded little Englanders.
So people being drowned in boatloads is normal.Also in your daft world you exist in you cannot see this country and its infrastructure failing.I am a big Englander and pratts like you are a pain in the arse.
~TW~
-
So people being drowned in boatloads is normal.
That's not immigration, that's fleeing a life of desperate survival. Almost none of those people are coming to the UK. There's no flood of immigration here as you falsely asserted.
Also in your daft world you exist in you cannot see this country and its infrastructure failing.
If this country is failing, it is because of the incumbent government systematically dismantling its public institutions in the name of a quick buck. It has nothing to do with the immigrants.
I am a big Englander
No you aren't. You are to small minded to see beyond the shores of this island.
and pratts like you are a pain in the arse.
So my forceful kick hit its target. Good.
-
Immigration is good. There may be issues surrounding the integration of immigrants into British society, but these are better solved by tackling them directly rather than trying to keep immigrants out. We spend a fortune trying to make our borders impenetrable but I think the money would be better spent on infrastructure to cope with the influx.
So you concede it can cause a problem?
-
No it isn't.
Because you are xenophobic small minded little Englanders.
You sound like a bigot.
-
So you concede it can cause a problem?
Not any problem that should be solved by trying to shut our borders.
-
You sound like a bigot.
It's not bigoted to accurately describe somebody.
-
Not any problem that should be solved by trying to shut our borders.
So you want open borders for everyone everywhere all the time?
-
It's not bigoted to accurately describe somebody.
Well by claiming that anyone is who sees a problem with immigration are 'xenophobic small minded little Englanders' is demonstrably false, not least because not everyone in the world is English.
-
So you want open borders for everyone everywhere all the time?
Strange but last time I entered the UK - just 8 days ago I needed to pass through a very obvious border control post and needed to show my passport to be allowed in, and so did everyone else. And I'm a UK citizen. In what way are our borders 'open' Jaks - they seemed pretty controlled to me.
Don't forget we aren't in Schengen.
-
I'm not sure of the history but this is from Wiki:-
The "Nordic Tiger" period ended in a national financial crisis in 2008, when the country's major banks failed and were taken over by the government.
The Icelandic Central Bank approached the Bank of England in March 2008 for assistance to support its currency as confidence in its heavily indebted banking system began to ebb away.[3]
Following sharp inflation in the Icelandic króna during 2008, the three major banks in Iceland, Glitnir, Landsbanki and Kaupthing were placed under government control. A subsidiary of Landsbanki, Icesave, which operated in the UK and the Netherlands, was declared insolvent, putting the savings of thousands of UK and Dutch customers at risk.[4] It also transpired that over 70 local authorities in the UK held more than £550 million of cash in Icelandic banks.[5][6] In response to statements that the accounts of UK depositors would not be guaranteed, the British governments seized assets of the banks and of the Icelandic government.[7]
On 28 October 2008, Iceland's central bank raised its interest rate to 18 per cent to fight inflation.[8]
Following negotiations with the IMF,[9] a package of $4.6 billion was agreed on 19 November, with the IMF loaning $2.1 billion and another $2.5 billion in loans and currency swaps from Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. In addition, Poland has offered to lend $200 million and the Faroe Islands have offered 300 million Danish kroner ($50 million, about 3 per cent of Faroese GDP).[10] The Icelandic government also reported that Russia has offered $300 million.[11] The next day, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom announced a joint loan of $6.3 billion (€5 billion), related to the deposit insurance dispute.[12][13] (Dollar values are US dollars.)
Which completely backs up my earlier post.
Source?
Same as yours, indeed just a few paragraphs later on.
No really sure its relevant of it helps your case since Iceland have withdrawn their application now.
They only withdrew last year. Their decision to apply in 2009 gave the markets confidence of greater back up if the looked like tipping back into crisis and therefore allowed lending at more preferential rates, improvement in their credit rating and was therefore important in their being able to recover.
-
So you want open borders for everyone everywhere all the time?
Why are you suddenly obsessed with my opinion on immigration?
I support free trade everywhere and that includes free movement of labour.
-
Well by claiming that anyone is who sees a problem with immigration are 'xenophobic small minded little Englanders' is demonstrably false, not least because not everyone in the world is English.
I directed that remark at TW, not everybody.
-
Strange but last time I entered the UK - just 8 days ago I needed to pass through a very obvious border control post and needed to show my passport to be allowed in, and so did everyone else. And I'm a UK citizen. In what way are our borders 'open' Jaks - they seemed pretty controlled to me.
Don't forget we aren't in Schengen.
Semantics, by open I meant able to come to the at any time, regardless of any passport control. I never claimed UK had open borders, it is open to anyone from EU to come here.
-
Which completely backs up my earlier post.
It doesn't actually.
Same as yours, indeed just a few paragraphs later on.
You pasted a quote I can't see that quote on Wiki, can you post the URL.
They only withdrew last year. Their decision to apply in 2009 gave the markets confidence of greater back up if the looked like tipping back into crisis and therefore allowed lending at more preferential rates, improvement in their credit rating and was therefore important in their being able to recover.
Iceland's credit rating was at its lowest in 2009.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iceland/rating
You have a source for this data please?
-
It doesn't actually.
It does - a $4.6billion dollar bailout brokered by the IMF and an addition $6billion in loans from Germany, the UK and the Netherlands all of whom are EU countries.
You pasted a quote I can't see that quote on Wiki, can you post the URL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–11_Icelandic_financial_crisis
Iceland's credit rating was at its lowest in 2009.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iceland/rating
You have a source for this data please?
And began, slowly to improve thereafter in part due to its announcement of an application to join the EU. In fact although it applied in 2009 the formal negotiations only started in 2010. And one of the major factors that is widely believed to be instrumental in Iceland pulling out of the crisis was the ability to successfully raise a bond issue in $1billion, where confidence in the economic situation is key to the likelihood of investors being willing to risk their money.
A key factor in that investor confidence was the fact that (at that point) Iceland was in full scale negotiation to join the EU and therefore investors had confidence that the EU economic structures would be in place to support Iceland and, by inference, to protect their investment. Remember that Iceland at that point, and outside of the EU, had an extremely poor record on guaranteeing investments.
-
I see yet another highly respected independent and international economic organisation - this time the OECD has produced a report indicating that ordinary people in the UK would be significantly worse off after Brexit - just like all the others.
In their modelling we'd lose the equivalent of one month's pay.
-
Why are you suddenly obsessed with my opinion on immigration?
I think calling people names doesn't much help understand another POV so like to have a bit of genuine discussion, if that makes you uncomfortable happy to move on.
I support free trade everywhere and that includes free movement of labour.
You have some very clear views just checking what these are.
Let me paraphrase and you can correct me if I'm wrong:-
You accept that immigration can cause infrastructure problems (housing, school and hospital places) but immigration in itself isn't a problem. To solve these infrastructure problems more infrastructure should be built.
So how would JeremyP country work then, start with a Merkel style 'we are open to the entire world' and ten million arrive in year one, we all just put up with it for a few years until infrastructure catches up?
Free trade everywhere? So no protection for UK workers being undercut by any other country? Why are for the EU, its a barrier to free trade everywhere, e.g. India got no chance of getting a deal with the EU, they have a great chance of getting one with U. Are you for TTIP?
-
So how would JeremyP country work then, start with a Merkel style 'we are open to the entire world' and ten million arrive in year one, we all just put up with it for a few years until infrastructure catches up?
That's a hypothetical that isn't going to happen. Certainly, with immigration at current levels, I see no reason to stop anybody who wants to from coming in.
Free trade everywhere? So no protection for UK workers being undercut by any other country?
Why are people from other countries less deserving of paid work than people from the UK?
-
That's a hypothetical that isn't going to happen. Certainly, with immigration at current levels, I see no reason to stop anybody who wants to from coming in.
Right good, even though its hypothetical you could imagine it being a problem, doesn't that by your own measure make you hypothetically xenophobic. Or isn't that bollocks, if someone sees a problem with immigration at current levels, some at 1million at some at 300,00 its just a disagreement over numbers.
Why are people from other countries less deserving of paid work than people from the UK?
Well because the governments of other countries think British workers are less deserving that those from their own country, because governments tend to put the interests of the populations they serve above others. So following your ideology the British Steel workers just have to suck it up maybe? TTIP might mean the US companies are able to outbid the NHS but hey ho the NHS staff just have to face reality and lose their jobs?
-
Project fear.
Most of the key EU decisions require unanimity of member states - if there is something that the UK doesn't like it can veto it. Oh unless we aren't in the EU anymore in which case we can't stop things that we don't like but are likely to be required to enact then, as per Norway (and indeed Iceland).
Are you aware that the oft cited by Brexiters (for reasons that are beyond me) with Canada has failed to come into effect because Bulgaria and Romania refused to accept visa requirements that didn't apply to other EU member states, so they have vetoed it. I'm sure Germany are livid because the want it to happen, but there is nothing they can do - it requires all 28 member states to agree. 27 in favour 1 against means no deal - the UK can be that one if they don't like a deal while they remain in the EU.
It is only project fear if it isn't true.
And you are wrong some, a good proportion, of the voting is majority based, with no veto's.
-
Bulgaria saw the visa requirements that Canada wanted to impose on them as more important than ratifying a trade deal - so they blocked it ensuring tariffs are maintained. It isn't a problem to them because trade with Canada is tiny for Bulgaria so to flex their muscles, block the deal and hold out for a better deal on migration.
Bad news for you Brexiters is that Bulgaria's trade with the UK is also tiny, so no skin off their nose if they block a trade deal. But of course migration to the UK is far more significant to the Bulgarians than migration with Canada, so if they were happy to veto a Canada deal ...
Go figure.
Wrong again!!!
The situation with the UK is different because we buy a lot more from the EU than they from us - unlike Canada. So Bulgaria will be put under pressure to comply as I have said in an earlier post.
-
But we aren't in the Eurozone.
What migration problem? Migration is only a problem to xenophobes.
No they won't.
Paranoid Jack, or what. Europe is really nothing to be frightened of.
Instead of sunning yourself, watching all the young boys go buy; and sitting on your cold toilet seat, you should try doing some homework on how the EU is run instead of coming out with these unfounded assertions.
-
Because you are xenophobic small minded little Englanders.
You're argument skills have gone way down to rock bottom there, what are you scared of? Got no plausible facts to back you up anymore. Defending the indefensible!!!
-
Well because the governments of other countries think British workers are less deserving that those from their own country, because governments tend to put the interests of the populations they serve above others.
It's in the interests of everybody to spread the wealth. Economics is not a zero sum game.
So following your ideology the British Steel workers just have to suck it up maybe?
Well the alternative is for all British people to subsidise the steel workers to make steel that nobody wants. Wouldn't it be better for those workers to produce things that people do want without needing a subsidy?
TTIP might mean the US companies are able to outbid the NHS
Outbid the NHS on what?
-
TTIP might mean the US companies are able to outbid the NHS
If it turned out that US companies could provide health services at a lower cost than the NHS - why would this be a bad thing?
The important thing is that services are free at the point of delivery.
-
If it turned out that US companies could provide health services at a lower cost than the NHS - why would this be a bad thing?
The important thing is that services are free at the point of delivery.
Why is it that the Brexiters keep banging on about TTIP? I just went to the official EU web site where it tells me that TTIP is still in negotiation with the USA.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1488
So they are fear mongering about a trade agreement that has not been finalised. They are selectively forgetting that the TTIP will have to be ratified by all the member states, including the UK, if we are still a member. They are selectively forgetting that, if we are not in the EU, we will need our own version of TTIP and it's unlikely to be substantially different.
-
. . . . They are selectively forgetting that, if we are not in the EU, we will need our own version of TTIP and it's unlikely to be substantially different.
And which the President pointed out, would not be very high on the agenda of a future US administration.
-
It's in the interests of everybody to spread the wealth. Economics is not a zero sum game.
Well the alternative is for all British people to subsidise the steel workers to make steel that nobody wants. Wouldn't it be better for those workers to produce things that people do want without needing a subsidy?
Why should British workers have to give up their jobs, if there is too much steel then they Chinese should cut back on production.
Outbid the NHS on what?
Anything, x-rays, operations, etc.
-
If it turned out that US companies could provide health services at a lower cost than the NHS - why would this be a bad thing?
The important thing is that services are free at the point of delivery.
I see so a total disregard for British jobs?
-
Why is it that the Brexiters keep banging on about TTIP? I just went to the official EU web site where it tells me that TTIP is still in negotiation with the USA.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1488
So they are fear mongering about a trade agreement that has not been finalised.
So we shouldn't highlight any concerns about it?
They are selectively forgetting that the TTIP will have to be ratified by all the member states, including the UK, if we are still a member. They are selectively forgetting that, if we are not in the EU, we will need our own version of TTIP and it's unlikely to be substantially different.
I'm not selectively forgetting anything, its yet another fantasy you have.
-
And which the President pointed out, would not be very high on the agenda of a future US administration.
Yes back of the queue, guess how many are currently in this queue?
One, lol.
-
Why is it that the Brexiters keep banging on about TTIP? I just went to the official EU web site where it tells me that TTIP is still in negotiation with the USA.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1488
So they are fear mongering about a trade agreement that has not been finalised. They are selectively forgetting that the TTIP will have to be ratified by all the member states, including the UK, if we are still a member. They are selectively forgetting that, if we are not in the EU, we will need our own version of TTIP and it's unlikely to be substantially different.
So you only want to deal with a very bad contract, which will trash all our lives, after it has been ratified.......oh very clever Brains. You need more fish, brain food, for your small blob of jelly in your head!!!
-
I see so a total disregard for British jobs?
So who do you imagine that these US companies would employ to perform the work? (Though possibly they might have difficulty finding UK citizens qualified, willing and able to do the work)
But of course, if British companies or NHS in-house units could do the work more cost effectively - no problem!
NHS escalating costs are a threat to us all. We can't afford to ignore outsourcing options just because the unions (or UKIP) don't like them.
-
Yes back of the queue, guess how many are currently in this queue?
One, lol.
For America, trade with the EU is quite a big deal. If I might quote:
The U.S. economic relationship with the EU is the largest and most complex in the world, generating goods and services trade flows of about $2.7 billion a day [2012 estimate] and transatlantic investment is directly responsible for roughly 6.8 million jobs [2010 estimate]. This enormous volume of transatlantic trade and investment promotes economic prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic and in the dozens of other countries that trade with the transatlantic partners. The United States and the EU continue to pursue initiatives to create new opportunities for transatlantic commerce.
(source https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union)
$2.7 billion a day is very close to 1 Trillion a year. In contrast last Year, the UK exports to America were about 56 billion dollars, imports about 57 billion.
(source https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4120.html)
So, for the worlds No 1 superpower - just how high-up the agenda for an incoming administration would you imagine that rescuing a Little England (that had just shot itself in the foot) would be?
I'd say slightly lower than arranging President Clinton's hair appointments
P.S.
Or (perish the thought) in the case of President Trump :o :o :o
We could forget about the deal altogether because 'that goddarn Brit Salmond' actually tried to have him banned. (so that's you buggered too Scotland)
-
So who do you imagine that these US companies would employ to perform the work? (Though possibly they might have difficulty finding UK citizens qualified, willing and able to do the work)
But of course, if British companies or NHS in-house units could do the work more cost effectively - no problem!
NHS escalating costs are a threat to us all. We can't afford to ignore outsourcing options just because the unions (or UKIP) don't like them.
Such misguided twaddle!!!
-
Such misguided twaddle!!!
I find your position incomprehensible Jack. What are you saying? You would exclude private companies from doing NHS work because they might be . . . foreign owned . . . employ foreigners . . . be dominated by unions . . . what ?
-
Why should British workers have to give up their jobs, if there is too much steel then they Chinese should cut back on production.
But they aren't cutting back on production, so I ask again: why should the British taxpayer subsidise people to make steel that nobody wants to buy?
Anything, x-rays, operations, etc.
Why should the British taxpayer subsidise expensive in house NHS services if somebody else can do it cheaper with the same quality?
-
I see so a total disregard for British jobs?
Completely the opposite actually. Economics is not a zero sum game.
-
But they aren't cutting back on production, so I ask again: why should the British taxpayer subsidise people to make steel that nobody wants to buy?
Why should the British taxpayer subsidise expensive in house NHS services if somebody else can do it cheaper with the same quality?
I have some experience of a unit of a public service being liberated to outsource.
The in house service which had also been turned over to the private sector would not pass on critical information to the new choice of provider.
The unit had to return to the original provider and the contract with the new provider had to be bought out. Overall in house cuts out multiplication and expenditure.
-
But they aren't cutting back on production, so I ask again: why should the British taxpayer subsidise people to make steel that nobody wants to buy?
For two reasons the industry is cyclical and a loss of British jobs costs the taxpayer a lot more.
Why should the British taxpayer subsidise expensive in house NHS services if somebody else can do it cheaper with the same quality?
If you follow that logic we should relocate all NHS services to Eastern Europe where operations can be carried out for much less cash. Eventually the economies of Eastern Europe will rise whilst those in Western Europe will fall until we reach some sort of equilibrium.
-
Completely the opposite actually. Economics is not a zero sum game.
Please explain?
-
For two reasons the industry is cyclical and a loss of British jobs costs the taxpayer a lot more.
The majority of the steel workers who have lost their jobs will go on to find productive jobs elsewhere.
Even if the steel market were buoyant, it would still be expensive to produce steel here which means that other people's steel will be cheaper. Why not leave steel production to the people who do it best?
If you follow that logic we should relocate all NHS services to Eastern Europe where operations can be carried out for much less cash.
I would have thought it should be obvious to you that NHS services need to be delivered at a place convenient for the patients.
Eventually the economies of Eastern Europe will rise whilst those in Western Europe will fall until we reach some sort of equilibrium.
Because economics is not a zero sum game, the Western Europe economies will not fall. In fact, they will benefit from the the East European economies that are doing better.
-
Please explain?
A zero sum game is a game in which one player's gains have to be balanced by other players' losses.
As an example, think of the Six Nations Championship. There is a total of 30 points available which means an average of five points per team. However, England ended up with 10 points this year, which means that the average of the other teams points was reduced to four.
Global economics is not like that. If Romania's GDP goes up, it doesn't mean some other country's GDP has to go down. In fact, when a country gets richer, it generates demand for imports of foreign goods which means that other countries also benefit.
So, if a company making widgets moves production from Britain to (say) Spain transferring 10,000 jobs to Spain, initially, there are 10,000 more unemployed people in Britain and 10,000 more employed people in Spain.
In Britain, the extra unemployed puts downward pressure on wages and the exchange rate making British companies more competitive abroad, improving our economy. Furthermore, some of those 10,000 unemployed people will set up new and perhaps innovative businesses and many of the rest will find jobs elsewhere. Perhaps some of them even move to the Spanish operation.
In Spain, where unemployment is still at around 21%, 10,000 people who were living off the state are now in gainful employment with disposable incomes. This provides a boost to the Spanish economy and people start buying more stuff, including from Britain. Furthermore, widgets are now being made more cheaply, so that anybody who uses them gets a benefit.
If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.
-
A zero sum game is a game in which one player's gains have to be balanced by other players' losses.
As an example, think of the Six Nations Championship. There is a total of 30 points available which means an average of five points per team. However, England ended up with 10 points this year, which means that the average of the other teams points was reduced to four.
Global economics is not like that. If Romania's GDP goes up, it doesn't mean some other country's GDP has to go down. In fact, when a country gets richer, it generates demand for imports of foreign goods which means that other countries also benefit.
So, if a company making widgets moves production from Britain to (say) Spain transferring 10,000 jobs to Spain, initially, there are 10,000 more unemployed people in Britain and 10,000 more employed people in Spain.
In Britain, the extra unemployed puts downward pressure on wages and the exchange rate making British companies more competitive abroad, improving our economy. Furthermore, some of those 10,000 unemployed people will set up new and perhaps innovative businesses and many of the rest will find jobs elsewhere. Perhaps some of them even move to the Spanish operation.
In Spain, where unemployment is still at around 21%, 10,000 people who were living off the state are now in gainful employment with disposable incomes. This provides a boost to the Spanish economy and people start buying more stuff, including from Britain. Furthermore, widgets are now being made more cheaply, so that anybody who uses them gets a benefit.
If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.
It is quite scary that Jakswan doesn't seem to understand this. Particularly as this has been the underpinning principle which has been one of the greatest successes of the EU. Effectively that the EU supported less developed countries to grow and develop, which not only improves their position, but also in time knocks on to overall greater trade, economic growth etc for all. Decades ago the EU did this for countries that at the time were considered almost 3rd world, notable Spain and Portugal which were really very poor. That seems inconceivable now that they were considered kind of like we consider Albania now - economically backward, poor and with no longstanding tradition of democracy.
And of course this is what is happening again for the eastern european countries, again very effectively, improving their economic position, which ultimately improves ours too, while supporting and cementing democracy in countries without a tradition of democratic government.
-
If you follow that logic we should relocate all NHS services to Eastern Europe where operations can be carried out for much less cash. Eventually the economies of Eastern Europe will rise whilst those in Western Europe will fall until we reach some sort of equilibrium.
If the sums added-up that might be a brilliant idea jakswan.
-
The majority of the steel workers who have lost their jobs will go on to find productive jobs elsewhere.
The hit to the area would still be massive.
Even if the steel market were buoyant, it would still be expensive to produce steel here which means that other people's steel will be cheaper. Why not leave steel production to the people who do it best?
Actually i think the steel produced by the UK is the best in terms of quality.
I would have thought it should be obvious to you that NHS services need to be delivered at a place convenient for the patients.
Some not all, planned operations could be done abroad.
Because economics is not a zero sum game, the Western Europe economies will not fall. In fact, they will benefit from the the East European economies that are doing better.
Eventually they might, bit of a gamble though.
-
If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.
There you are, the EU ideology in a nutshell.
-
If the sums added-up that might be a brilliant idea jakswan.
So you are prepared to see the UK economy suffer in the hope the rest of the EU does better.
-
There you are, the EU ideology in a nutshell.
Yes, so why are you against it?
-
So you are prepared to see the UK economy suffer in the hope the rest of the EU does better.
I'm on waiting for an operation right now - if I could just hop-on an Easyjet to Bulgaria and get it done, I would be considerably happier AND the UK economy would be better off.
-
I'm on waiting for an operation right now - if I could just hop-on an Easyjet to Bulgaria and get it done, I would be considerably happier
Nothing stopping you is there?
AND the UK economy would be better off.
Oh dear, lets say your op costs £10,000, that money is lost from the UK economy. So for example the cleaners get some of that money, if its done abroad they won't get that money, so maybe they can't afford to buy a child trainers, which means the staff at the shoe store don't make as much who in turn don't buy a bag of chips on the way home, so the chippie is worse off and so on.
Bulgaria meanwhile is much better off clearly the agenda of the Bremainers is to look out for the welfare of Bulgarians not the British, vote leave.
-
Nothing stopping you is there?
Oh dear, lets say your op costs £10,000, that money is lost from the UK economy.
If he goes to Bulgaria and the op costs £5,000, our country has £5,000 to spend on something else and our overworked doctors and nurses can concentrate on services that can't be outsourced elsewhere. Plus, people in Bulgaria are richer as a result which means they'll buy more stuff off us and others. Also, LA's health problem has been corrected which makes him a more productive member of society.
Everyone's a winner.
Bulgaria meanwhile is much better off clearly the agenda of the Bremainers is to look out for the welfare of Bulgarians not the British, vote leave.
I already explained upthread why this is an incorrect characterisation of our position.
-
Yes, so why are you against it?
It will result in a "Net loss to Britian".
-
If he goes to Bulgaria and the op costs £5,000, our country has £5,000 to spend on something else and our overworked doctors and nurses can concentrate on services that can't be outsourced elsewhere. Plus, people in Bulgaria are richer as a result which means they'll buy more stuff off us and others. Also, LA's health problem has been corrected which makes him a more productive member of society.
No under the system the £5,000 would leave the country and £5,000 would be lost in GDP terms from the UK economy. Obviously its a lot more than £5,000 because that rolls around the economy as I explained earlier.
Everyone's a winner.
Incorrect see above.
I already explained upthread why this is an incorrect characterisation of our position.
I quoted you directly.
-
Nothing stopping you is there?
Sadly, I'm not a member of the Super-rich who can afford private medicine. I have to rely on the NHS.
Oh dear, lets say your op costs £10,000, that money is lost from the UK economy. So for example the cleaners get some of that money, if its done abroad they won't get that money, so maybe they can't afford to buy a child trainers, which means the staff at the shoe store don't make as much who in turn don't buy a bag of chips on the way home, so the chippie is worse off and so on.
Bulgaria meanwhile is much better off clearly the agenda of the Bremainers is to look out for the welfare of Bulgarians not the British, vote leave.
The object of the NHS is not to give gainful employment to it's workers, it's to provide us all with health-care and the escalating costs are becoming a major burden on our economy. We need to find ways of reducing NHS costs and if a high-quality cost-effective system for treating patients overseas could be found, that can only be a good thing.
-
It will result in a "Net loss to Britian".
Only in the short term.
The long term result will be better performing economies all round.
-
No under the system the £5,000 would leave the country and £5,000 would be lost in GDP terms from the UK economy. Obviously its a lot more than £5,000 because that rolls around the economy as I explained earlier.
Incorrect see above.
As I explained above, economics is not a zero sum game. Yes the £5,000 is lost to our economy but it goes into an economy that needs it more and the benefits of the stronger economy flow back to Britain. It's a short term loss for a long term gain.
-
I find your position incomprehensible Jack. What are you saying? You would exclude private companies from doing NHS work because they might be . . . foreign owned . . . employ foreigners . . . be dominated by unions . . . what ?
We are talking here of the privatisation of the NHS, which is well on its way. They have no interest in the people or the UK, it is purely for making a profit. Corporations and all that - corporatocracy. That's why I'm opposed to them.
-
A zero sum game is a game in which one player's gains have to be balanced by other players' losses.
As an example, think of the Six Nations Championship. There is a total of 30 points available which means an average of five points per team. However, England ended up with 10 points this year, which means that the average of the other teams points was reduced to four.
Global economics is not like that. If Romania's GDP goes up, it doesn't mean some other country's GDP has to go down. In fact, when a country gets richer, it generates demand for imports of foreign goods which means that other countries also benefit.
So, if a company making widgets moves production from Britain to (say) Spain transferring 10,000 jobs to Spain, initially, there are 10,000 more unemployed people in Britain and 10,000 more employed people in Spain.
In Britain, the extra unemployed puts downward pressure on wages and the exchange rate making British companies more competitive abroad, improving our economy. Furthermore, some of those 10,000 unemployed people will set up new and perhaps innovative businesses and many of the rest will find jobs elsewhere. Perhaps some of them even move to the Spanish operation.
In Spain, where unemployment is still at around 21%, 10,000 people who were living off the state are now in gainful employment with disposable incomes. This provides a boost to the Spanish economy and people start buying more stuff, including from Britain. Furthermore, widgets are now being made more cheaply, so that anybody who uses them gets a benefit.
If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.
This is not true if it is a monopoly etc. and especially true if it is a major industry. Not all businesses are equal. You are quite naïve in assuming people will be nice and fair to each other.
-
We are talking here of the privatisation of the NHS, which is well on its way. They have no interest in the people or the UK, it is purely for making a profit. Corporations and all that - corporatocracy. That's why I'm opposed to them.
I've said this many times before and never got as satisfactory answer:
Why would anyone oppose private companies providing health services? if:
A/ The quality of care is equal to or better than in-house NHS
B/ The service is more cost effective than in-house NHS
C/ The service is free at the point of delivery.
If those criteria are met and a company can make a profit on the deal - good for them!
-
It is quite scary that Jakswan doesn't seem to understand this. Particularly as this has been the underpinning principle which has been one of the greatest successes of the EU. Effectively that the EU supported less developed countries to grow and develop, which not only improves their position, but also in time knocks on to overall greater trade, economic growth etc for all. Decades ago the EU did this for countries that at the time were considered almost 3rd world, notable Spain and Portugal which were really very poor. That seems inconceivable now that they were considered kind of like we consider Albania now - economically backward, poor and with no longstanding tradition of democracy.
And of course this is what is happening again for the eastern european countries, again very effectively, improving their economic position, which ultimately improves ours too, while supporting and cementing democracy in countries without a tradition of democratic government.
Well looking at the Middle east and Africa that has been a resounding success......NOT!!!
-
If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.
Greece must be ecstatic with joy in making Germany and the bankers rich!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
-
Yes, so why are you against it?
This is deluded and laughable. I can't believe you actually think this!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
I've said this many times before and never got as satisfactory answer:
Why would anyone oppose private companies providing health services? if:
A/ The quality of care is equal to or better than in-house NHS
B/ The service is more cost effective than in-house NHS
C/ The service is free at the point of delivery.
If those criteria are met and a company can make a profit on the deal - good for them!
Because they are big IFs and they are never true in the long run.
-
We are talking here of the privatisation of the NHS, which is well on its way. They have no interest in the people or the UK, it is purely for making a profit. Corporations and all that - corporatocracy. That's why I'm opposed to them.
You do realise that this is the fault of Britain's government. It has nothing to do with the EU.
-
This is not true if it is a monopoly etc
How does it being a monopoly change the argument? Not saying it doesn't change the argument but all we ave from you on it is flat assertions.
and especially true if it is a major industry.
Yes, of course it is true for major industries, glad you agree.
-
Well looking at the Middle east and Africa that has been a resounding success......NOT!!!
Where is the equivalent of the EU in the Middle East or Africa?
-
Greece must be ecstatic with joy in making Germany and the bankers rich!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
What's that got to do with the point? Greece is where it is because of the EU but because its leaders lied to join the Euro. And us applying jealous protectionism to jobs that can be better done in Greece isn't going to help them get out of the mess.
-
This is deluded and laughable. I can't believe you actually think this!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Jakswan effectively stated that the EU ideology is to raise the wealth of all the member states through free trade. Why is it deluded and laughable to ask him why he is against everybody being a bit richer?
-
It's a bit of a long read, but I have to say I agree with just about all he points out.
https://theweeflea.com/2016/04/26/european-referendum-the-tipping-point/
-
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKKCN0XQ1MM
More than 100 executives from Britain's financial services industry, including hedge fund managers Crispin Odey and Paul Marshall, have signed a letter backing Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, the main Brexit campaign group said on Friday.
In a letter released by the Vote Leave group ahead of a June 23 referendum, the City bosses said getting out of the EU would help strengthen London's position as the only financial capital to rival New York.
-
Because they are big IFs and they are never true in the long run.
Obviously, if those criteria are not met then there is no case, but I fail to see what the long-term problem would be?
Anyone who has had any dealings with the NHS knows that the service does some things very well. but there are vast amounts of waste and inefficiency, and 'monolithic blocks' like the NHS are not good environments for innovation - and there is a revolution going on in medicine right now!
-
Dear Lapsed,
Anyone who has had any dealings with the NHS knows that the service does some things very well. but there are vast amounts of waste and inefficiency, and 'monolithic blocks' like the NHS are not good environments for innovation - and there is a revolution going on in medicine right now!
A quick question, what would you suggest to combat the waste and inefficiency?
Gonnagle.
-
I've said this many times before and never got as satisfactory answer:
Why would anyone oppose private companies providing health services? if:
A/ The quality of care is equal to or better than in-house NHS
B/ The service is more cost effective than in-house NHS
C/ The service is free at the point of delivery.
If those criteria are met and a company can make a profit on the deal - good for them!
Lot of ifs.
-
It's a bit of a long read, but I have to say I agree with just about all he points out.
https://theweeflea.com/2016/04/26/european-referendum-the-tipping-point/
It doesn't stack up at all.
The peace part is irrelevant. If we leave the EU, there will not be a war because Germany and France are still in it.
The leavers' prosperity point is nonsense. His argument seems to be "leavers ridicule the Treasury figures". So what? They are the best figures we have.
He then tries to minimise the importance of EU trade using sleight of hand and forgets about the possibility of trade tariffs being imposed.
His borders point is a flat lie.
There is no way that Britain can control its own borders if it is within the EU.
We can and do control our borders, with the exception of those between us and the Republic of Ireland. Have you come in to the UK from anywhere abroad except Ireland? You can't get in without a passport.
That's the point at which I stopped reading. The article was set up as a dispassionate exercise in weighing the d
pros and cons of leaving the EU but it is clear he started out as a Brexiter and he was just boosting his own side's rhetoric. It's fundamentally dishonest.
-
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKKCN0XQ1MM
More than 100 executives from Britain's financial services industry, including hedge fund managers Crispin Odey and Paul Marshall, have signed a letter backing Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, the main Brexit campaign group said on Friday.
You know hedge funds make money by betting that shares will go down in value?
-
Dear Lapsed,
A quick question, what would you suggest to combat the waste and inefficiency?
Gonnagle.
Good question Gonnagle, I'm sure better men than me have tried and failed to provide a good answer. It's one of those 'you wouldn't start from here' kinds of question.
The NHS is too big and bureaucratic. Many people who are doing the work know the answers, but no one listens to them. Personally, I think the whole thing needs breaking down into smaller units, and I wouldn't exclude private companies.
-
Good question Gonnagle, I'm sure better men than me have tried and failed to provide a good answer. It's one of those 'you wouldn't start from here' kinds of question.
The NHS is too big and bureaucratic. Many people who are doing the work know the answers, but no one listens to them. Personally, I think the whole thing needs breaking down into smaller units, and I wouldn't exclude private companies.
If only private companies were as efficient as the reputation
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services
-
If only private companies were as efficient as the reputation
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services
I would say that the Royal Society of Medicine have an interest in the status quo, they are not impartial. Most people I know who have worked in the NHS have stories and waste and inefficiency and if you have to be treated in a hospital, you will experience it first hand.
Maybe other countries health systems are as bad or worse, but it would be surprising if private companies couldn't make some improvements to ours.
-
Dear Lapsed,
A quick question, what would you suggest to combat the waste and inefficiency?
Gonnagle.
It seems to me that there should be less flash office furniture about. Apparently if you artificially have internal markets you need flash offices to impress people.
I'll hazard this. If you cut out having fancy looking furniture and image and insisted that everybody brought their own sandwiches and the perks limited to a cup of tea and a rich tea you could save billions.
-
I would say that the Royal Society of Medicine have an interest in the status quo, they are not impartial. Most people I know who have worked in the NHS have stories and waste and inefficiency and if you have to be treated in a hospital, you will experience it first hand.
Maybe other countries health systems are as bad or worse, but it would be surprising if private companies couldn't make some improvements to ours.
Anything the size of the NHS will have efficiency issues. Private companies anything like that size do as well.
-
It seems to me that there should be less flash office furniture about. Apparently if you artificially have internal markets you need flash offices to impress people.
I'll hazard this. If you cut out having fancy looking furniture and image and insisted that everybody brought their own sandwiches and the perks limited to a cup of tea and a rich tea you could save billions.
NHS management always seem to treat their own comfort as a very high priority. I'd stick them all in portacabins.
-
Anything the size of the NHS will have efficiency issues. Private companies anything like that size do as well.
If you look back, you'll see that was pretty much the point I was making. Private companies aren't a panacea, I just wouldn't exclude them on dogmatic grounds.
-
Dear Lapsed and Sane,
Thank you, before reading Sanes article link I was thinking, should I change my way of thinking regarding the NHS, old school, hands off the NHS, after reading the article, I am more convinced that privatisation is not the answer, privatisation to me is a scapegoat and as Lapsed suggests, there are plenty of minds within the NHS who see the waste and inefficiency, change the mindset, now that could be a way forward :o
Gonnagle.
-
If you look back, you'll see that was pretty much the point I was making. Private companies aren't a panacea, I just wouldn't exclude them on dogmatic grounds.
the problem with any current solution is the appearance of corruption in the Tory Party
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health
-
Only in the short term.
The long term result will be better performing economies all round.
Fingers crossed, the net loss to Britain could be permanent.
-
As I explained above, economics is not a zero sum game. Yes the £5,000 is lost to our economy but it goes into an economy that needs it more and the benefits of the stronger economy flow back to Britain. It's a short term loss for a long term gain.
Why does it necessarily flow back to us an not the other 200 countries.
-
Jakswan effectively stated that the EU ideology is to raise the wealth of all the member states through free trade. Why is it deluded and laughable to ask him why he is against everybody being a bit richer?
I'm not against everyone being richer, tell me do you think Greeks feel richer currently?
-
I'm not against everyone being richer, tell me do you think Greeks feel richer currently?
I think the Greek situation was more due to Greek politicians going on a spending spree as soon as they had the Euro. That's the thing with democracy - you vote in idiots you get problems!
-
Fingers crossed, the net loss to Britain could be permanent.
But very unlikely.
-
Why does it necessarily flow back to us an not the other 200 countries.
It does flow back to other countries too. But that makes them a bit richer and then they buy more stuff off us.
-
I'm not against everyone being richer, tell me do you think Greeks feel richer currently?
Greece is in the position it is because they lied about the state of their economy when they joined the Euro. The Euro is not the EU. The Euro was a colossal mistake, the EU is not.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health
I treat articles in the Guardian telling me how good the NHS is with the same scepticism as articles in the Mail telling me how bad it is.
The truth is there are good bits and bad bits. We need more good bits!
-
Dear Lapsed,
We need more good bits!
Eeerrm!! I am the one on this forum who states the bleedin! obvious, thank you ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
My word you don't half talk a load of bollocks jeremy. . do you ever stop and listen to yourself?
-
My word you don't half talk a load of bollocks jeremy. . do you ever stop and listen to yourself?
He's been taking lessons, Thrud. ;)
-
My word you don't half talk a load of bollocks jeremy. . do you ever stop and listen to yourself?
Try engaging with the topic instead of dishing out insults.
The article you posted contained egregious errors. Why shouldn't I call it out.
-
Greece is in the position it is because they lied about the state of their economy when they joined the Euro. The Euro is not the EU. The Euro was a colossal mistake, the EU is not.
Why was the Euro a mistake, I'm not seeing how why the arguments for the EU don't work for the EURO.
Oh and can you send me all your money, you'll be richer eventually, zero sum game and all that. :)
-
Why was the Euro a mistake, I'm not seeing how why the arguments for the EU don't work for the EURO.
Oh and can you send me all your money, you'll be richer eventually, zero sum game and all that. :)
Jakswan, the component nations in the EU have never had to had to reach a particular threshold economically to be able to join the Union. On the other hand, all the Eurozone nations had to match or pass certain economic requirements to join the EU.
The problem was that when all was said and done, only three European nations matched the requirements - Denmark, Germany and the UK (and only one of those economies were planning to join the club). The parameters had to be changed to allow even France into the club, and in doing so, the other weaker European economies also became eligible to join.
-
Why was the Euro a mistake, I'm not seeing how why the arguments for the EU don't work for the EURO.
The Euro is a currency, the EU is a political and economic organisation. It's ludicrous to suggest that the same arguments would work for both, they are not the same thing.
Oh and can you send me all your money, you'll be richer eventually, zero sum game and all that. :)
If you had no money at all and I had a massive stack of cash, do you think it unreasonable that I should give you some of that cash to get you back on your feet? If not, are you campaigning against paying any tax?
-
He's been taking lessons, Thrud. ;)
From you, evidently.
-
Oh and can you send me all your money, you'll be richer eventually, zero sum game and all that. :)
It isn't a zero sum game - support other countries to develop their economies and you create new markets for your own businesses - they get richer and you get richer too.
-
The Euro is a currency, the EU is a political and economic organisation union. It's ludicrous to suggest that the same arguments would work for both, they are not the same thing.
The EURO is a currency for a group of countries that necessarily share economics and politics.
If you had no money at all and I had a massive stack of cash, do you think it unreasonable that I should give you some of that cash to get you back on your feet? If not, are you campaigning against paying any tax?
Didn't mention having no money, just following your "logic.
-
You do realise that this is the fault of Britain's government. It has nothing to do with the EU.
We're talking about privatisation. Though what you say is right the EU's agenda; or I should say their masters the bankers and financial institutions, are the ones who have pushed for this since Neo-Liberalism 3 decades ago. You don't think government's think of things in isolation do you? There are lobby pressures etc., and trends and fashions from the academic world that get these brainless politicians to do and talk crap.
-
How does it being a monopoly change the argument? Not saying it doesn't change the argument but all we ave from you on it is flat assertions.
??? You ask a question then contradict it!!! And how can a statement of obvious fact be an assertion?
Yes, of course it is true for major industries, glad you agree.
Then you agree with this bit which means you agree with the first bit which you questioned ??? :o
And then you say you glad I agree when my post wasn't even to you ::)
I do wonder how many screws you need tightening to your failing frame.
-
Where is the equivalent of the EU in the Middle East or Africa?
I realised after posting that this was an askant response, but my point was that Western trade policy has been bias to profit itself and has only gone to worsen non-Western countries conditions - hence the blowback of the migrant crisis.
-
What's that got to do with the point? Greece is where it is because of the EU but because its leaders lied to join the Euro. And us applying jealous protectionism to jobs that can be better done in Greece isn't going to help them get out of the mess.
Evidence please!
And who is meant by 'us'? All EU members?
-
Jakswan effectively stated that the EU ideology is to raise the wealth of all the member states through free trade. Why is it deluded and laughable to ask him why he is against everybody being a bit richer?
That's not what you said.
-
Obviously, if those criteria are not met then there is no case, but I fail to see what the long-term problem would be?
Anyone who has had any dealings with the NHS knows that the service does some things very well. but there are vast amounts of waste and inefficiency, and 'monolithic blocks' like the NHS are not good environments for innovation - and there is a revolution going on in medicine right now!
Private firms are wasteful and inefficient for the services they provide but not for themselves as they £cream off more than the top layer.
The NHS at the moment have to put right what some private medical services mess up on. But because of no accountability and loopholes etc. they get away with it.
-
Good question Gonnagle, I'm sure better men than me have tried and failed to provide a good answer. It's one of those 'you wouldn't start from here' kinds of question.
The NHS is too big and bureaucratic. Many people who are doing the work know the answers, but no one listens to them. Personally, I think the whole thing needs breaking down into smaller units, and I wouldn't exclude private companies.
Why's that?
-
It seems to me that there should be less flash office furniture about. Apparently if you artificially have internal markets you need flash offices to impress people.
I'll hazard this. If you cut out having fancy looking furniture and image and insisted that everybody brought their own sandwiches and the perks limited to a cup of tea and a rich tea you could save billions.
All this relates to the endless back offices' consultants and middle managers which are not needed. What we need is to go back to things being run by, or more control allocated to, the frontline staff, ward matrons etc.......
-
If you look back, you'll see that was pretty much the point I was making. Private companies aren't a panacea, I just wouldn't exclude them on dogmatic grounds.
But the Tories are doing that but the opposite. On ideological grounds they are taking us to full privatisation of the NHS; US style, which costs 3 times as much as the NHS per head. Compared to other countries the NHS is pretty cost effective and value for money - yes it needs improvements etc. but not privatisation.
-
It does flow back to other countries too. But that makes them a bit richer and then they buy more stuff off us.
Not if we have no industries because of your (EU) stupid scheme to close them down because of your myopic outlook that, " They make it cheaper, and they won't ever, ever hike up the prices once they get a monopoly on the situation." ::)
-
Greece is in the position it is because they lied about the state of their economy when they joined the Euro. The Euro is not the EU. The Euro was a colossal mistake, the EU is not.
Now I do know you're ill. Come on Jeremy the Euro is a roaring success!!! Come on old boy get that delusional spirit back.
By the way the Greeks didn't lie about the state of their economy Brussels knew exactly what was going on. They effectively got in because of the EU's ideology and for not making the Euro look like a special club for the richer members.
-
Why was the Euro a mistake, I'm not seeing how why the arguments for the EU don't work for the EURO.
Oh and can you send me all your money, you'll be richer eventually, zero sum game and all that. :)
The Euro is the present apotheosis of the EU, so yes they are basically one and the same.
Hey! I want half of JP's wealth. He's probably got some EU fund or pension and backhanders so he'll be rich.
-
The Euro is a currency, the EU is a political and economic organisation. It's ludicrous to suggest that the same arguments would work for both, they are not the same thing.
They are both outlined in the same treaty. They are suppose to go together hand in glove.
If you had no money at all and I had a massive stack of cash, do you think it unreasonable that I should give you some of that cash to get you back on your feet? If not, are you campaigning against paying any tax?
Would that be a loan? You did say give which implies not.
If this is one of the principles of the EU then go tell it to Germany! They didn't give to Greece but laid them up with more debt, debt they can never pay back because they don't have the means to. And only 5% of this loan actually goes to the Greeks the rest does a lap of honour to the banks. Germany showed its true colours; the 4th Reich is blossoming well, and it is the colours of red in tooth and claw; dog eat dog; the true nature of man, of tribal loyalties and adherences to a god of ideology to the nth degree.
I'm afraid, Jeremy, your high ideals and the EU are poles apart.
-
My daughter sent me this one, I hope it makes you smile.
The British Penny
Just in time to consider before the referendum.
The British Penny
European Union Directive No. 456179
In order to bring about further integration with the single European currency, the Euro, all citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must be made aware that the phrase "Spending a Penny" is not to be used after 30 April 2016.
From this date onwards, the correct term will be:"Euronating".
It is hoped that this will be a great-relief to everyone. If you have any questions, just give us a tinkle.
-
With Remain having thrown everything into their campaign and the polls still moving towards Leave its looking hopeful!
-
It will be a sad day for the UK if we do leave the EU, I fear we would live to regret that action.
-
The EURO is a currency for a group of countries that necessarily share economics and politics.
Therein lies the problem with the Euro. The countries that use it do not share politics or economics.
Didn't mention having no money, just following your "logic.
No you weren't, you were constructing a straw man from my logic. However, we do all give money to other people for various reasons, as taxes, as charity, in exchange for goods and services. Except maybe in the case of charity, we do this in the expectation that we will gain something in return.
-
We're talking about privatisation.
Of the NHS.
Though what you say is right the EU's agenda;
That's a lie. It does seem to be on the current UK government's agenda though and they would still be in charge after we leave the EU.
If you think you can save the NHS by leaving the EU, please think again. In fact, the sudden loss of access to staff from Eastern Europe would probably hasten its collapse.
-
??? You ask a question then contradict it!!! And how can a statement of obvious fact be an assertion?
If it's obvious it should be pretty easy for you to explain why.
By the way , I didn't contradict myself, I asked a question and then said that I wasn't assuming a particular answer.
I do wonder how many screws you need tightening to your failing frame.
Always the insults with you. I guess you must be out of your depth.
-
Therein lies the problem with the Euro. The countries that use it do not share politics or economics.
Bingo, therein lies the problem with EU, in your own words "the EU is a political and economic organisation" of countries that "do not share politics or economics".
No you weren't, you were constructing a straw man from my logic. However, we do all give money to other people for various reasons, as taxes, as charity, in exchange for goods and services. Except maybe in the case of charity, we do this in the expectation that we will gain something in return.
I don't think so, you suggested that jobs\money going abroad was great because it makes other countries richer which will allow us eventually to become richer. I don't see, using this principle, why you don't think if you give me all your money why you won't be richer, or is it actually bollocks.
-
It will be a sad day for the UK if we do leave the EU, I fear we would live to regret that action.
Very, very much agree. This morning I was in town. Two people I know spoke to me (people announce their names to me). The subject quickly went to the referendum. I expressed my very strongly held view that we should REMAIN IN[/I and the woman said ,' Oh, I am pleased to hear you say that.' She went on to say that she didn't like to express her views in case she offended, but I think I persuaded her to be more assertive!! I told her about the local meeting next week and I think she will try to be there. The second person, a man who used to chair a local discussion group, was definitely for leaving, but he knew he wouldn't get away with that when I was around! His pet peeve was immigration, but I pointed out that he should look at the wider picture, particularly the lack of world wars started in europe.
(This man is the one who would ask me whenever we passed at the Leisure Centre or in town , i.e. after I had left the group, when I was coming back because I livened things up - in the best possible way of course! :) )
I next went into Boots and asked the girl what she was going to vote and she was for remaining in, so that was good.
Modified to correct the mistake - I shudder to think of the mayhem which would result
from leaving.
-
The subject quickly went to the referendum. I expressed my very strongly held view that we should leave
Well done!
-
Well done!
HORRORS! If I really did leave out the word NOT, .... Anyway I'll modify if I can.
We must STAy IN!!!
-
Bingo, therein lies the problem with EU, in your own words "the EU is a political and economic organisation" of countries that "do not share politics or economics".
I don't think so, you suggested that jobs\money going abroad was great because it makes other countries richer which will allow us eventually to become richer. I don't see, using this principle, why you don't think if you give me all your money why you won't be richer, or is it actually bollocks.
Still misrepresenting what I said, I see.
-
Still misrepresenting what I said, I see.
In what way. You have to stop making unfounded assertions.
-
Migrants coming in usually raise the GDP of the country they migrate to. The U.K. has a skills shortage so need migrants. A larger percentage of the migrants from Eastern Europe have higher education compared to locals here and also migrants fill up low-skilled jobs that locals are unwilling to do, so it's good that they are here IMO. This increases productivity leading to more sales and higher profits, and is also good for the local economy because wages are spent on goods and services.
Migrants will however place an additional burden on infrastructure - schools, health etc.
A lot of them rent privately - lots of them sharing one property, and a lot of them are self-employed and will employ others in their businesses.
Some Poles have rented a house down our road and seem to be running some kind of logistics or transport business from there. The nuisance factor is their big vans take up parking spaces on the road, but on the other hand they are contributing to the economy.
-
Migrants coming in usually raise the GDP of the country they migrate to. The U.K. has a skills shortage so need migrants. A larger percentage of the migrants from Eastern Europe have higher education compared to locals here and also migrants fill up low-skilled jobs that locals are unwilling to do, so it's good that they are here IMO. This increases productivity leading to more sales and higher profits, and is also good for the local economy because wages are spent on goods and services.
Migrants will however place an additional burden on infrastructure - schools, health etc.
A lot of them rent privately - lots of them sharing one property, and a lot of them are self-employed and will employ others in their businesses.
Some Poles have rented a house down our road and seem to be running some kind of logistics or transport business from there. The nuisance factor is their big vans take up parking spaces on the road, but on the other hand they are contributing to the economy.
I totally agree immigration is great for the economy, the issue is with uncontrolled immigration and the discrimination we show towards non-EU immigrants.
Even Jeremy will concede a number (be it 10million, 1million, 100,000) is going to causes problems so no one advocates no control.
-
I agree with you that immigration should not be left totally uncontrolled so I agree with all the checks currently taking place at our borders before people are allowed into the country. I also think there is too much bureaucracy and waste in EU institutions - but given the mess that is the NHS I am not holding my breath that the Brits would be less wasteful and beureaucratic if they came out of the EU.
I think previous governments cocked up in their estimate of how many EU nationals would come over from the A8 countries and settle here and have kids, thereby putting pressure on schools and the health service, but it's done now and leaving the EU isn't going to change the fact that the UK needs young people who are motivated to work hard do the low level or less skilled jobs that Brits don't want to do, because there are no jobs in the A8 countries with an equivalent pay. It frees up Brits to specialise in other higher skilled areas.
And what is so great about these recent migrants is they are better educated than many of the Brits who apply for jobs - I've hired Polish receptionists with degrees from Poland - their English is not as good as local people obviously but their productivity and self-motivation are great. And it's good for business to show diversity in our hiring policy, as we appeal to a wider range of customers.
Also when I speak to parents from the A8 countries they are surprised how little their kids are tested in schools in Britain compared to the weekly school tests back home.
My view is that free movement of labour and goods that comes from being part of the EU is helping our economy. Previously young Brits went to work in Europe in the countries whose economies were doing better than us, and EU nationals who came here helped boost our economy and supplied us with new skills and technology.
I support letting in non-EU nationals as well - as I said there is a skills shortage particularly in the IT and science sectors.
Foreigners living in crowded conditions brings house prices down in the area they move into, which I think is a good thing. I say this as a London homeowner who wants their kids to be able to afford to buy their own homes. Cultural changes - I'm not that bothered about - I think we'll figure it out so long as we become a little more tolerant and don't all become too PC. Migration to better living conditions and better jobs is what humans do, so I'm sure we've learnt the skills to adapt to it over the thousands of years it's been going on - IMO migrants should be forced to learn the language and there should be a policy that schools cannot have more than 40% of any one ethnic group. If that means kids have to travel further to get to school - tough, they're not made of glass, they won't break - it will be character-building and good for integration.
I think our government should invest in affordable housing and more school places rather than come out of the EU - that is what will be most beneficial to Britain.
-
Always the insults with you. I guess you must be out of your depth.
Well, yes, I've always found arguing with delusional, head in the clouds, unrealistic dreams and notions sorts, to put it nicely (we wouldn't want to wake up the Mods would we) beyond my capacities. ;D
-
:) is this a joke-------I think our government should invest in affordable housing and more school places rather than come out of the EU - that is what will be most beneficial to Britain.
How much is an affordable house also you forgot we need more hospitals,more health centres and you never told us what planet you are from.
VOTE LEAVE.
~TW~
-
Well, yes, I've always found arguing with delusional, head in the clouds, unrealistic dreams and notions sorts, to put it nicely (we wouldn't want to wake up the Mods would we) beyond my capacities. ;D
Oh, so you're into arguing with yourself, eh, JK? ;)
-
:) is this a joke-------I think our government should invest in affordable housing and more school places rather than come out of the EU - that is what will be most beneficial to Britain.
How much is an affordable house also you forgot we need more hospitals,more health centres and you never told us what planet you are from.
VOTE LEAVE.
~TW~
Well, ~TW~ the very process of leaving the EU will cost the UK millions, let alone the additional costs that will accrue once we finally leave. The process alone could take between 2 and 10 years, as we untangle ourselves from the agreements, contracts and relationships we are in. How many affordable houses, hospitals, health centres and staff could that money be spent on?
Supporters of the Leave Campaign love to say that we will manage on our own by re-establishing trading agreements with Commonwealth and other nations. That will be easier to say than do; whereas Australia, for instance, had a large trading package with the UK until the mid 1970s, most of what that involved has been redirected to what they regard as their 'domestic' international market - Japan, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, etc. Is it likely that they and other Commonwealth nations who have done the equivalent are going to break those agreements in order to restablish agreements with the UK. I doubt it; they'll retain the existing 'small' agreements, but won't ditch the big ones simply for nothing other than sentimentality.
-
Oh, so you're into arguing with yourself, eh, JK? ;)
He's the only intelligent person I can find around here. ;) ;) ;D
-
Well, ~TW~ the very process of leaving the EU will cost the UK millions, let alone the additional costs that will accrue once we finally leave. The process alone could take between 2 and 10 years, as we untangle ourselves from the agreements, contracts and relationships we are in. How many affordable houses, hospitals, health centres and staff could that money be spent on?
We can solve this by repealing the 1972 EEC act which would negate every treaty we have signed, and then go onto a WTO basis for our trade.
Supporters of the Leave Campaign love to say that we will manage on our own by re-establishing trading agreements with Commonwealth and other nations. That will be easier to say than do; whereas Australia, for instance, had a large trading package with the UK until the mid 1970s, most of what that involved has been redirected to what they regard as their 'domestic' international market - Japan, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, etc. Is it likely that they and other Commonwealth nations who have done the equivalent are going to break those agreements in order to restablish agreements with the UK. I doubt it; they'll retain the existing 'small' agreements, but won't ditch the big ones simply for nothing other than sentimentality.
Once on the WTO basis we can gradually feel our way back into our friends in the commonwealth. No rush required. And then we will be free of the stagnate and dying EU.
-
In what way. You have to stop making unfounded assertions.
You likened my explanation of global economics to a transaction between two individual humans.
-
Well, ~TW~ the very process of leaving the EU will cost the UK millions, let alone the additional costs that will accrue once we finally leave. The process alone could take between 2 and 10 years, as we untangle ourselves from the agreements, contracts and relationships we are in. How many affordable houses, hospitals, health centres and staff could that money be spent on?
Supporters of the Leave Campaign love to say that we will manage on our own by re-establishing trading agreements with Commonwealth and other nations. That will be easier to say than do; whereas Australia, for instance, had a large trading package with the UK until the mid 1970s, most of what that involved has been redirected to what they regard as their 'domestic' international market - Japan, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, etc. Is it likely that they and other Commonwealth nations who have done the equivalent are going to break those agreements in order to restablish agreements with the UK. I doubt it; they'll retain the existing 'small' agreements, but won't ditch the big ones simply for nothing other than sentimentality.
I hope you know more about the referendum then you do the bible.I cant take anything you say seriously.
~TW~
-
You likened my explanation of global economics to a transaction between two individual humans.
You know what an analogy is right?
Oh and you were explaining how the EURO arguments differed from those of the EU.
-
And what is so great about these recent migrants is they are better educated than many of the Brits who apply for jobs - I've hired Polish receptionists with degrees from Poland - their English is not as good as local people obviously but their productivity and self-motivation are great. And it's good for business to show diversity in our hiring policy, as we appeal to a wider range of customers.
Mostly agree but I'm afraid I'm not able to go along with your prejudice here, I take people as I find them.
-
Mostly agree but I'm afraid I'm not able to go along with your prejudice here, I take people as I find them.
And what prejudice would that be, jaks? That people from abroad are often better educated than those Brits who might also apply for the jobs?
-
And what prejudice would that be, jaks? That people from abroad are often better educated than those Brits who might also apply for the jobs?
Yes, swap your statement:-
Brits are better educated than foreigners.
Doesn't pass the sniff test does it.
-
Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozj0qwnMGZ0
~TW~
-
I can't help but think statements like this are seen as simple scaremongering. Though it hasn't reached quite the scale in the Scottish referendum when greater threat of alien invasion was mentioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36243296
-
I can't help but think statements like this are seen as simple scaremongering. Though it hasn't reached quite the scale in the Scottish referendum when greater threat of alien invasion was mentioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36243296
Couldn't agree more NS - the very same thought occurred to me when I saw it on the news this morning. I'd really like to enjoy his discomfiture on this issue, unfortunately it is too serious a matter to fully benefit from it.
-
I can't help but think statements like this are seen as simple scaremongering. Though it hasn't reached quite the scale in the Scottish referendum when greater threat of alien invasion was mentioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36243296
Got a link to that Alien invasion story? I thought it was a spoof.
-
Got a link to that Alien invasion story? I thought it was a spoof.
Speech from Philip Hammond. If you do a search on space you'll see the comment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/why-defence-matters-in-the-scottish-independence-debate
-
Speech from Philip Hammond. If you do a search on space you'll see the comment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/why-defence-matters-in-the-scottish-independence-debate
No mention of aliens though?
-
Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozj0qwnMGZ0
~TW~
Good find, ~TW~ ... Thank you.
If you are on Facebook or Twitter, please share.
-
Good find, ~TW~ ... Thank you.
If you are on Facebook or Twitter, please share.
I have already done it.
~TW~
-
Gabriella: I think our government should invest in affordable housing and more school places rather than come out of the EU - that is what will be most beneficial to Britain.
Quite agree with that. It's very difficult for young people trying to buy their first home in the London area, atm. All the politicians bleat about it but no-one actually does anything so far. Our new mayor, who is a man from a very ordinary background in London and appears to have his ear to the ground, has said the same and we live in hope.
-
No mention of aliens though?
But because of its over the top and imprecise phrasing, a perfectly justifiable interpretation (and no spoof)
-
But because of its over the top and imprecise phrasing, a perfectly justifiable interpretation (and no spoof)
You can't think of any threats that might come space other than aliens?
Tip. ICBM
-
You can't think of any threats that might come space other than aliens?
Tip. ICBM
Which wouldn't fit in with the speech where he is talking about new threats. Tip: ICBMs are not new, nor are they threats from space. And I didn't say it was the only interpretation just that given the language it was a valid one. Tip, reply to what is written not what you want to reply to.
It is the same issue with Cameron's speech yesterday. It's hard to phrase possible threats in this sort of way without creating interpretations, valid by what you say, that make you sound like Chicken Licken crossed with Private Fraser.
-
How about getting back on topic Britain out.The Result.Brownie has it right youngsters cannot afford a home.I bought one in 1962 no EU very nice.
~TW~
-
Which wouldn't fit in with the speech where he is talking about new threats. Tip: ICBMs are not new, nor are they threats from space.
A new power could get ICBM, ohh sorry forgot who I was talking to, I don't mean aliens, I mean a government on earth that previously hasn't threatened the UK with a ICBM capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases
midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight
And I didn't say it was the only interpretation just that given the language it was a valid one. Tip, reply to what is written not what you want to reply to.
Never claimed it was the only interpretation I did question it was valid.
It is the same issue with Cameron's speech yesterday. It's hard to phrase possible threats in this sort of way without creating interpretations, valid by what you say, that make you sound like Chicken Licken crossed with Private Fraser.
Agree, although I don't think the scaremongering was worse for Scottish referendum, the Westminster establishment only seemed to become concerned quite late in the campaign.
-
I have already done it.
~TW~
Good show. Hope others do too.
Something about it reminded me of someone I knew, some years ago. He worked for parliament as an auditor. His job was to check that taxpayers money was spent the way parliament decided it should be spent. In practice it was very often spent outside parliamentary intention. This guy's job was to cover that up by lying to politicians and deceiving the public. His job was literally to lie and undermine democracy... after the ballot box.
After a length of time, he said, he just couldn't stay in the job any longer.
-
A new power could get ICBM, ohh sorry forgot who I was talking to, I don't mean aliens, I mean a government on earth that previously hasn't threatened the UK with a ICBM capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases
Never claimed it was the only interpretation I did question it was valid.
Agree, although I don't think the scaremongering was worse for Scottish referendum, the Westminster establishment only seemed to become concerned quite late in the campaign.
I think any disagreement we have is minor. The interpretation is valid because the speech is not specific and reads as a scare story. I don't know whether there is a time difference on the scare stories between the two referenda and i'm not sure if it makes much difference. But certainly by 2 months out it was frequent.
Have Stay done the 'it would be cataclysmic for the world' one yet?
http://tinyurl.com/mnujsbd
-
:) is this a joke-------I think our government should invest in affordable housing and more school places rather than come out of the EU - that is what will be most beneficial to Britain.
How much is an affordable house also you forgot we need more hospitals,more health centres and you never told us what planet you are from.
VOTE LEAVE.
~TW~
Simple slogans won't cut it as an argument for leaving. You don't say how the benefits of leaving outweigh the benefits of staying in the EU so please explain.
If we look at countries that are not part of the EU such as Norway or Switzerland, but which trade with it, Norway still has to pay into the operational and administrative budgets, based on the relative size of its GDP compared to the total GDP of the EEA (for the operational costs). These payments are part of the treaties allowing them opportunities to trade. Britain's GDP is about 5 or 6 times that of Norway so their payments if they adopt the same status as Norway will be 5 or 6 times more. Norway's payments to fund EU programmes for 2014-21 can be found here:
http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.VzHwovkrLIU
Norway still has to sign up to the free movement of people if they want to trade with the EU, and they have to abide by EU trade regulations and EU decisions, which have to be incorporated into national legislation, but without having the opportunity to influence those decisions by participating in the EU Parliament.
Norway and Switzerland have higher per capita immigration than Britain, so over to you - what are the benefits of leaving?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11190269/If-EU-migration-is-the-problem-Switzerland-and-Norway-are-not-the-answer.html
The Swiss government does not seem to have not got very far in appeasing their population's tolerance of immigration with their economic need for trade with the EU.
On 9 February 2014 a slim majority of the Swiss population (50.3%) voted in favour of amending the constitution to introduce annual quotas on the number of non-Swiss nationals and to give preference to Swiss citizens in the job market. Implementing the results of the vote would not only be incompatible with the Free Movement of People Agreement (FMOP) (part of Bilateral I), but it would also put at risk the country’s entire series of bilateral treaties with the EU under the ‘guillotine clause’ — if one agreement is terminated, the other agreements would cease to apply. Faced with the EU’s firm refusal to renegotiate the free movement agreement, the Swiss Government is facing difficulties in overcoming the political and legal impasse created by the initiative. Consultations to overcome the impasse continue between the Commission and the Swiss authorities.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_6.5.3.html
Do you have any evidence that Britain could do better than the Swiss or is this just an understandable knee-jerk reaction to pressures on under-funded infrastructure? The government scrapped a school building programme in 2010 and I'm not sure what exactly they put in place instead. Studies show birth rates of people already in Britain is a bigger factor in pressure on school places than EU immigration. Not sure how you propose to stop people having more children, so the infrastructure is going to continue to be under pressure and the government will therefore need to invest more in the infrastructure - there is no getting around that.
In terms of housing, as I said my impression is that EU migrants share accommodation - there seem to be lots of them living together in private rented accommodation. But if you post some stats to show otherwise, happy to take a look.
Also. we have an ageing population and more complex and therefore expensive medical treatment, so cost of healthcare is only going to go up. We have a shortage of labour in Britain and a need for people to efficiently and competently perform low-level jobs, both in the NHS and in other areas, and immigration from the EU seems to be plugging the gap. They are willing to come to do these jobs because of Britain's living wage and access to some in-work benefits. So what is your proposal to make sure there is healthcare for all the foreign people who come here to plug the skills gap as well as healthcare for existing British citizens?
-
:) Simple slogans won't cut it as an argument for leaving. You don't say how the benefits of leaving outweigh the benefits of staying in the EU so please explain. ::)
What benefits are you on about,having lived outside of the EU I can see benefits and this kind of democracy may suit you but not me :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozj0qwnMGZ0
~TW~
-
So your only concern is democracy - I thought you had concerns about pressure on infrastructure, but clearly not.
Ok - yes there needs to be more transparency to MEPs during negotiations, otherwise they can't do their jobs properly.
EU national parliaments will have the opportunity to debate and object to the terms of TTIP before the EU Commission can sign-off on it , and there is already a sticking point with national governments refusing to accept the Investor State Dispute Settlement.
But we would be subject to the terms of EU treaties, including TTIP, if we want to trade with the EU, even if we are no longer members of the EU. But if we remain in the EU our representatives have a chance to object to TTIP terms in the European Parliament and also have a chance to reform the EU for greater transparency during treaty negotiations. In the meantime, Wiki Leaks isn't going to go away any time soon, so the EU cannot bypass ordinary people and activists getting to know the details of trade negotiations.
There has been information relating to TTIP released to the British Parliament.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06688
-
So your only concern is democracy - I thought you had concerns about pressure on infrastructure, but clearly not.
Ok - yes there needs to be more transparency to MEPs during negotiations, otherwise they can't do their jobs properly.
EU national parliaments will have the opportunity to debate and object to the terms of TTIP before the EU Commission can sign-off on it , and there is already a sticking point with national governments refusing to accept the Investor State Dispute Settlement.
But we would be subject to the terms of EU treaties, including TTIP, if we want to trade with the EU, even if we are no longer members of the EU. But if we remain in the EU our representatives have a chance to object to TTIP terms in the European Parliament and also have a chance to reform the EU for greater transparency during treaty negotiations. In the meantime, Wiki Leaks isn't going to go away any time soon, so the EU cannot bypass ordinary people and activists getting to know the details of trade negotiations.
There has been information relating to TTIP released to the British Parliament.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06688
No it is not my only concern,a market is fine,why do we need them as a government.We dont.
~TW~
-
So in real terms Britain leaves the EU and signs up to treaties that makes us subject to EU regulations and decisions - how is that more helpful than staying in?
-
So in real terms Britain leaves the EU and signs up to treaties that makes us subject to EU regulations and decisions - how is that more helpful than staying in?
So you think the EU holds the Ace's wrong.
~TW~
-
The European Union is a "force for social injustice" which backs "the haves rather than the have-nots", Iain Duncan Smith has said.
Regardless of whether you are in favour of being in or out I hope you agree that this rank, stinking hypocrisy should come back to haunt this useless, stupid man.
-
Regardless of whether you are in favour of being in or out I hope you agree that this rank, stinking hypocrisy should come back to haunt this useless, stupid man.
Nope, keep blowing the dog whistle though.
-
So you think the EU holds the Ace's wrong.
~TW~
More slogans but no detail and no substance to make an actual argument about how the benefits of leaving outweigh the benefits of staying.
This isn't a card game - negotiation of separate treaties and contracts is a lengthy, expensive and bureaucratic process and the Swiss find that every time the EU passes new legislation they have to then negotiate their own separate treaty relating to that legislation in order to trade. Given the huge sums involved in trade with Europe, no one will be willing to do business without contracts being signed to cover the terms of business and dispute resolution.
And there is the not so small matter of how much slower the process will be if you have to get visas for travel and work. Or are you hoping to exit the EU but maintain the free movement of people because you don't have a problem with the numbers Britain needs to fill its skills gaps or to do the low-skilled jobs that local people aren't willing to do, such as carers in the NHS or private system?
-
Regardless of whether you are in favour of being in or out I hope you agree that this rank, stinking hypocrisy should come back to haunt this useless, stupid man.
It is simply jaw dropping that IDS, one of the most right wing Tories ever to be in a senior position in that party, and the architect of the swinging benefit cuts that have hit those with the very least the very hardest, is somehow trying to come over as champion of the down trodden poor. He is of course one of the ones doing the treading.
And the notion is totally in error anyhow - one of the great successes of the EU is to support the redistribution of wealth from the wealthy, including wealthy regions, and to poorer regions and poorer people.
-
Nope, keep blowing the dog whistle though.
No dog whistle involved here. Look at his record - rather than his supposed Damascene conversion.
-
And the notion is totally in error anyhow - one of the great successes of the EU is to support the redistribution of wealth from the wealthy, including wealthy regions, and to poorer regions and poorer people.
Yeah living in Greece is awesome currently, really enjoying the wealth they are!
-
Yes, swap your statement:-
Brits are better educated than foreigners.
Doesn't pass the sniff test does it.
The statement I made was that recent migrants were better educated than many of the Brits who apply for jobs, and I then went on to specify that this was in relation to my experience in hiring receptionists and that many of the Polish CVs that came in had degrees listed from Polish universities .
Having said that, one of the best receptionists we had was a local person - and I'm not even sure she had A'Levels (I can't remember - they might have been really bad A'Levels) as she was really bad at performing in exams but her membership of a youth politics group caught my eye and she had a really good reference from the school uniform shop she worked in - positive, can-do attitude - and when I interviewed her and she did a Microsoft Office test, she was great so I hired her. Her can-do attitude and common-sense and ability meant she was given lots of new admin responsibilities, varied on-the-job training in various areas outside the scope of her job role, exposure to different software, she started lots of great initiatives, and was closely involved in business strategy.
We were sorry to lose her when she moved on to bigger and better things - she took the training and experience she got at our firm and got a job in Manchester as a PA for more than double the salary - and well done to her - even though I had to go through the headache of recruiting someone else. Small businesses are a really useful training ground.
My point was that our firm seems to get more applications from immigrants with degrees for basic admin jobs who recognise that even if we don't earn the kind of fees that could pay them a great salary, the training and opportunities to take on responsibilities and gain useful experience in admin and using Microsoft Office applications will mean that our job is a stepping-stone to something more lucrative in a bigger company.
I did not say all foreigners are better educated than the Brits.
-
Yeah living in Greece is awesome currently, really enjoying the wealth they are!
They certainly seem to have enjoyed pay rises and increased public sector employment after they joined the EU, which funded increased consumerism in Greece to buy imported goods but also created large public debt. They just forgot to figure out how to balance their books because the EU funding and their own fiscal policy and inefficient tax collection couldn't keep up with the pay rises and expenditure. Plus some of the EU funding obviously had to be shared out later amongst the newer members of the EU that joined after Greece and who needed help with their economies. Maybe the Greek population just objected to the idea of sharing some of the EU wealth with poor countries.
Banks and financial institutions lend money based on many factors - the credit risk of the person borrowing the money is one such factor, especially as not repaying the loan puts the bank and the country's financial system in jeopardy. That's just common sense, which many in the Greek population failed to grasp when they voted in their national elections. They could have chosen to be stricter about tax evasion and to adopt far less stringent austerity measures earlier, stopped the pay rises, reduced the public debt and stopped buying so much foreign consumer junk they didn't really need and couldn't afford. When a government previously did introduce austerity measures in Greece they usually got voted out at the next election.
-
I did not say all foreigners are better educated than the Brits.
I feel asleep and woke up again for this, wasn't replying to you.
-
They certainly seem to have enjoyed pay rises and increased public sector employment after they joined the EU, which funded increased consumerism in Greece to buy imported goods but also created large public debt. They just forgot to figure out how to balance their books because the EU funding and their own fiscal policy and inefficient tax collection couldn't keep up with the pay rises and expenditure. Plus some of the EU funding obviously had to be shared out later amongst the newer members of the EU that joined after Greece and who needed help with their economies. Maybe the Greek population just objected to the idea of sharing some of the EU wealth with poor countries.
Like Iceland who always enjoyed increased wealth during the same period who didn't join the EU, crashed at the same time and recovered much more quickly than Greece.
Banks and financial institutions lend money based on many factors - the credit risk of the person borrowing the money is one such factor, especially as not repaying the loan puts the bank and the country's financial system in jeopardy. That's just common sense, which many in the Greek population failed to grasp when they voted in their national elections. They could have chosen to be stricter about tax evasion and to adopt far less stringent austerity measures earlier, stopped the pay rises, reduced the public debt and stopped buying so much foreign consumer junk they didn't really need and couldn't afford. When a government previously did introduce austerity measures in Greece they usually got voted out at the next election.
Free from the EU Greece could have followed the hard left policies of the party it voted for. I think it would have been a disaster but that is democracy for you.
-
Yeah living in Greece is awesome currently, really enjoying the wealth they are!
And where would the Greek economy and the people of Greece have been without the input into economic develop that the EU have invested since Greece joined in 1981.
Don't forget that prior to joining the EU Greece was an authoritarian dictatorship and in the post EU period through to the crash the Greek economy, supported by the EU was growing at more than 5% per year, significantly more than the UK, or Germany or the USA or Japan etc etc etc - so sure the fall has been tough but it would have been anyhow, but without the levels of growth in the economy through the 1990s the absolute levels of economic prosperity would have been far lower to start with. So in effect, even with the austerity the Greek economy now is much stronger than it would have been had Greece not been in the EU.
-
Like Iceland who always enjoyed increased wealth during the same period who didn't join the EU, crashed at the same time and recovered much more quickly than Greece.
And of course Iceland announcing they they planned to join the EU was a major factor in their recovery - as it permitted a hugely successful bond issue, with investor confidence boosted by the planned safely net of the EU. Without that announcement (sure it was much later revoked) investors wouldn't have touched Iceland with a barge poll given their track record.
-
I feel asleep and woke up again for this, wasn't replying to you.
You were expanding on your reply #1064 where you said I was prejudiced for saying that migrants who applied for a job as a receptionist at our firm were often better educated than the Brits who applied for the job.
You seem to have been sleep-walking your way through most of this discussion with your beliefs about whether it is economically viable to protect the British steel industry or keep British jobs for Brits or your belief that the Greek people didn't enjoy increased wealth after joining the EU and receiving EU funding. Maybe you should stay awake long enough to take into account other people's experiences of how it benefits the economy if good people are hired (migrants and locals) and in the process they can benefit themselves and the business, rather than your limited perspective about protecting British jobs.
Did you actually post any stats in support of your beliefs about how trade after leaving the EU will be a net gain to Britain - were you hoping that the cost of negotiations and lack of access to EU markets until free movement of people had been established were going to be funded by national pride?
And even if goods sold to the EU could be redirected to other markets - the extra cost of transporting goods and services further than nearby Europe to other markets - how were you proposing that British businesses fund that? Would increased transport costs drive up the prices of goods sold to those other markets - would that make British exports competitive?
-
Like Iceland who always enjoyed increased wealth during the same period who didn't join the EU, crashed at the same time and recovered much more quickly than Greece.
Iceland, as an EEA member, still had to allow EU citizens free movement so they could come and work there and Iceland had to make payments into the EU budget. Are you ok with a similar position for Britain?
Also Iceland has a substantial fishing industry, whereas Britain has positioned itself as a financial services centre. Not really comparable since financial services companies want access to the EU financial markets rather than re-negotiate service treaties.
-
Iceland, as an EEA member, still had to allow EU citizens free movement so they could come and work there and Iceland had to make payments into the EU budget. Are you ok with a similar position for Britain?
Also Iceland has a substantial fishing industry, whereas Britain has positioned itself as a financial services centre. Not really comparable since financial services companies want access to the EU financial markets rather than re-negotiate service treaties.
And also, of course, just like Greece Iceland also needed a huge bailout and much of that came from, guess whom, oh yes EU countries. This suggestion that somehow Iceland solved its problems on its own in perfect isolation is nonsense. It was prevented from going bust by:
1. A bail out from the IMF
2. Loans from the EU
3. A successful private bond issue where investor confidence was massively boosted by Iceland have applied to join the EU just prior to that bond issue.
-
You were expanding on your reply #1064 where you said I was prejudiced for saying that migrants who applied for a job as a receptionist at our firm were often better educated than the Brits who applied for the job.
You seem to have been sleep-walking your way through most of this discussion with your beliefs about whether it is economically viable to protect the British steel industry or keep British jobs for Brits or your belief that the Greek people didn't enjoy increased wealth after joining the EU and receiving EU funding. Maybe you should stay awake long enough to take into account other people's experiences of how it benefits the economy if good people are hired (migrants and locals) and in the process they can benefit themselves and the business, rather than your limited perspective about protecting British jobs.
Did you actually post any stats in support of your beliefs about how trade after leaving the EU will be a net gain to Britain - were you hoping that the cost of negotiations and lack of access to EU markets until free movement of people had been established were going to be funded by national pride?
And even if goods sold to the EU could be redirected to other markets - the extra cost of transporting goods and services further than nearby Europe to other markets - how were you proposing that British businesses fund that? Would increased transport costs drive up the prices of goods sold to those other markets - would that make British exports competitive?
I know you like to spam strawmen so I'm not bothering with you.
-
I know you like to spam strawmen so I'm not bothering with you.
No answers then?
-
I guess that means Jakswan is ok with being like Iceland, since he brought it up - so Britain to not be part of the EU but to still allow free movement of EU citizens into the UK, make payments towards the EU budget based on GDP, and abide by EU regulations on trade. My mistake - I thought he wanted to have some kind of quota system like the Swiss are attempting.
Personally, if I have to agree to the above I would rather be part of the decision-making process in Brussels so I could push for reform, less waste and more transparency rather than have no MEPs representing me.
I also want the British government to build more affordable housing, and to tax rental income in a way that will reduce rents. I welcomed the increased Stamp Duty on people/ companies/ spouses/ civil partners (and possibly co-habitees and people who co-purchase properties with their kids and have their name on the deeds) who end up with 2 residential properties. They should now reduce/ end the grants, subsidies and tax breaks given to the big corporations that pay little tax in return while taking advantage of UK infrastructure.
I think the government should fund more school places as quickly as possible - while a higher birth rate is useful to support an ageing population, those being born need an education in order to start their own businesses or be productive employees as well as pay taxes to support the increased health, state pension and other welfare costs of the ageing population.
-
And of course Iceland announcing they they planned to join the EU was a major factor in their recovery - as it permitted a hugely successful bond issue, with investor confidence boosted by the planned safely net of the EU. Without that announcement (sure it was much later revoked) investors wouldn't have touched Iceland with a barge poll given their track record.
It was one of the factors according to Wiki, as I recall they cite three major factors with that being the third.
Point still stands, Greece crashed, Iceland crashed, Iceland recovered, Greece hasn't, Iceland are out of EU.
-
Since NS moaned.
Did you actually post any stats in support of your beliefs about how trade after leaving the EU will be a net gain to Britain - were you hoping that the cost of negotiations and lack of access to EU markets until free movement of people had been established were going to be funded by national pride?
Its my view that trade won't change.
And even if goods sold to the EU could be redirected to other markets - the extra cost of transporting goods and services further than nearby Europe to other markets - how were you proposing that British businesses fund that? Would increased transport costs drive up the prices of goods sold to those other markets - would that make British exports competitive?
Never mentioned moving goods to other markets.
-
I guess that means Jakswan is ok with being like Iceland, since he brought it up - so Britain to not be part of the EU but to still allow free movement of EU citizens into the UK, make payments towards the EU budget based on GDP, and abide by EU regulations on trade. My mistake - I thought he wanted to have some kind of quota system like the Swiss are attempting.
Guessed wrong.
Personally, if I have to agree to the above I would rather be part of the decision-making process in Brussels so I could push for reform, less waste and more transparency rather than have no MEPs representing me.
Vote remain then.
I also want the British government to build more affordable housing, and to tax rental income in a way that will reduce rents. I welcomed the increased Stamp Duty on people/ companies/ spouses/ civil partners (and possibly co-habitees and people who co-purchase properties with their kids and have their name on the deeds) who end up with 2 residential properties. They should now reduce/ end the grants, subsidies and tax breaks given to the big corporations that pay little tax in return while taking advantage of UK infrastructure.
I think the government should fund more school places as quickly as possible - while a higher birth rate is useful to support an ageing population, those being born need an education in order to start their own businesses or be productive employees as well as pay taxes to support the increased health, state pension and other welfare costs of the ageing population.
You forgot to mention apple pie and mother love.
-
And where would the Greek economy and the people of Greece have been without the input into economic develop that the EU have invested since Greece joined in 1981.
Don't forget that prior to joining the EU Greece was an authoritarian dictatorship and in the post EU period through to the crash the Greek economy, supported by the EU was growing at more than 5% per year, significantly more than the UK, or Germany or the USA or Japan etc etc etc - so sure the fall has been tough but it would have been anyhow, but without the levels of growth in the economy through the 1990s the absolute levels of economic prosperity would have been far lower to start with. So in effect, even with the austerity the Greek economy now is much stronger than it would have been had Greece not been in the EU.
So two changes (stable democracy/EU membership) you have concluded one of those changes was responsible for growth of the economy.
-
Its my view that trade won't change.
Because we will be part of the EEA? If not, then based on what and how long are you anticipating that new treaty negotiations will take and what are you anticipating the costs of those negotiations will be? I'm looking at both sides of the argument. Just haven't heard much in the way of evidence for your beliefs. Maybe you can tell me what the Leave campaign's estimates on these are.
EU bail outs of failing banks worries me - I would rather shareholders took the hit rather than tax payers.
-
It was one of the factors according to Wiki, as I recall they cite three major factors with that being the third.
Point still stands, Greece crashed, Iceland crashed, Iceland recovered, Greece hasn't, Iceland are out of EU.
And Iceland are in the EEA. So unless you want Britain to be like Iceland and be in the EEA why use them as an example?
-
You forgot to mention apple pie and mother love.
I am not familiar with those fiscal policies or tax rates - please explain.
Investing in infrastructure is the normal things that governments are expected to do.
-
It was one of the factors according to Wiki, as I recall they cite three major factors with that being the third.
And I mentioned one of the others too - the bail out by the IMF and EU countries. But the point remains that Iceland's decision to apply to join the EU was a major factor in their recovery.
Point still stands, Greece crashed, Iceland crashed, Iceland recovered, Greece hasn't, Iceland are out of EU.
Oh dear - don't understand the difference between causation and association.
Ireland crashed and recovered, yet they are in the EU, likewise the UK. Brazil and Pakistan crashed and have failed to recover yet neither are in the EU. I picked these deliberately as they are a list of the most affected countries by the economic crash.
You cannot simply link the ability to recover to not being a member of the EU as there are far too many examples within and outside the EU that disprove your theory.
-
You cannot simply link the ability to recover to not being a member of the EU as there are far too many examples within and outside the EU that disprove your theory.
What theory, there was a suggestion in the thread that the EU brought economic stability, it doesn't. There was also a suggestion that it increased the wealth of all countries, it hasn't.
-
Because we will be part of the EEA? If not, then based on what and how long are you anticipating that new treaty negotiations will take and what are you anticipating the costs of those negotiations will be? I'm looking at both sides of the argument. Just haven't heard much in the way of evidence for your beliefs. Maybe you can tell me what the Leave campaign's estimates on these are.
I have no idea why German car makers and French farmers would want to impose tariffs, a deal like that of Canada, Turkey, South Korea.
Can I be certain? No, Bremainers can't be certain over what the TTIP will be either, or when/if Turkey and Albania will join.
-
And Iceland are in the EEA. So unless you want Britain to be like Iceland and be in the EEA why use them as an example?
Iceland had a crash as did Greece.
-
I am not familiar with those fiscal policies or tax rates - please explain.
Whoosh.
Investing in infrastructure is the normal things that governments are expected to do.
Has anyone suggested otherwise?
The immigration debate often doesn't happen. Two extremes, people are simply xenophobic and the opposite, anyone who disagrees with them is called xenophobic.
I think immigration is a good thing just that it needs to be controlled. If 300,000 people are coming into the country and all of them are Doctors, and not bricklayers then we're all going to suffer, because we don't have the skills needed to build the extra houses, hospitals, etc that we need.
If 300,000 people are coming and we're not building enough houses then prices will rise, i.e. the housing crisis we have in this country today.
-
Isn't the market, capitalism, supposed to control these situations. Why would 300000 doctors decide to move here unless offered some ludicrous, can't refuse, contract?
In fact over the last few years, haven't the immigrants from the rest of the EU, been the people we have needed? Mainly builders, plumbers doctors etc.
-
I have no idea why German car makers and French farmers would want to impose tariffs, a deal like that of Canada, Turkey, South Korea.
Can I be certain? No, Bremainers can't be certain over what the TTIP will be either, or when/if Turkey and Albania will join.
TTIP will affect us if we want to trade with the EU, whether we are part of the EU or not. At least as part of the EU we can object to the terms of TTIP and have a say in the decision-making.
I think the issue with hoping to have a deal like Canada is that due to geography the EU is not a significant market for Canada, as most of its trade is with the US - so during negotiations Canada could walk away from the deal if they didn't like it. Also, under the terms of the deal, there is the potential conflict if the EU disputes the origin of products exported from Canada e.g if some parts of the product are made in other countries such as China and refuses to allow them the same favourable terms as Canadian origin products.
Also, Canada's trading deal took years to negotiate and doesn't have the kind of access to the EU market in the financial services industry that Britain would need if Britain is to continue generating a large proportion of its GDP from its Financial Services sector.
Which also differentiates Britain from Turkey or S. Korea - their deals do not cover financial services. And Turkey currently has restrictions on its trade caused by EU road transport quotas and transit permits. Turkey also has to align itself with EU legislation covering the areas it trades in but had no say in the decision-making process as it was not an EU member, It also has very limited avenues to settle disputes with the EU, e.g. if the EU changes a regulation unilaterally and expects Turkey to comply.
Apart from negotiating a new trade deal with the EU, Britain will need to negotiate separate trade deals to replace the trade deals other countries have with the EU that Britain is allowed to participate in as a member of the EU. From what I read there are over 50 of these deals and Britain will be negotiating as a country of 65 million people, and therefore it seems unlikely that we will get the same terms as the EU did with its population of 500 million. These negotiations will take years and cost money.
And in the meantime, will Britain continue to contribute to the EU budget and if it doesn't are you expecting there not to be repercussions when it comes to negotiations?
I agree that Turkey and Albania are a worry but given the financial disadvantages of leaving I would rather deal with the consequences of Turks and Albanians by investing in our infrastructure.
Health services are screwed either way - the NHS is bad at collecting the money it can claim back from foreign users and writes off a significant proportion. Migrants account for about 10% of the cost of the NHS. We are an ageing population (old people with multiple health issues combined with increasing frailty whereby treatment of one issue adversely impacts on another health issue) and are dealing with the health consequences of obesity on top - so whether we stay or leave I am expecting people to have lack of access to health care and long waiting lists because of lack of resources for more and more expensive R&D and health treatments on the NHS. Hopefully migrants will continue helping to pay for welfare and health services and physically do the work in taking care of the sick, rather than becoming obese and incapacitated due to health issues themselves.
-
Iceland had a crash as did Greece.
Ok. Are you saying Iceland would have recovered fine without being part of the EEA or receiving an EU bail out?
-
Has anyone suggested otherwise?
The immigration debate often doesn't happen. Two extremes, people are simply xenophobic and the opposite, anyone who disagrees with them is called xenophobic.
I think immigration is a good thing just that it needs to be controlled. If 300,000 people are coming into the country and all of them are Doctors, and not bricklayers then we're all going to suffer, because we don't have the skills needed to build the extra houses, hospitals, etc that we need.
If 300,000 people are coming and we're not building enough houses then prices will rise, i.e. the housing crisis we have in this country today.
I am not interested in calling anyone xenophobic. I am looking at this from an economic perspective of leaving the EU versus staying. Staying is far from perfect - it's going to be very tough - but I can't see a credible economic argument for leaving.
I think house prices rise mainly because of lack of supply due to planning regulations and people investing in residential properties as buy-to-lets. According to a study by the LSE the majority of people who invest in residential property are more interested in capital gains than in rental income.
-
TTIP will affect us if we want to trade with the EU, whether we are part of the EU or not. At least as part of the EU we can object to the terms of TTIP and have a say in the decision-making.
If we are not in the EU then we won't be in TTIP.
I think the issue with hoping to have a deal like Canada is that due to geography the EU is not a significant market for Canada, as most of its trade is with the US - so during negotiations Canada could walk away from the deal if they didn't like it. Also, under the terms of the deal, there is the potential conflict if the EU disputes the origin of products exported from Canada e.g if some parts of the product are made in other countries such as China and refuses to allow them the same favourable terms as Canadian origin products.
Also, Canada's trading deal took years to negotiate and doesn't have the kind of access to the EU market in the financial services industry that Britain would need if Britain is to continue generating a large proportion of its GDP from its Financial Services sector.
Which also differentiates Britain from Turkey or S. Korea - their deals do not cover financial services. And Turkey currently has restrictions on its trade caused by EU road transport quotas and transit permits. Turkey also has to align itself with EU legislation covering the areas it trades in but had no say in the decision-making process as it was not an EU member, It also has very limited avenues to settle disputes with the EU, e.g. if the EU changes a regulation unilaterally and expects Turkey to comply.
I'm hoping for a free trade deal pretty much what we have now without freedom of movement and political union, this will be in everyone's interests. It will be bespoke British -EU deal.
Apart from negotiating a new trade deal with the EU, Britain will need to negotiate separate trade deals to replace the trade deals other countries have with the EU that Britain is allowed to participate in as a member of the EU. From what I read there are over 50 of these deals and Britain will be negotiating as a country of 65 million people, and therefore it seems unlikely that we will get the same terms as the EU did with its population of 500 million. These negotiations will take years and cost money.
Trade deals are not done on e the basis of size, it depends what is right for countries negotiating them. These deals can be done quicker when you don't need to get 28 countries to agree.
And in the meantime, will Britain continue to contribute to the EU budget and if it doesn't are you expecting there not to be repercussions when it comes to negotiations?
We'll set out our terms and negotiate.
I agree that Turkey and Albania are a worry but given the financial disadvantages of leaving I would rather deal with the consequences of Turks and Albanians by investing in our infrastructure.
Your not going to be able to control that so building infrastructure for an unknown population is going to cost since you will inevitably build too much or too little.
Health services are screwed either way - the NHS is bad at collecting the money it can claim back from foreign users and writes off a significant proportion. Migrants account for about 10% of the cost of the NHS. We are an ageing population (old people with multiple health issues combined with increasing frailty whereby treatment of one issue adversely impacts on another health issue) and are dealing with the health consequences of obesity on top - so whether we stay or leave I am expecting people to have lack of access to health care and long waiting lists because of lack of resources for more and more expensive R&D and health treatments on the NHS.
The cost of the NHS is dependant upon the population it serves, everyone eventually gets sick and dies. Its funded by the working population.
Hopefully migrants will continue helping to pay for welfare and health services and physically do the work in taking care of the sick, rather than becoming obese and incapacitated due to health issues themselves.
Broadly agree, if we have uncontrolled immigration yes fingers crossed it might work out, controlled immigration though we can be a bit more certain.
-
If we are not in the EU then we won't be in TTIP.
But any agreement that we make with the USA is likely to be pretty well identical - why would they negotiate something with a bunch of european countries and then go for something completely different with the UK. There is a caveat - negotiations between the EU and the USA are broadly negotiations between equals, negotiations between the USA and the UK on their own won't be between equals at all, so the likelihood that we would get anything like as favourable treatment as the EU isn't going to happen. So we would get our own bespoke TTIP - like the current TTIP but less favourable for the UK.
Yup that would be a great deal - not.
-
But any agreement that we make with the USA is likely to be pretty well identical - why would they negotiate something with a bunch of european countries and then go for something completely different with the UK. There is a caveat - negotiations between the EU and the USA are broadly negotiations between equals, negotiations between the USA and the UK on their own won't be between equals at all, so the likelihood that we would get anything like as favourable treatment as the EU isn't going to happen. So we would get our own bespoke TTIP - like the current TTIP but less favourable for the UK.
You have yet to demonstrate why negotiations between a large party and a smaller one mean the larger party dictates the terms. The deal between the UK - US will be a deal suited to US - UK, not one where we have to compromise to accommodate 27 other countries whose economies differ greatly from our own.
-
If we are not in the EU then we won't be in TTIP.
If we are in the EEA we will have to apply TTIP.
If you are hoping to not be in the EEA, what makes you think that Cameron who is a huge supporter of TTIP, won't sign us up for something equivalent to TTIP?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no-we-cant-protect-ourselves-from-ttip-by-leaving-europe-heres-why-a6853876.html
I'm hoping for a free trade deal pretty much what we have now without freedom of movement and political union, this will be in everyone's interests. It will be bespoke British -EU deal.
Why would the EU give Britain the same deal they have now without freedom of movement - what's in it for the EU?
Trade deals are not done on e the basis of size, it depends what is right for countries negotiating them. These deals can be done quicker when you don't need to get 28 countries to agree.
We'll set out our terms and negotiate.
In the real world a big consumer has an advantage over a smaller consumer in negotiating with suppliers. Larger volumes allow for lower margins. Loss of business from a large consumer has a much bigger financial impact than loss of business from a smaller consumer.
Could you give me some idea of how long it took Canada / Turkey/ S. Korea to agree their deals with the EU? Does quicker mean 1 year, 2 years, 5 years?
How much did negotiations cost these countries? Even as a small business I know there is considerable time and cost spent on negotiations for relatively large deals.
Your not going to be able to control that so building infrastructure for an unknown population is going to cost since you will inevitably build too much or too little.
The cost of the NHS is dependant upon the population it serves, everyone eventually gets sick and dies. Its funded by the working population.
It appears the longer people live, the greater the cost to the State as the older they are the frailer they get and the more their body breaks down and needs medical intervention or social care. An ageing population also needs a state pension. Yes these are funded by workers and one of the reason migrants are accepted into the UK is because current levels of workers were not enough to fund the rising welfare costs or fill the staffing shortages.
Broadly agree, if we have uncontrolled immigration yes fingers crossed it might work out, controlled immigration though we can be a bit more certain.
The Labour government cocked up when they did not use the transitional controls available to them for migrant workers when Poland etc joined. The current government claims it has learnt from this mistake - it applied transitional controls such as work permits and quotas to workers from Romania and Bulgaria and states that as a member of the EU it will veto Albania and Turkish entry to the EU if these countries do not put measures in place to meet certain benchmarks. Obviously if Britain leaves the EU they can't veto anything. They anticipate that Turkey won't be in a position to comply for years. The French government will have a referendum before allowing Turkey to join - about 75% of the French population are against Turkey joining. There is also significant opposition to Turkey in Germany and Austria.
Also the UK government has said it will restrict free movement of people and transitional controls will not be lifted for new countries joining the EU until their GDP per capita, employment rate and income distribution is close to the EU’s averages.
The British government could carry out more thorough checks on whether EU citizens wanting to move to the UK can support themselves and not be a burden on the State. They would have to perform checks anyway if Britain leaves as there is a need for EU migrants in Britain.
The government has also negotiated stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back.
I am looking at the cost of migrants versus the cost of Brexit and not being part of the EEA. Maybe some/ many British citizens would prefer to suffer the economic fall-out and the reduction in ability to fund welfare services from economic activity and especially from the Financial Services industry during the negotiation period rather than put up with the strain on infrastructure of free movement of people.
I am not really sure how you slow down human migration without considerable violence. Many countries tried to stop Britain colonising them and did not get very far. After a while though colonising countries found it was less costly to give colonies their independence and then economically pressure those smaller economies to accept trade deals that were favourable to the bigger economy rather than maintain a military colonising force and pay the adminisnistrative costs of running colonies.
Each person has to decide which of the various discomforts they are willing to tolerate - it's an emotional cost rather than an exact science. Whatever choice is made - stay or leave - it will involve considerable financial discomfort to the British population.
-
You have yet to demonstrate why negotiations between a large party and a smaller one mean the larger party dictates the terms.
Why would I need to demonstrate this as it is self evident - a deal between the USA and the UK is more critical to the UK as UK/USA trade represents a much greater proportion of the UK economy than that of the USA. Therefore the USA have much greater bargaining power as they have the economic weight and also a much greater ability to shrug their shoulders and walk away if they don't like it as it is less significant. That's why the direction of travel globally in terms of trade deals is to bring together trade blocks of sufficient size and power to negotiate as equals with the EU, China, USA etc. Everyone else gets it yet the Brexiters are running backwards to the 1950s at speed.
The deal between the UK - US will be a deal suited to US - UK, not one where we have to compromise to accommodate 27 other countries whose economies differ greatly from our own.
It will be a deal between unequal partners in terms of economic and political clout that will be tipped in favour of what is in the interests of the USA rather than what it in the interests of the UK. Negotiating as the EU places the negotiations as one between equal economic partners.
-
Why would I need to demonstrate this as it is self evident - a deal between the USA and the UK is more critical to the UK as UK/USA trade represents a much greater proportion of the UK economy than that of the USA. Therefore the USA have much greater bargaining power as they have the economic weight and also a much greater ability to shrug their shoulders and walk away if they don't like it as it is less significant.
Its entirely not self-evident, I'm currently negotiating a contract from a company, my company turns over £35m a year, theirs turns over £2m, do you think I dictate the price, its a negotiation.
Trade between the US - UK is at similar levels, the same number of US jobs will be impacted as UK jobs.
That's why the direction of travel globally in terms of trade deals is to bring together trade blocks of sufficient size and power to negotiate as equals with the EU, China, USA etc. Everyone else gets it yet the Brexiters are running backwards to the 1950s at speed.
Since you don't seem to understand the basics of business I think yuur conclusion is flawed.
It will be a deal between unequal partners in terms of economic and political clout that will be tipped in favour of what is in the interests of the USA rather than what it in the interests of the UK. Negotiating as the EU places the negotiations as one between equal economic partners.
As I stated a US-UK deal can be negotiated faster without worrying about the concerns of 27 other countries, not least because it need not make any concessions because French film makers are worried or hundreds of other industries that are not relevant to the UK.
-
Trade between the US - UK is at similar levels, the same number of US jobs will be impacted as UK jobs.
Rubbish - approximately 11% of our trade is with the USA, approximately 2.5% of the USA's trade is with us.
As ever you really have no idea what you are talking about.
A hit on 11% of our trade is of course much, much more significant (indeed 4 times more significant) than a hit on just 2.5% of our trade. A deal with the USA is much more important for the UK than a deal with the UK is for the USA. And that places them in a much stronger negotiating position as it is much easier for them to adopt a 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose' attitude.
-
Rubbish - approximately 11% of our trade is with the USA, approximately 2.5% of the USA's trade is with us.
As ever you really have no idea what you are talking about.
A hit on 11% of our trade is of course much, much more significant (indeed 4 times more significant) than a hit on just 2.5% of our trade. A deal with the USA is much more important for the UK than a deal with the UK is for the USA. And that places them in a much stronger negotiating position as it is much easier for them to adopt a 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose' attitude.
This is all bullshit we are not declaring war on any body just taking back how we conduct our own business.
~TW~
-
Rubbish - approximately 11% of our trade is with the USA, approximately 2.5% of the USA's trade is with us.
As ever you really have no idea what you are talking about.
The populations of the US and UK are not the same, try to concentrate before posting dismissive drivel. What do you mean as ever I have no idea what I'm talking about, please have some dignity you undermine yourself greatly posting in this way.
A hit on 11% of our trade is of course much, much more significant (indeed 4 times more significant) than a hit on just 2.5% of our trade. A deal with the USA is much more important for the UK than a deal with the UK is for the USA. And that places them in a much stronger negotiating position as it is much easier for them to adopt a 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose' attitude.
Dear me it just doesn't work like that, in my example I want the services of this £2m a year company, I have to negotiate, just because I work for a bigger company I don't dictate terms and say 'take it or leave it'.
Having a free trade agreement is a risk - reward, the smaller the economy you work with the lower the risk. Do you think removing import duty on German cars for the US could potentially a big negative effect on their economy, doing that for Australia has little effect.
-
Its entirely not self-evident, I'm currently negotiating a contract from a company, my company turns over £35m a year, theirs turns over £2m, do you think I dictate the price, its a negotiation.
Everything is a negotiation, even when you have a gun to your head you can still be in a negotiation, so the term negotiation is meaningless.
Your turnover is not relevant, only the budget you have been given by your bosses to negotiate with, which is the price you won't go over. Your job is to get quotes from different companies and find the most competitive price for the service you require. If the £2m turnover company is buying and you are selling, again their budget determines the max price they are willing to pay.
The £2m turnover business will have profit margins. If your business is going to double the turnover of the £2m company they will be prepared to give more concessions to secure your business. If your business will only represent a small proportion of their turnover you won't be as important to them so they won't be prepared to give as much away to get your business. The price and service levels offered by competitors is a big factor in negotiations, as is how crucial your business is to meet their overheads or recoup their costs in developing their product or service. If they have a USP you really need they are in a stronger negotiating position than if they don't.
Trade between the US - UK is at similar levels, the same number of US jobs will be impacted as UK jobs.
If Britain is out of the EU and has a drop in GDP while waiting for the outcome of negotiations with the EU, does that put it in a weaker or stronger negotiating position with respect to the US than when Britain is in the EU?
Also, I don't think your negotiating skills are representative of the skills of US trade negotiators.
As I stated a US-UK deal can be negotiated faster without worrying about the concerns of 27 other countries, not least because it need not make any concessions because French film makers are worried or hundreds of other industries that are not relevant to the UK.
Faster? Still very vague - how many years faster are you expecting the negotiations to take?
-
Everything is a negotiation, even when you have a gun to your head you can still be in a negotiation, so the term negotiation is meaningless.
Your turnover is not relevant, only the budget you have been given by your bosses to negotiate with, which is the price you won't go over. Your job is to get quotes from different companies and find the most competitive price for the service you require. If the £2m turnover company is buying and you are selling, again their budget determines the max price they are willing to pay.
The £2m turnover business will have profit margins. If your business is going to double the turnover of the £2m company they will be prepared to give more concessions to secure your business. If your business will only represent a small proportion of their turnover you won't be as important to them so they won't be prepared to give as much away to get your business. The price and service levels offered by competitors is a big factor in negotiations, as is how crucial your business is to meet their overheads or recoup their costs in developing their product or service. If they have a USP you really need they are in a stronger negotiating position than if they don't.
Yup you get it - bizarre that Jakswan doesn't - or rather I suspect he does but refuses to admit it as it undermines his case for leave (not that there really is a case anyhow).
If Britain is out of the EU and has a drop in GDP while waiting for the outcome of negotiations with the EU, does that put it in a weaker or stronger negotiating position with respect to the US than when Britain is in the EU?
Weaken, obviously.
Also, I don't think your negotiating skills are representative of the skills of US trade negotiators.
Indeed, no doubt the US trade negotiators are very experienced and skilled and will firstly be prioritising their efforts towards developing deals with their most important trading partners - in other words those that they do the bulk of their trade with and/or with the greatest potential to grow. The UK doesn't really fit in either category, so they'll be prioritising the EU, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan etc prior to considering the UK. Obama made that very clear in hi 'back of the queue' comment. And once they get around to the UK they'll be looking to get the very best deal for the US, knowing they are negotiating from a position of great strength as the much larger economy for whom deal or no deal isn't such a major issue. And of course having already negotiated TTIP with the UK (as part of the EU), that's what they will offer.
Faster? Still very vague - how many years faster are you expecting the negotiations to take?
I'd be prepared to bet (were I a betting man) that the UK will get a deal with the US faster if it remains in the EU - and I'd be very confident that any bilateral US/UK deal that eventually gets sorted will be no better, and probably worse for the UK than the TTIP that is already on offer. Actually I think the only way that the UK will get a reasonably rapid deal with the US is by signing up to the TTIP.
-
As I stated a US-UK deal can be negotiated faster without worrying about the concerns of 27 other countries, not least because it need not make any concessions because French film makers are worried or hundreds of other industries that are not relevant to the UK.
So you accept that trade negotiations with the EU are slow and difficult as the EU can drive a very hard bargain as they have the trump card that any one of 28 countries can veto.
Yet elsewhere you seem to think that were the UK to leave the EU they'd sort out a trade deal with the remaining 27 quickly and easily. By your own admission, just as with the US, any trade negotiations between a Brexit UK and the EU will be long and difficult.
And of course a deal with the US (11% of our trade) is a distraction, a side show not least because we don't have one now so not getting a deal merely retains the status quo. What the UK will need or we will be sunk is a deal with the EU that represents touching half of our trade and where we currently have the best trade deal possible. And you seem to be accepting now that it will be protracted and difficult, just as the EU/US negotiations have been.
Actually the reality is that all trade negotiations are protracted and difficult which is one of the reasons that increasingly these aren't bilateral, but between larger trading blocks as you gat more bangs for your protracted and difficult negotiating bucks.
-
Yup you get it - bizarre that Jakswan doesn't - or rather I suspect he does but refuses to admit it as it undermines his case for leave (not that there really is a case anyhow).
I don't understand the Brexit case. Brexit supporters seem to want to experiment with our economy while negotiators finalise some sort of trade deals over the next few years despite the evidence that banding together gives more economic power than going it alone against other big economies. That's why people form groups to put pressure on corporations.
All I keep hearing from Brexiters are vague slogans about migrants from people who don't actually have to deliver trade deals to the country.
I doubt Boris even believes in Brexit but is just exploiting it as a political opportunity to get popular support - he can make up all kinds of slogans and dreams to feed into popular sentiment about economic migration without coming up with any specific economic facts, figures or details himself because there is so much that is unknown - the slogan on the side of his bus claims Britain can save their gross payment to the EU and spend that gross amount on the NHS, whereas we get some of that gross figure back in payments from the EU and we don't know how much the British economy could afford to pay towards the NHS once we leave.
If Brexit does happen, at least my family has private medical insurance though premiums will increase, my mortgage and personal expenditure is not that much so I can weather interest rate rises, and my business costs are not huge because we own our office so the main expense going out of the pot is salaries.
If clients' businesses shrink in 2 years time because they lose access for a while to EU markets or don't get as favourable terms to do business as they did while part of the EU, which means their costs go up, it means that we probably won't grow, which means no money for pay rises for UK staff.
-
Everything is a negotiation, even when you have a gun to your head you can still be in a negotiation, so the term negotiation is meaningless.
I don't understand what that means, sadsadsadasdafega is meaningless.
Your turnover is not relevant,
Bingo, well done exactly what I've been saying.
only the budget you have been given by your bosses to negotiate with, which is the price you won't go over.
Nope since you have no idea what my job is it makes you look a little stupid telling me what it is.
Your job is to get quotes from different companies and find the most competitive price for the service you require.
No again, its a service I think we need, some directors don't think we need it and others do, I have to make a business case. This particular service is c. £12k a year, I'm responsible for a £3.5 million budget so price isn't the big issue, the real barrier to doing the deal is internal company politics.
I don't know why we need to go into such boring detail about my job. The bottom line is I don't set the terms because my company is bigger.
If the £2m turnover company is buying and you are selling, again their budget determines the max price they are willing to pay.
Their selling I'm buying.
The £2m turnover business will have profit margins. If your business is going to double the turnover of the £2m company they will be prepared to give more concessions to secure your business. If your business will only represent a small proportion of their turnover you won't be as important to them so they won't be prepared to give as much away to get your business. The price and service levels offered by competitors is a big factor in negotiations, as is how crucial your business is to meet their overheads or recoup their costs in developing their product or service. If they have a USP you really need they are in a stronger negotiating position than if they don't.
I don't know how stating the obvious impacts on any point you are trying to make.
If Britain is out of the EU and has a drop in GDP while waiting for the outcome of negotiations with the EU, does that put it in a weaker or stronger negotiating position with respect to the US than when Britain is in the EU?
Well first its big IF. Hypothetically - one of the biggest allies of the US in the world is seeing a drop in GDP what do you think?
I'm not sure actually but then I don't this simplistic view where the US would say 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose'.
Also, I don't think your negotiating skills are representative of the skills of US trade negotiators.
Where did I ever claim such a thing.
Faster? Still very vague - how many years faster are you expecting the negotiations to take?
You don't accept that EU trade deals take longer because it involves the agreement of 28 countries?
-
Yup you get it - bizarre that Jakswan doesn't - or rather I suspect he does but refuses to admit it as it undermines his case for leave (not that there really is a case anyhow).
Weaken, obviously.
Well since Gabriella seemed to support my position where the bigger party didn't necessarily dictate terms, I suggest you don't get it.
You really think there is no case for Brexit? I get that we disagree but I accept you have a case for staying, you are starting to sound like Sass or TW.
Indeed, no doubt the US trade negotiators are very experienced and skilled and will firstly be prioritising their efforts towards developing deals with their most important trading partners - in other words those that they do the bulk of their trade with and/or with the greatest potential to grow. The UK doesn't really fit in either category, so they'll be prioritising the EU, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan etc prior to considering the UK.
Obama made that very clear in hi 'back of the queue' comment. And once they get around to the UK they'll be looking to get the very best deal for the US, knowing they are negotiating from a position of great strength as the much larger economy for whom deal or no deal isn't such a major issue. And of course having already negotiated TTIP with the UK (as part of the EU), that's what they will offer.
Yes Obama said 'back of the queue' but since all those deals are already done there is no queue, so you've made a moot point.
I'd be prepared to bet (were I a betting man) that the UK will get a deal with the US faster if it remains in the EU - and I'd be very confident that any bilateral US/UK deal that eventually gets sorted will be no better, and probably worse for the UK than the TTIP that is already on offer. Actually I think the only way that the UK will get a reasonably rapid deal with the US is by signing up to the TTIP.
Since your analysis includes statements like 'take it or leave it, no skin off our nose' I'll not be taking betting advice from you. :)
-
Bingo, well done exactly what I've been saying.
Great so you agree with Prof D and me that if UK trade with the US is a big proportion of the U.K. economy but for the US, their trade with the U.K makes up a smaller proportion of their economy, then the US has a stronger negotiating position than the UK.
Prof D wrote about proportions in his response to you when you spoke about absolute size. Glad we're all on the same page.
Nope since you have no idea what my job is it makes you look a little stupid telling me what it is.
No it doesn't but if it helps you feel better to use the word stupid in your response , you go ahead and use it as much as you like :)
No again, its a service I think we need, some directors don't think we need it and others do, I have to make a business case. This particular service is c. £12k a year, I'm responsible for a £3.5 million budget so price isn't the big issue, the real barrier to doing the deal is internal company politics.
£12k per year is peanuts to you and the other company. I doubt your payment will even fall into their 80/20 rule whereby you would be their ideal client worth spending too much time on. Your approach to negotiations about £12k are in no way relevant to trade deals between the US and UK.
I don't know why we need to go into such boring detail about my job. The bottom line is I don't set the terms because my company is bigger.
Yes, as we all agreed all deals are a negotiation not a polite tea party, and it's the proportion of turnover that your company contributes that determines negotiating power.
Well first its big IF. Hypothetically - one of the biggest allies of the US in the world is seeing a drop in GDP what do you think?
More vague slogans. A recession is not determined by how pally we are with the US.
You don't accept that EU trade deals take longer because it involves the agreement of 28 countries?
Why don't you first answer my question. How many years do you estimate that it will itake to negotiate a trade deal with the US post Britain leaving the EU?
-
So you accept that trade negotiations with the EU are slow and difficult as the EU can drive a very hard bargain as they have the trump card that any one of 28 countries can veto.
Blimey, so you think the longer it takes the better it is. Lets take a business analogy:-
ProfD Plc - retailer turn over £1b a year, overly bureaucratic a decision has to go through 28 tiers of management. Has a mantra that negotiations with suppliers should be 'slow and difficult' in order to drive a hard bargain.
Jakswan PLC - smaller but still sizeable, able to make decisions quickly.
ABC Ltd - Much smaller company just invented a new product, a miracle slimming pill that works with no side effects.
ProfD doesn't stock the slimming pill for two years because it wants to dictate the terms being so big and stuff so says to ABC ''take it or leave it, no skin off our nose", meanwhile Jakswan PLC having stocked the product and worked in partnership with ABC have gone from strength to strength.
Are you a Director of BHS Prof? Would make sense!
Trade deals are a risk they can be mutually beneficial its in the interests of all parties to conclude them as quickly as possible.
Yet elsewhere you seem to think that were the UK to leave the EU they'd sort out a trade deal with the remaining 27 quickly and easily. By your own admission, just as with the US, any trade negotiations between a Brexit UK and the EU will be long and difficult.
A change is a risk, keeping the trade as it is now is zero risk, its in the UK's and EU's interests to keep trade as it is now.
And of course a deal with the US (11% of our trade) is a distraction, a side show not least because we don't have one now so not getting a deal merely retains the status quo. What the UK will need or we will be sunk is a deal with the EU that represents touching half of our trade and where we currently have the best trade deal possible. And you seem to be accepting now that it will be protracted and difficult, just as the EU/US negotiations have been.
No, see above.
Actually the reality is that all trade negotiations are protracted and difficult which is one of the reasons that increasingly these aren't bilateral, but between larger trading blocks as you gat more bangs for your protracted and difficult negotiating bucks.
Depends, if you are a small country then it makes sense to get into a block, if you are the 5th largest economy in the world you should be able to cope.
-
Great so you agree with Prof D and me that if UK trade with the US is a big proportion of the U.K. economy but for the US, their trade with the U.K makes up a smaller proportion of their economy, then the US has a stronger negotiating position than the UK.
Prof D wrote about proportions in his response to you when you spoke about absolute size. Glad we're all on the same page.
ProfD seemed to be taking a position that the bigger party dictates terms, you are saying something else, it might be sensible to understand a position Prof is taking before defending it.
No it doesn't but if it helps you feel better to use the word stupid in your response , you go ahead and use it as much as you like :)
Thanks stupid! :)
£12k per year is peanuts to you and the other company. I doubt your payment will even fall into their 80/20 rule whereby you would be their ideal client worth spending too much time on. Your approach to negotiations about £12k are in no way relevant to trade deals between the US and UK.
You wanted to tell me about my job and I was trying to enlighten you, £12k isn't peanuts if you worked for me and made a statement like that I'd issue you a P45.
Yes, as we all agreed all deals are a negotiation not a polite tea party, and it's the proportion of turnover that your company contributes that determines negotiating power.
No its not as simple as that, if you like as an employee my company represents a 100% of my turnover, they do not dictate terms they are negotiated.
More vague slogans. A recession is not determined by how pally we are with the US.
What vague slogans? Are you just typing random words? You asked me a question I said I wasn't sure and asked you the same question.
Why don't you first answer my question. How many years do you estimate that it will itake to negotiate a trade deal with the US post Britain leaving the EU?
No idea the answer to your question and don't see how its relevant to the point being made, which was trade deals with the EU take longer than the otherwise would because it involves the agreement of 28 countries. If you can't refute the point then you will have to concede it, obfuscation only works for so long. :)
-
ProfD Plc - retailer turn over £1b a year, overly bureaucratic a decision has to go through 28 tiers of management. Has a mantra that negotiations with suppliers should be 'slow and difficult' in order to drive a hard bargain.
But we already have the best possible and liberalised trade agreement as part of the largest economic block on the planet. It doesn't require a decision to go through 28 tiers of management, because it already exists. It allows us to trade completely free of tariffs and other restrictions with the whole of the EU. And that trade represents about half of all our overseas trade and is exceptionally important to our economy.
Yet you want to throw that all away and plunge the UK into years of risk and uncertainty with no guarantee that we will get a deal as good (we certainly won't get a better one that our current one) and with a grave risk that we end up with something much, much worse.
Bonkers.
-
Some people are saying when the majority vote Leave.----They believe the vote will be rigged to stay in.
~TW~
-
Why would I need to demonstrate this as it is self evident - a deal between the USA and the UK is more critical to the UK as UK/USA trade represents a much greater proportion of the UK economy than that of the USA. Therefore the USA have much greater bargaining power as they have the economic weight and also a much greater ability to shrug their shoulders and walk away if they don't like it as it is less significant.
Jakswan - see above - might be sensible if you understand the word proportion before you comment. What's your view on the relative negotiating positions based on proportion of UK GDP that is dependent on trade with the US?
No problem - feel free to keep calling me stupid if that's what you need to do in place of an argument. Ah bless :)
When you actually come up with some specifics of your estimates on whether the costs of trading with the EU will go up for British goods and more crucially service industries if Britain leaves the EU rather than stays, maybe we can talk about that at the same time as whatever names you want to call me.
You brought your negotiating experience up - it's irrelevant to international trade or the likelihood of a recession or a weakening pound etc - no one on this board cares how good or bad you are at negotiating over £12k or why you would fire someone.
We both accept trade negotiations between countries take a long time. I asked how many years faster negotiations would take between the US and UK than between the US and the EU. You don't know how many years faster. I said saying it would be faster doesn't address any specific concerns - I would want to know costs and whether the US terms would be as favourable as the terms they would offer the EU.
-
But we already have the best possible and liberalised trade agreement as part of the largest economic block on the planet. It doesn't require a decision to go through 28 tiers of management, because it already exists. It allows us to trade completely free of tariffs and other restrictions with the whole of the EU. And that trade represents about half of all our overseas trade and is exceptionally important to our economy.
I think I agree with virtually all that. Doesn't really address the point, a deal with the US, India, China, etc might be in the best interests of Britain however we ate limited to able to negotiate these trade deals because we need 27 other countries to agree. By your own words negotiations with the EU are 'slow and difficult'.
Yet you want to throw that all away and plunge the UK into years of risk and uncertainty with no guarantee that we will get a deal as good (we certainly won't get a better one that our current one) and with a grave risk that we end up with something much, much worse.
There are no guarantee's on what trade deals we'll be pulled into if we stay so there risk and uncertainty on either side. No where have I said I want to throw it all away, the current status quo is free trade between the EU and UK any change to that represents a risk to everyone, which is why I advocate we leave the EU and remain in a free trade deal.
You insist this is impossible and are yet to explain why.
Bonkers.
Strawmen normally are. :)
-
I think I agree with virtually all that. Doesn't really address the point, a deal with the US, India, China, etc might be in the best interests of Britain however we ate limited to able to negotiate these trade deals because we need 27 other countries to agree. By your own words negotiations with the EU are 'slow and difficult'.
You do understand that there is absolutely nothing that prevents EU member states from making their own bilateral (or multilateral but not including the entire EU) trade deals. It is allowed and indeed happens.
So a couple of examples - the UK has preferential trade deals with commonwealth countries based on trade deals it has struck that don't apply to the rest of the EU. So trade between the UK and Canada (as an example) isn't exactly the same as between France and Canada.
There is a multilateral trade deal, signed in 2001 between Sweden, Denmark (both EU) and Norway and Iceland (neither EU). So there are elements of trade between those countries that are different than for other EU countries and Iceland and Norway.
So if you are so concerned about the length of time it is taking the EU to sort out an EU wide deal with the USA why don't you lobby the UK government to set up on on their own (which they are perfectly entitled to do without leaving the EU). Of course the Uk government recognises that it has little bargaining power on its own and the USA would have limited interest in setting up a bilateral trade deal with the UK alone. They recognise that the best way to get the best trade deal is to negotiate as the EU.
-
But we already have the best possible and liberalised trade agreement as part of the largest economic block on the planet. It doesn't require a decision to go through 28 tiers of management, because it already exists. It allows us to trade completely free of tariffs and other restrictions with the whole of the EU. And that trade represents about half of all our overseas trade and is exceptionally important to our economy.
Yet you want to throw that all away and plunge the UK into years of risk and uncertainty with no guarantee that we will get a deal as good (we certainly won't get a better one that our current one) and with a grave risk that we end up with something much, much worse.
Bonkers.
You keep saying this but if we leave it won't be thrown away. We will still trade with the EU and also with the world, tariff free - or at least at WTO arrangements.
Your argument about the EU doesn't hold as the Germans will bring pressure on anyone who doesn't do their bidding. And the German government will be under pressure from their own major industries like BMW etc.
-
Shall we leave shall we stay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO654XRQ7FI
~TW~
-
Your argument about the EU doesn't hold as the Germans will bring pressure on anyone who doesn't do their bidding. And the German government will be under pressure from their own major industries like BMW etc.
Presumably the Germans and BMW are pretty keen on a deal with Canada, yet that hasn't been ratified yet because Bulgaria and Romania have refused to sign until the provisions on migration from those countries are the same as for the rest of the EU. Nothing that Germany or BMW can do.
But here is the interesting point - this is just the latest of a series of empasses on that deal, usually related to migration - in every case one or more EU country has refused to sign so the deal cannot be ratified. Who has blinked first in every case - Canada - every time they have caved in, giving greater concessions to the EU and making the deal better and better for the EU.
Why - firstly because a deal is much more important to Canada (as they'd get access to the largest economic block on the planet) than to the EU so Canada will keep giving and giving to get the deal. But also because the need to ratify by all EU countries actually is a master stroke in ensuring that the EU gets the best deal possible - it has to be good for everywhere or it won't happen. This isn't the case where a single government decides. So Scotland has no veto over a UK brokered trade deal which might not be good for Scotland. But in the context of the EU unless it is good for the UK, and France and Germany, and Estonia and Malta etc etc etc it won't happen.
-
So if you are so concerned about the length of time it is taking the EU to sort out an EU wide deal with the USA why don't you lobby the UK government to set up on on their own (which they are perfectly entitled to do without leaving the EU). Of course the Uk government recognises that it has little bargaining power on its own and the USA would have limited interest in setting up a bilateral trade deal with the UK alone. They recognise that the best way to get the best trade deal is to negotiate as the EU.
When we leave it will be best to get the free trade deal with the EU first.
Latest polls still show leave in the lead, Scots might keep us in though, maybe we should have a vote to throw Scotland out of the Union. :)
-
When we leave it will be best to get the free trade deal with the EU first.
Which will never be as good as the one we currently have, although could be a darn sight worse.
And is likely to take (using the average of other deals) 7 years from start of formal negotiations, which themselves won't happen on day one. So we might have a much poorer deal than we currently have perhaps signed in 2025.
And it could be much longer - the Canada 'deal' still hasn't been signed 8 years after the formal negotiations started, and 12 years after the announcement of a desire to agree a deal.
And only then do you think we should be negotiating with others.
-
When we leave it will be best to get the free trade deal with the EU first.
Latest polls still show leave in the lead, Scots might keep us in though, maybe we should have a vote to throw Scotland out of the Union. :)
So Jak are Messrs Gove,Johnson,IBS, Farage and Banks going to spend the money saved on rehousing and rejobbing those made unemployed by a Brexit.
-
Presumably the Germans and BMW are pretty keen on a deal with Canada, yet that hasn't been ratified yet because Bulgaria and Romania have refused to sign until the provisions on migration from those countries are the same as for the rest of the EU. Nothing that Germany or BMW can do.
You've said this before and I replied that we already do loads of trade with the EU which they can't afford to lose. But in Canada's case they don't have such a strong back history of copious trade with the EU, so BMW etc. don't know what they are missing and so are less vociferous with this.
But here is the interesting point - this is just the latest of a series of empasses on that deal, usually related to migration - in every case one or more EU country has refused to sign so the deal cannot be ratified. Who has blinked first in every case - Canada - every time they have caved in, giving greater concessions to the EU and making the deal better and better for the EU.
Again the same issue applies. The Canadians don't have a back record to lever with, to bargain with, we do. In Canada's case the EU have nothing to really lose because there has not been a great deal of trade with them - but if they don't make a deal with us they will lose loads, not to mention our membership fee.
Why - firstly because a deal is much more important to Canada (as they'd get access to the largest economic block on the planet) than to the EU so Canada will keep giving and giving to get the deal. But also because the need to ratify by all EU countries actually is a master stroke in ensuring that the EU gets the best deal possible - it has to be good for everywhere or it won't happen. This isn't the case where a single government decides. So Scotland has no veto over a UK brokered trade deal which might not be good for Scotland. But in the context of the EU unless it is good for the UK, and France and Germany, and Estonia and Malta etc etc etc it won't happen.
The overarching issue here is that a Brexit will weaken the EU. It may even start to crack up as France will have to put in a larger membership fee which its economy can't cope with (this would be true of Italy as well); or the poorer members won't get so much which may mean they will not play ball - some of the East European members are already pushing things. If this is the case then the EU will be bending over backwards to secure a deal which guarantees that our trade money keeps coming to them.
OR: They will be arrogant and play as if they are the stronger partner and shoot themselves in the foot.
And don't forget that the peoples of Europe are also getting disillusioned with the EU and its arrogance, and trouble at 'home' for them may just spark real discontentment amongst the citizens of the EU.
-
So Jak are Messrs Gove,Johnson,IBS, Farage and Banks going to spend the money saved on rehousing and rejobbing those made unemployed by a Brexit.
They won't be in power after the referendum - though what will happen or who will afterwards is an unknown quantity, even if it is a stay vote.
-
Speaking of unemployment, housing and pressure on infrastructure caused by European migrants, which seems to have prompted Brexit, I was watching a programme about Jordan's reaction to a sudden influx of over 600,000 Syrian refugees - about 13% of their population. Jordan has a 31% unemployment rate.
Apparently the refugees are accessing the healthcare system in Jordan and because of the huge influx of children some schools are operating a double-shift system - Jordanian children go to school in the morning and Syrian children go to school in the afternoon, because of differences in cultural values, customs and norms.
Makes Brexit look like a bit of an over-reaction IMO.
-
Which will never be as good as the one we currently have, although could be a darn sight worse.
And is likely to take (using the average of other deals) 7 years from start of formal negotiations, which themselves won't happen on day one. So we might have a much poorer deal than we currently have perhaps signed in 2025.
And it could be much longer - the Canada 'deal' still hasn't been signed 8 years after the formal negotiations started, and 12 years after the announcement of a desire to agree a deal.
And only then do you think we should be negotiating with others.
Since we already a free trade deal it will be done in no time.
-
So Jak are Messrs Gove,Johnson,IBS, Farage and Banks going to spend the money saved on rehousing and rejobbing those made unemployed by a Brexit.
No job losses Farage won't be in government the £350 million a week could be spent on many worthy causes.
-
No job losses Farage won't be in government the £350 million a week could be spent on many worthy causes.
The problem with this assessment is that it is no more than conjecture, jak. If we were to leave the EU, there would inevitably be job losses. For a start all the UK's MEPs would be out of a job as would their researchers and staff. It is likely that we would lose at least some of the jobs that exist on the back of international companies who want a way into the EU - such as car manufacturers.
You say that the '£350 million a week could be spent on many worthy causes'. Would it be spent thus? Would it be used to prop up our agricultural sector, help our economically deprived areas, support areas such as heritage and scientific research, combat illegal immigration, ...? Or would it be spent on more 'mainstream issues' such as an already ailing health and social care system that needs reform more than mere finance, or on education, defence, ...?
-
Since we already a free trade deal it will be done in no time.
What evidence or precedent do you have to indicate that 'it will be done in no time'?
-
You say that the '£350 million a week could be spent on many worthy causes'. Would it be spent thus? Would it be used to prop up our agricultural sector, help our economically deprived areas, support areas such as heritage and scientific research, combat illegal immigration, ...? Or would it be spent on more 'mainstream issues' such as an already ailing health and social care system that needs reform more than mere finance, or on education, defence, ...?
Or cover a small fraction of the £900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU.
And of course the net contribution is no-where near the £350 million lie being perpetrated by the Brexiters as it doesn't include our rebate which is removers before any contribution is made, nor does it cover all the funding (e.g. for scientific research, infrastructure, support for deprived areas, industry, agriculture etc etc) that we get back via this mechanism.
-
Since we already a free trade deal it will be done in no time.
I actually wasn't aware that we have a free trade deal with our signature on it that allows free trade of goods and allows us to provide financial services without freedom of movement of EU citizens - can you link to the text of this deal please so I can have a look?
For example, if we are out of the EU, I want to see what method of dispute settlement has been agreed in this free trade and financial services deal that has no free movement of people. Has the deal already been ratified by all the remaining members of the EU? That was quick.
-
More hysteria from Boris Johnson. Utter embarrassment to politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36295208
-
Prof Davey
It really cheers me up to read your posts. :)
This morning I don't know whether to think that Boris's latest words are a boost for the remainers, or not. The thought of him, Gove and the ghastly Nigell farrage having power and influence makes me shudder.
The meeting I went to on Friday (head to head with local MP Desmond Swayne and Sir Vince Cable) was okay. Mostly older generation wanting out. However, towards the end,there seemed to be an increase in the volume of applause for the remainers. In this area, I think quite a few are a bit reluctant to say they are for remaining, whereas I speak up whenever possible!
A week or two ago, a similar meeting was held in Brockenhurst College with students, but I can't find out how the vote went. can you? I would be interested to know.
-
The problem with this assessment is that it is no more than conjecture, jak. If we were to leave the EU, there would inevitably be job losses. For a start all the UK's MEPs would be out of a job as would their researchers and staff. It is likely that we would lose at least some of the jobs that exist on the back of international companies who want a way into the EU - such as car manufacturers.
You say that the '£350 million a week could be spent on many worthy causes'. Would it be spent thus? Would it be used to prop up our agricultural sector, help our economically deprived areas, support areas such as heritage and scientific research, combat illegal immigration, ...? Or would it be spent on more 'mainstream issues' such as an already ailing health and social care system that needs reform more than mere finance, or on education, defence, ...?
Ohhh noo a gravy train for politicians will come to an end.
Don't know what the money will be spent on, it will be decided by the British electorate in who they elect, not EU bureaucrats.
-
What evidence or precedent do you have to indicate that 'it will be done in no time'?
We already comply with the regulations, it represents a risk to all parties to change it.
-
We already comply with the regulations, it represents a risk to all parties to change it.
So you mean including free movement? If we do vote to leave, who will be negotiating any new agreement from our side?
-
Or cover a small fraction of the £900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU.
That is a lie, even the government report which you have cited as valid (I don't) suggest the economy will continue to grow should we leave the EU.
And of course the net contribution is no-where near the £350 million lie being perpetrated by the Brexiters as it doesn't include our rebate which is removers before any contribution is made, nor does it cover all the funding (e.g. for scientific research, infrastructure, support for deprived areas, industry, agriculture etc etc) that we get back via this mechanism.
Hypocrisy! Yes yes you might claim its not £350million a week but actually £100million.
A £100 million a week!
-
More hysteria from Boris Johnson. Utter embarrassment to politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36295208
More hysterical responses more like, they have been attempts to unify Europe before they have all failed.
-
So you mean including free movement? If we do vote to leave, who will be negotiating any new agreement from our side?
No I don't think so, actually between you and me, (don't tell anyone) I think if we vote to leave we'll have to re-vote.
-
I really cringed when I heard what Boris said, I thought he'd have had more sense but maybe he doesn't care now. Jeremy Corbyn came over very well on the news, I thought.
-
It's just the same as Cameron and the war comment. The speeches are constructed so that the actual statement can be pointed out to be true and the implication denied, but the implication is deliberate and denying it is a form of lying. This is dog whistle politics on both sides.
-
That is a lie, even the government report which you have cited as valid (I don't) suggest the economy will continue to grow should we leave the EU.
Hypocrisy! Yes yes you might claim its not £350million a week but actually £100million.
A £100 million a week!
Will that pay the mortgages for those made unemployed by Brexit?
-
That is a lie, even the government report which you have cited as valid (I don't) suggest the economy will continue to grow should we leave the EU.
It isn't a lie - being part of the EU is worth approximately £900million a week to our economy - were we to leave our economy would lose that amount of GDP.
Hypocrisy! Yes yes you might claim its not £350million a week but actually £100million.
A £100 million a week!
Nope £900 million worse off every single week through no longer being part of the EU. Just think of all the things that £900 million each week pays for - think of the lost jobs, the lost tax, reduced wages, the massive cuts in public services needed to make up for the shortfall in tax and addition unemployment costs.
Wake up, smell the coffee Jaks - all reputable and independent economic organisations agree that the effect of leaving the EU would be very very bad from an economic perspective. Sure they aren't quite certain whether it would be pretty bad, very bad, massively bad or catastrophic. But the fact remains that it will be bad - there won't be £350 million a week more to spend their will be £900 million a week less.
-
Ohhh noo a gravy train for politicians will come to an end.
So, you're not interested in the future of those people who do ordinary jobs - and just happen to them for politicians. Doesn't surprise me. More importantly, at east you accept that there will be job losses, which you didn't seem to accept in the post i responded to.
Don't know what the money will be spent on, it will be decided by the British electorate in who they elect, not EU bureaucrats.
Didn't realise that elected our own bureaucrats. Thought we only elected those who want to run the bureaucracy.
-
More hysterical responses more like, they have been attempts to unify Europe before they have all failed.
I also like the suggestion that Boris was attempting to enlist the spirit of Churchill to his cuase, that statesman who was very keen on a united European economic area, if not politically united.
-
I also like the suggestion that Boris was attempting to enlist the spirit of Churchill to his cuase, that statesman who was very keen on a united European economic area, if not politically united.
He really has lost it with his deeply offensive and totally ludicrous comments comparing the EU to Hitler.
-
He really has lost it with his deeply offensive and totally ludicrous comments comparing the EU to Hitler.
I look forward to his suspension from the party
-
It isn't a lie - being part of the EU is worth approximately £900million a week to our economy - were we to leave our economy would lose that amount of GDP.
Evidence?
Nope £900 million worse off every single week through no longer being part of the EU. Just think of all the things that £900 million each week pays for - think of the lost jobs, the lost tax, reduced wages, the massive cuts in public services needed to make up for the shortfall in tax and addition unemployment costs.
Well it seems to be a figure you just made up.
Wake up, smell the coffee Jaks - all reputable and independent economic organisations agree that the effect of leaving the EU would be very very bad from an economic perspective. Sure they aren't quite certain whether it would be pretty bad, very bad, massively bad or catastrophic. But the fact remains that it will be bad - there won't be £350 million a week more to spend their will be £900 million a week less.
The government report you cited stated in the middle case scenario the economy would grow regardless, it claimed the economy would not grow as fast if the UK left. Whereas we would not be sending £250 million a week to the EU.
Wake up, smell the coffee Prof, just think of all the things that £250 million each week pays for - think of the increased jobs, the increased tax, higher wages, the massive increases in public services.
-
So, you're not interested in the future of those people who do ordinary jobs - and just happen to them for politicians. Doesn't surprise me. More importantly, at east you accept that there will be job losses, which you didn't seem to accept in the post i responded to.
Stop making shit up, I don't care if a few politicians lose their jobs, no.
-
I look forward to his suspension from the party
No way comparable to "liar Livingston".
-
No way comparable to "liar Livingston".
Why? It's using an arguable fact to create a dishonest implication?
-
Evidence?
IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc
Well it seems to be a figure you just made up.
Nope a number derived from the expert opinions of the world's most respected independent economic organisations - e.g. IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc
The government report you cited stated in the middle case scenario the economy would grow regardless, it claimed the economy would not grow as fast if the UK left. Whereas we would not be sending £250 million a week to the EU.
I am using the middle case scenarios and I am also taking account of the net EU contribution - and the conclusion is that we will be about £900 million a week worse off if we leave the EU than if we stay.
Wake up, smell the coffee Prof, just think of all the things that £250 million each week pays for - think of the increased jobs, the increased tax, higher wages, the massive increases in public services.
We won't have a penny extra to pay for any of these things due to the economic hit - we will have about £900 million less per week in the economy to provide jobs, taxes and related public services if we leave than if we stay.
And this comes from the expert opinions of the world's most respected independent economic organisations - e.g. IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc.
I think we are still waiting for you to provide any credible and independent economic organisation that predicts that we will be better off if we leave rather than stay - why, because all the credible independent economic organisations have already given their views and they are unanimous - we will be considerably worse off if we leave compared to if we stay.
-
Why? It's using an arguable fact to create a dishonest implication?
I agree its daft to bring it up, undermines his point i.e. that others have tried to unify Europe and it hasn't gone well. Livingston defending a Labour MP who suggested all Jews should be moved to the US brought up Hitler, actual quote.
It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.
If you can't understand the difference I don't know how to further explain it.
-
IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc
Nope a number derived from the expert opinions of the world's most respected independent economic organisations - e.g. IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc
I am using the middle case scenarios and I am also taking account of the net EU contribution - and the conclusion is that we will be about £900 million a week worse off if we leave the EU than if we stay.
Where exactly, the treasury report which is one I've looked at quite a few times doesn't say that.
I'll paraphrase, Treasury Report central claim 'if we leave the economy will continue to grow but would grow faster if we remain', now the difference might be £900million in GDP terms by 2030, this is an opportunity cost.
To take this figure and claim that £900 million will come out of the economy day one is quite simply a lie.
I'll concede the £350 million doesn't include a rebate and money spent in the UK however even then we're are still talking about binge better off to the tune £100million a week plus!
I think we are still waiting for you to provide any credible and independent economic organisation that predicts that we will be better off if we leave rather than stay - why, because all the credible independent economic organisations have already given their views and they are unanimous - we will be considerably worse off if we leave compared to if we stay.
I don't need to I've told you countless times your own report that you consider valid (Treasury) claims that the economy will continue to grow if we leave, plus we'll have £100million extra to spend.
Please remember I don't think its valid, predicting GDP to 2030 is ridiculous.
-
For those of you who think Boris is a somewhat benevolent cuddly chappie. Here are a few quotes:
"Right, let's go and look at some more piccaninnies"
"Barack Obama is "part-Kenyan" and has an ancestral hatred of Britain."
"Tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles"
A small selection from his oeuvre.
Now I await in vain, his being expelled from the Tory party - does anyone here think that if Ken Livingstone had said those remarks he would have stood any chance of gettting away with it?
-
Dear Trent,
Expel our next Prime Minister :o I suppose I am lucky, I can always vote SNP, walk away and leave you lovely English folk to your doom ::)
Gonnagle.
PS: No wait, I can't leave, our Glorious Leader in number 10 tells me we are all in it together, so I will stay and wringe my hankie along with British Brothers.
-
Dear Trent,
Expel our next Prime Minister :o I suppose I am lucky, I can always vote SNP, walk away and leave you lovely English folk to your doom ::)
Gonnagle.
PS: No wait, I can't leave, our Glorious Leader in number 10 tells me we are all in it together, so I will stay and wringe my hankie along with British Brothers.
You are indeed lucky. I'm thinking of emigrating to Glasgow. You've been warned. ;)
-
Dear Trent,
You are indeed lucky. I'm thinking of emigrating to Glasgow. You've been warned.
Come one come all!! Mother Glasgow welcomes all, well unless you are from Edinbugger, they need a permit and told to leave their furryboots at home ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Speaking of unemployment, housing and pressure on infrastructure caused by European migrants, which seems to have prompted Brexit, I was watching a programme about Jordan's reaction to a sudden influx of over 600,000 Syrian refugees - about 13% of their population. Jordan has a 31% unemployment rate.
Apparently the refugees are accessing the healthcare system in Jordan and because of the huge influx of children some schools are operating a double-shift system - Jordanian children go to school in the morning and Syrian children go to school in the afternoon, because of differences in cultural values, customs and norms.
Makes Brexit look like a bit of an over-reaction IMO.
The real issue of Brexit is democracy and self rule. Immigration just highlights this main issue. The EAW also does.
-
No job losses Farage won't be in government the £350 million a week could be spent on many worthy causes.
In fact if Brexit weakens the £pound then exports should increase, improving our Current Account.
-
Where exactly, the treasury report which is one I've looked at quite a few times doesn't say that.
I'll paraphrase, Treasury Report central claim 'if we leave the economy will continue to grow but would grow faster if we remain', now the difference might be £900million in GDP terms by 2030, this is an opportunity cost.
Actually the treasury long range figures indicate that we would be £2.3 billion a week worse off if we leave than if we stay.
To take this figure and claim that £900 million will come out of the economy day one is quite simply a lie.
I never actually said that, but it is completely consistent with the economy losing a couple of % in GDP under Brexit conditions rather than remaining.
I'll concede the £350 million doesn't include a rebate and money spent in the UK however even then we're are still talking about binge better off to the tune £100million a week plus!
I don't need to I've told you countless times your own report that you consider valid (Treasury) claims that the economy will continue to grow if we leave, plus we'll have £100million extra to spend.
Please remember I don't think its valid, predicting GDP to 2030 is ridiculous.
Your claimed £100 million represents just 0.26% of our GDP so if our economy shrinks by that much or fails to grow by that much in a Brexit scenario compared to remain then we are worse off. And all the credible economic forecasts suggest the hit will be considerably more than 0.26%. Indeed the CBI have cut their growth forecasts by 0.3% just on the uncertainty at the moment around the possibility of Brexit, and that's assuming that in the end we remain. The uncertainty is already hurting us, an actually vote for brexit will hit us really hard - we will be worse off and you claimed £100 million will be dwarfed by loss of GDP in a Brexit situation compared to remain.
-
Actually the treasury long range figures indicate that we would be £2.3 billion a week worse off if we leave than if we stay.
So where is this £900 million coming from, what report, a link?
I never actually said that, but it is completely consistent with the economy losing a couple of % in GDP under Brexit conditions rather than remaining.
You said "£900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU", you lied, just admit it.
Your claimed £100 million represents just 0.26% of our GDP so if our economy shrinks by that much or fails to grow by that much in a Brexit scenario compared to remain then we are worse off.
Good grief this is very basic economics, government funds are not the same as GDP. So if the UK government built a new hospital every month and that costs £400 million, which we'd save from funding the EU, the effect on GDP wouldn't be anything like as small as £400 million.
And all the credible economic forecasts suggest the hit will be considerably more than 0.26%. Indeed the CBI have cut their growth forecasts by 0.3% just on the uncertainty at the moment around the possibility of Brexit, and that's assuming that in the end we remain. The uncertainty is already hurting us, an actually vote for brexit will hit us really hard - we will be worse off and you claimed £100 million will be dwarfed by loss of GDP in a Brexit situation compared to remain.
When you understand the difference between GDP and government funds it might be worth listening to your analysis.
Answer a simple yes/no question, does the treasury forecast predict that the UK will be richer (higher GDP) if we leave?
-
So where is this £900 million coming from, what report, a link?
You said "£900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU", you lied, just admit it.
Have you read the treasury report? I doubt it.
I happen to be looking at it right now, and their modelling inputs a range of independent predictions of the early effect of Brexit (over the first 5 years) - you will find it on page 135. They range from about -0.75% to -4% as loss of GDP per year. So to take a middle level of approx 2-2.5% that is a loss to GDP of approx. £45-50 billion annually or around £900 million a week.
Good grief this is very basic economics, government funds are not the same as GDP. So if the UK government built a new hospital every month and that costs £400 million, which we'd save from funding the EU, the effect on GDP wouldn't be anything like as small as £400 million.
When you understand the difference between GDP and government funds it might be worth listening to your analysis.
Of course I do, but the two are inextricably related - where do you think our public expenditure comes from - it comes from everything we earn as a country, i.e. GDP. If the economy shrinks or grows less then tax take goes down, and the demands on that taxation in terms of benefits etc go up as unemployment increases. So actually the proportional effect on the public purse tends to be greater than the actual GDP loss.
Answer a simple yes/no question, does the treasury forecast predict that the UK will be richer (higher GDP) if we leave?
We will be better off if we stay than if we leave - that is what every credible independent economic organisation predicts, both in the short term and in the long term. That of course is the only relevant question - a comparison between the scenarios if we leave compared to if we stay.
-
Have you read the treasury report? I doubt it.
I happen to be looking at it right now, and their modelling inputs a range of independent predictions of the early effect of Brexit (over the first 5 years) - you will find it on page 135. They range from about -0.75% to -4% as loss of GDP per year. So to take a middle level of approx 2-2.5% that is a loss to GDP of approx. £45-50 billion annually or around £900 million a week.
So what does the Treasury report say, that page references external studies. Link please?
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf
Or was it a case your read something pulled a figure from thin air.
Of course I do, but the two are inextricably related - where do you think our public expenditure comes from - it comes from everything we earn as a country, i.e. GDP. If the economy shrinks or grows less then tax take goes down, and the demands on that taxation in terms of benefits etc go up as unemployment increases. So actually the proportional effect on the public purse tends to be greater than the actual GDP loss.
I agree the two are linked but you can't claim £900million a week in GDP is comparable to £100million a week of government funds.
We will be better off if we stay than if we leave - that is what every credible independent economic organisation predicts, both in the short term and in the long term. That of course is the only relevant question - a comparison between the scenarios if we leave compared to if we stay.
So you dodged the question, I'll have another go:-
Answer a simple yes/no question, does the treasury forecast predict that the UK will be richer (higher GDP) if we leave?
The answer is yes isn't it!
So if we left, we'd be richer than we are now, save £100million+ a week, be in charge of our own destiny, have controlled migration, higher wages, and be somewhat better protected from any EURO shit storm. Oh and a little bonus it would really piss off the SNP, and double bonus Scotland might leave the Union!
-
So what does the Treasury report say, that page references external studies. Link please?
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf
Or was it a case your read something pulled a figure from thin air.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf
I agree the two are linked but you can't claim £900million a week in GDP is comparable to £100million a week of government funds.
I never claimed they were, but GDP impacts both on our individual prosperity but also on the health of the government finances and given that the latter represents approx. 40% of GDP, the just using a crude proportional basis the loss to the public finances of a reduction in GDP of £900 million a week in the Brexit case compared to remain will certainly be much greater than £100 million, more like £360 million. So even using this crude measure we would have £200-300 million a week less to spend on public services if we left compared to staying.
But of course it isn't that simply, a drop in GDP (whether absolute or relative to an alternative scenario) will affect jobs and overall prosperity resulting not just in a drop in tax take but an increase in expenditure on benefits due to that Brexit hit on growth/GDP. So some of the money that would could otherwise have spent on schools or hospitals etc will have to be spent on unemployment and other benefits.
So you dodged the question, I'll have another go:-
Answer a simple yes/no question, does the treasury forecast predict that the UK will be richer (higher GDP) if we leave?
The answer is yes isn't it!
That isn't a relevant question as we have two options so the relevant question is to compare the two and when you do that we will certainly be better off if we stay compared to leaving.
But actually there are some very, very credible voices (e.g. Mark Carney) who are suggesting that Brexit could result in the economy shrinking (i.e. negative growth), potentially even a recession (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) so it is quite possible that under Brexit we will be poorer in absolute terms not just relative to the scenario where we stay.
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf
The page you gave cites other reports, what report claims the immediate impact to the UK economy will result in GDP falling by £900 million.
I never claimed they were, but GDP impacts both on our individual prosperity but also on the health of the government finances and given that the latter represents approx. 40% of GDP, the just using a crude proportional basis the loss to the public finances of a reduction in GDP of £900 million a week in the Brexit case compared to remain will certainly be much greater than £100 million, more like £360 million. So even using this crude measure we would have £200-300 million a week less to spend on public services if we left compared to staying.
So UK economy is now £2,000 billion, I think this £46 billion (0.9 x 52) so you think day one the economy would go to £1,956 billion?
But of course it isn't that simply, a drop in GDP (whether absolute or relative to an alternative scenario) will affect jobs and overall prosperity resulting not just in a drop in tax take but an increase in expenditure on benefits due to that Brexit hit on growth/GDP. So some of the money that would could otherwise have spent on schools or hospitals etc will have to be spent on unemployment and other benefits.
The building of schools & hospitals with the £100million a week will generate GDP.
That isn't a relevant question as we have two options so the relevant question is to compare the two and when you do that we will certainly be better off if we stay compared to leaving.
Well its not certainly is it, its a guess, the further out you go the more of a guess it is, in fact predicting to 2030 is pretty much a lottery.
But actually there are some very, very credible voices (e.g. Mark Carney) who are suggesting that Brexit could result in the economy shrinking (i.e. negative growth), potentially even a recession (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) so it is quite possible that under Brexit we will be poorer in absolute terms not just relative to the scenario where we stay.
Yes, plague of locusts, zombie invasion and all that.
At the end of the day using data the you cite as being valid claims we'll be better off then we are now if we leave.
-
The page you gave cites other reports, what report claims the immediate impact to the UK economy will result in GDP falling by £900 million.
So UK economy is now £2,000 billion, I think this £46 billion (0.9 x 52) so you think day one the economy would go to £1,956 billion?
Where did I ever say that - this is what I actually said originally (from reply 769):
'Even using your inflated £250M per week (or £13billion per year) and given that our GDP is about £2,000 billion, that £13 billion 'saving' would be completely wiped out with just a 0.6% drop in GDP for the leave situation compared to the remain. That is below even the most optimistic expectations (and I'm not talking 2030 estimates, but short range). The mid level is about 3% drop in GDP, which would mean that we would be about £47billion a year worse off, or £900million a week if you prefer.'
Note 'short range' i.e. over the first few years after a referendum Brexit vote. So take you pick of any of the reports cited by the treasury on 'short range' effects, over the first 5 years. Any that suggest more than 3% reduction in GDP if we vote to leave compared to remaining fit my £900 million a week figure. So which would you like:
Perhaps PwC/CBI predicting -3.1 to -5.5 or
Citi -4.0 or
Deutsche Bank -3.0 or
Nomura -4.0 or
Société Générale -4.0 to -8.0
Indeed the only ones that don't attain that 3% figure are those that only look at the first one (or perhaps two) years and obviously there won't be an instant bounce back (actually there won't be a bounce back at all) so they will almost certainly attain a loss of GDP of 3% if we vote to leave compared to stay within 3 years-ish.
The building of schools & hospitals with the £100million a week will generate GDP.
That's correct - but if we vote to leave there will be less GDP, less tax revenue and less money available to build hospitals and schools - probably about £200-300 million knocked off the public expenditure budget every week. You don't seem to understand that you need to earn the money first before you can spend it and if the UK is earning less (as will be the case in both the short term and long term after Brexit compared to remaining) there will be less money to spend.
And we are already seeing the chilling effects of the uncertainty and possibility of a Brexit vote - so growth in the last quarter slower dramatically and just this week the CBI downgrading its growth forecast by 0.3% simply due to the uncertainty surrounding the referendum and the possibility of Brexit. If there is a vote for Brexit jun June those growth forecasts will plummet.
-
I agree its daft to bring it up, undermines his point i.e. that others have tried to unify Europe and it hasn't gone well. Livingston defending a Labour MP who suggested all Jews should be moved to the US brought up Hitler, actual quote.
If you can't understand the difference I don't know how to further explain it.
I suspect that's because you don't know how to explain it all since you have made no attempt to do so.
I'll happily point out why I think they are simiLar. First of all, Ken's point is arguable try if you read it as suggesting that Hitler would have seen an outcome of ethnic cleansing as achievable by working with Zionists supporting the establishment of a State of Isrwal. Not because he was a Zionist, but the quote doesn't say that, but because of the outcome. That that's already mad, is Ken at his worst but in a particularly narrow view of history it is arguable.
Same with Boris. It is,I would suggest,historically ignorant to suggest that Hitler was trying to unify Europe , (just as with Ken), but narrowly arguable that the outcome would have been that (just as with Ken) . Now if either of these characters were stulid, you might give one the benefit of the doubt, but they were both in the same dishonest manner using a narrow point to make a much more offensive implication.
Just to note the idea that at certain times in the past in completely different circumstances people might have tried to do something in a completely different way for completely different objectives and with such a narrow definition of the 'same' outcome means that anything like that is doomed to failure is an historically vacuous one.
I suspect this is not so much about what's next for the UK, but what's next for Boris as he is using this to appeal to those attracted by this sort of lazy rhetoric for post referendum reasons. It, as with much of the stuff coming from Cameron, means either they were lying previously, they are lying now or they always lying.
BTW for a differing perspective on Naz Shah's post
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/05/03/finkelstein-breaks-his-silence-tells-holocaust-mongers-it-is-time-to-crawl-back-into-your-sewer/
-
No I don't think so, actually between you and me, (don't tell anyone) I think if we vote to leave we'll have to re-vote.
Do you really? How would that be implemented?
I expect some underhanded scheme but not that. The British people would rebel against such a thing.
-
Where did I ever say that - this is what I actually said originally (from reply 769):
'Even using your inflated £250M per week (or £13billion per year) and given that our GDP is about £2,000 billion, that £13 billion 'saving' would be completely wiped out with just a 0.6% drop in GDP for the leave situation compared to the remain. That is below even the most optimistic expectations (and I'm not talking 2030 estimates, but short range). The mid level is about 3% drop in GDP, which would mean that we would be about £47billion a year worse off, or £900million a week if you prefer.'
Note 'short range' i.e. over the first few years after a referendum Brexit vote. So take you pick of any of the reports cited by the treasury on 'short range' effects, over the first 5 years. Any that suggest more than 3% reduction in GDP if we vote to leave compared to remaining fit my £900 million a week figure. So which would you like:
Perhaps PwC/CBI predicting -3.1 to -5.5 or
Citi -4.0 or
Deutsche Bank -3.0 or
Nomura -4.0 or
Société Générale -4.0 to -8.0
Indeed the only ones that don't attain that 3% figure are those that only look at the first one (or perhaps two) years and obviously there won't be an instant bounce back (actually there won't be a bounce back at all) so they will almost certainly attain a loss of GDP of 3% if we vote to leave compared to stay within 3 years-ish.
That's correct - but if we vote to leave there will be less GDP, less tax revenue and less money available to build hospitals and schools - probably about £200-300 million knocked off the public expenditure budget every week. You don't seem to understand that you need to earn the money first before you can spend it and if the UK is earning less (as will be the case in both the short term and long term after Brexit compared to remaining) there will be less money to spend.
And we are already seeing the chilling effects of the uncertainty and possibility of a Brexit vote - so growth in the last quarter slower dramatically and just this week the CBI downgrading its growth forecast by 0.3% simply due to the uncertainty surrounding the referendum and the possibility of Brexit. If there is a vote for Brexit jun June those growth forecasts will plummet.
But Davey all this is pointless because economists can't even predict stuff a year in advance. They just don't know, so all these figures are worthless. The issue isn't economic it is political and about democracy.
-
But Davey all this is pointless because economists can't even predict stuff a year in advance. They just don't know, so all these figures are worthless. The issue isn't economic it is political and about democracy.
That simply isn't true - by and large economists are pretty good at predicting matters into the future, and more so when they can get their teeth into two different scenarios which is the case here. Sure it might be the case that in both scenarios growth is a little better or a little worse than predicted, but predicting the difference between the two is very likely to be correct. And in this case (unlike some others) there is no disagreement - all credible independent economic organisations agree that Brexit will be bad for the UK economy compared to remaining - and the reasons in the short term are obvious. The one thing that business and the 'economy' hate is uncertainty and with Brexit there will be massive uncertainty for years. Lets face it there isn't a consensus amongst the leading Brexit figures as to what the preferred economic and trading position should be with the EU post Brexit. If the campaigners haven't got a clue how on earth can business feel confident to invest etc.
But on the other point, actually I agree with you - it isn't just about the economics (although thats a factor). I'd have a lot more respect for Jakswan (as an example) if he accepted that the economic situation will be worse if we leave rather than remain, rather than somehow claiming that all the credible independent economic organisations are wrong and he (without one iota of economic credibility) is right. At least if he accepted we'd be worse off, but it is (in his opinion) a price worth paying, then we can have a serious debate. I'd disagree and indeed I think the EU is so fundamentally a good thing for peace, internationalisation, cooperation etc etc that I'd still be in favour even if there were a limited economic price to pay (which of course there isn't, quite the reverse). But trying to argue against all of the credible economic opinion is simply delusional.
-
I suspect that's because you don't know how to explain it all since you have made no attempt to do so.
Mentioning Hitler whilst talking about Jews to make a political point is offensive and insensitive. Ken paraphrased 'in 1932 before Hitler went mad in he was a Zionist', you don't understand how deeply offensive that is?
-
Where did I ever say that - this is what I actually said originally (from reply 769):
Or cover a small fraction of the £900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU.
The Treasury report you quoted didn't make that claim. If it made the £900million claim (which it didn't, this seems to be a figure you've made up yourself) its claim would have been:-
At some point in the future our GDP will rise by £900 million more if we stay in the EU than if we left.
Note 'short range' i.e. over the first few years after a referendum Brexit vote. So take you pick of any of the reports cited by the treasury on 'short range' effects, over the first 5 years. Any that suggest more than 3% reduction in GDP if we vote to leave compared to remaining fit my £900 million a week figure. So which would you like:
Perhaps PwC/CBI predicting -3.1 to -5.5 or
Citi -4.0 or
Deutsche Bank -3.0 or
Nomura -4.0 or
Société Générale -4.0 to -8.0
Links please, all you have given me is a link to a report which cites those reports.
And we are already seeing the chilling effects of the uncertainty and possibility of a Brexit vote - so growth in the last quarter slower dramatically and just this week the CBI downgrading its growth forecast by 0.3% simply due to the uncertainty surrounding the referendum and the possibility of Brexit. If there is a vote for Brexit jun June those growth forecasts will plummet.
If we vote to leave then there will be no uncertainty. What will be uncertain is if we vote to remain by a small margin because we'll need another vote in a few years.
-
Mentioning Hitler whilst talking about Jews to make a political point is offensive and insensitive. Ken paraphrased 'in 1932 before Hitler went mad in he was a Zionist', you don't understand how deeply offensive that is?
Yep, just understand that, as I would suggest was made clear in my previous post. Mentioning Hitler when many of the founders of the EU had fought against Nazism is deeply offensive. So if you hold the same principle, Boris is doing the same thing.
-
The Treasury report you quoted didn't make that claim. If it made the £900million claim (which it didn't, this seems to be a figure you've made up yourself) its claim would have been:-
At some point in the future our GDP will rise by £900 million more if we stay in the EU than if we left.
Links please, all you have given me is a link to a report which cites those reports.
If we vote to leave then there will be no uncertainty. What will be uncertain is if we vote to remain by a small margin because we'll need another vote in a few years.
There would be no uncertainty but your argument is that that economically there is always uncertainty. Mmm contradict yourself much?
-
Yep, just understand that, as I would suggest was made clear in my previous post. Mentioning Hitler when many of the founders of the EU had fought against Nazism is deeply offensive. So if you hold the same principle, Boris is doing the same thing.
In one sense yes, but Hitler - Jews, you heard about the holocaust right?
Ken brought up Hitler whilst defending someone who suggested all the Jews should be sent to the USA.
-
There would be no uncertainty but your argument is that that economically there is always uncertainty. Mmm contradict yourself much?
What? Do you have a point to make or just what to make snidely comments?
-
What? Do you have a point to make or just what to make snidely comments?
Thought it was a bit simple, if you make a claim and then say all such claims are worthless then the claim is undermined. This isn't 'snidely' just logical.
-
In one sense yes, but Hitler - Jews, you heard about the holocaust right?
Ken brought up Hitler whilst defending someone who suggested all the Jews should be sent to the USA.
And Boris brought it up in the sense of saying, oops look, Hitler like EU. When you want to get back to me that he didn't know what that meant with an argument, good. So far nothing. Are you saying he knew nothing about the implication (therefore idiot) or that he was hiding it? (liar). Or something else, please explain?
-
The Treasury report you quoted didn't make that claim. If it made the £900million claim (which it didn't, this seems to be a figure you've made up yourself) its claim would have been:-
At some point in the future our GDP will rise by £900 million more if we stay in the EU than if we left.
Which is true because by 2030, according to the treasury report the difference will be more like £2.3 billion a week on the basis of the 6% gap in GDP if we leave compared to staying. But then I never claimed that the £900 million a week came from that report. I was very clear in my earlier post as to its origin, which was taking a middle case scenario of short range hit on GDP and extrapolating to a weekly reduction in GDP if we leave compared to staying.
Links please, all you have given me is a link to a report which cites those reports.
Details of every one of the report is clearly indicated in the footnotes in the Treasury - you can simply google the title to find the report.
If we vote to leave then there will be no uncertainty. What will be uncertain is if we vote to remain by a small margin because we'll need another vote in a few years.
Oh you are a comedian - there will be massive uncertainty, starting with who will actually be in charge of any negotiation. And don't forget that if you take Farage, Johnson, Gove and Redwood as leading Brexiters they totally and utterly disagree with each other on their preferred post Brexit settlement with the EU - they range from complete isolation from the single market through to being in EFTA/EEA.
And given that any deal will need ratification by 28 countries the levels of uncertainty are endless.
If we remain we know exactly what will happen on June 24th - we will carry on as normal.
-
Dear Trent,
Come one come all!! Mother Glasgow welcomes all, well unless you are from Edinbugger, they need a permit and told to leave their furryboots at home ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
No worries there, all you have to do is go to the Glasgow permit office, offer the clerk a swig from a bottle of Buckie and your permit will be stamped and any evidence of furryboots will be ignored!
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/670806/video-Ryanair-boss-Michael-O-Leary-cheap-flights-EU-Brussels-Brexit-referendum
-
Dear Seb,
No worries there, all you have to do is go to the Glasgow permit office, offer the clerk a swig from a bottle of Buckie and your permit will be stamped and any evidence of furryboots will be ignored!
What Universe are you living on :o :o a Eastcoaster would first have to buy the Buckie, this would entail a major operation of forcing the wallet open, then we have the Mythological premise of a eastcoaster offering a drink, yer living in La La land. ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Which is true because by 2030, according to the treasury report the difference will be more like £2.3 billion a week on the basis of the 6% gap in GDP if we leave compared to staying. But then I never claimed that the £900 million a week came from that report. I was very clear in my earlier post as to its origin, which was taking a middle case scenario of short range hit on GDP and extrapolating to a weekly reduction in GDP if we leave compared to staying.
Glad you agree what I said is true. Which report suggests a decrease to GDP.
Or cover a small fraction of the £900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU.
So the treasury report doesn't suggest GDP shrinking which report does?
Details of every one of the report is clearly indicated in the footnotes in the Treasury - you can simply google the title to find the report.
No you claim the UK economy is going to shrink and based that conclusion on a report, you cite the report you consider valid. The treasury report doesn't claim the economy shrinks so we can put that aside.
Oh you are a comedian - there will be massive uncertainty, starting with who will actually be in charge of any negotiation. And don't forget that if you take Farage, Johnson, Gove and Redwood as leading Brexiters they totally and utterly disagree with each other on their preferred post Brexit settlement with the EU - they range from complete isolation from the single market through to being in EFTA/EEA.
We were talking about uncertainty over leaving, its just over a month and that specific uncertainty will end. The elected government run the country most of those are not even in Cabinet positions, more scaremongering.
And given that any deal will need ratification by 28 countries the levels of uncertainty are endless.
It will never end?
If we remain we know exactly what will happen on June 24th - we will carry on as normal.
Yes erosion of sovereignty, uncontrolled immigration, less democracy, another Eurozone crisis, more bureaucracy.
-
What will be uncertain is if we vote to remain by a small margin because we'll need another vote in a few years.
So you clearly are Nigel Farage in disguise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.
-
So you clearly are Nigel Farage in disguise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.
I take it jakswan and Nige are of the opinion that should leave win but by a narrow margin, we would need another vote on a few years too?
-
This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.
I do so hope you are right!
-
So you clearly are Nigel Farage in disguise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.
One quibblette with this. It comes across as someone who suspects he is going to lose the vote.
-
Dear Seb,
What Universe are you living on :o :o a Eastcoaster would first have to buy the Buckie, this would entail a major operation of forcing the wallet open, then we have the Mythological premise of a eastcoaster offering a drink, yer living in La La land. ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
Nope, all you have to do is prise a bottle, which still has some dregs in it, from the hands of one of the semi concious Weegies lying in the street outside.
Any self respecting E-C would have no problem in handing over that 'drink' to anyone!
I'm beginning to think that you live in Newton Mearns. It's a BF free area isn't it?
-
A friend has sent me this link
https://www.brock.ac.uk/news/brock-college-eu-debate-draws-crowds/#.VzrMPozIdsk.email
to the Brockenhurst College debate.
Well done, the young!
-
Dear Seb,
Prise a bottle with dregs from one of our less fortunate, only a eastcoater could imagine that happening, that is on the same level as TW reading a book on evolution.
Newton Mearns, fur coat and nae knickers territory, not me mate, I was born two seconds away from the headquarters of the Orange Order and a mile from what the Tic supporters call Paradise, nae wonder I am totally bloody confussed, being a true Weggie is a complicated business. :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
I take it jakswan and Nige are of the opinion that should leave win but by a narrow margin, we would need another vote on a few years too?
Of course not - it is the classic problem of the one-sidedness of referendums.
You can vote for the status quo as many times as you like but it only remains valid until the other side kicks up a fuss sufficient for another vote - so it is always reversible. But a single vote for change is irrevocable.
So one side has to win again and again, while the other side only has to win once.
Same situation with IndyRef - remain wins and within months the SNP are trying to make a case for another vote. Had the Yes vote won that would be it - there would have been no turning back, no referendum in a newly independent Scotland asking if the people wanted to reverse their decision and join the UK again.
So on the EU referendum - we need equality - if leave win it closes down the argument - we leave and that's it. Likewise if we vote to remain - that's it, we stay. No chance of another referendum in a few months or a few years.
-
Of course not - it is the classic problem of the one-sidedness of referendums.
You can vote for the status quo as many times as you like but it only remains valid until the other side kicks up a fuss sufficient for another vote - so it is always reversible. But a single vote for change is irrevocable.
So one side has to win again and again, while the other side only has to win once.
Same situation with IndyRef - remain wins and within months the SNP are trying to make a case for another vote. Had the Yes vote won that would be it - there would have been no turning back, no referendum in a newly independent Scotland asking if the people wanted to reverse their decision and join the UK again.
So on the EU referendum - we need equality - if leave win it closes down the argument - we leave and that's it. Likewise if we vote to remain - that's it, we stay. No chance of another referendum in a few months or a few years.
I pretty much agree with this but the SNP changed after the referendum in quadrupling in size. There is a force of democracy that was recognised by Ledru-Rollin when he said 'Ve suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive'. That combined with the possibility of a Scots In, UK Out vote in the referendum can be argued to be such a change that another referendum would be justifiable.
That said I am getting bored of the constant campaign mode
-
I pretty much agree with this but the SNP changed after the referendum in quadrupling in size. There is a force of democracy that was recognised by Ledru-Rollin when he said 'Ve suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive'. That combined with the possibility of a Scots In, UK Out vote in the referendum can be argued to be such a change that another referendum would be justifiable.
That said I am getting bored of the constant campaign mode
The problem with referendums on the kind of issues that aren't readily reversible is that if you are in favour of change you can lose as many times as you want, you only need to win once. And for those who want status quo yo can win as many times as you want but you only need to lose once for there to be irrevocable change.
That is a fundamental problem of the referendum system in a democratic sense, because it unbalances the effects of a vote for status quo and a vote for change and therefore isn't equitably democratic. I'm not saying I have an answer, just raising the issue. But certainly it isn't reasonable of a losing 'no change' vote ('Yes' in Scotland or 'Brexit' in the UK) to demand another vote in just a few years unless they would likewise accept a new vote in a few years had they won - but they wouldn't.
-
I take it jakswan and Nige are of the opinion that should leave win but by a narrow margin, we would need another vote on a few years too?
No.
A future government will try to take us back in based on a General Election manifesto promise as a way to reverse the damage done to the economy and our world standing by leaving. Of course, by then Scotland will have ceded from the UK and negotiated its own EU membership and will use its veto to stop us as a way to punish us for leading them down the road to disaster.
-
oh ... what fun :) - but surely they will have had a boom whilst the rUK goes bust? They'd try and keep us out to stop being dragged back down again.
-
So you clearly are Nigel Farage in disguise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
No you are Farage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29170924
Just because I might agree with a person on a single issue doesn't make me that person, good grief.
He's right to campaign for what he believes in isn't he, the dream will never die and all that.
Frank Field
Kate Hoey
Graham Stringer
Kelvin Hopkins
Khalid Mahmood
Roger Godsiff
Ronnie Campbell
Gisela Stuart
Dennis Skinner
Are all these Farage as well?
This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.
Do you think you are clearly winning then? Everyone who disagrees with you is slightly mad?
-
Or cover a small fraction of the £900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU.
Which report suggests the UK economy will shrink? You've put the treasury report in the bin because that one suggests the economy will grow if we leave.
-
The problem with referendums on the kind of issues that aren't readily reversible is that if you are in favour of change you can lose as many times as you want, you only need to win once. And for those who want status quo yo can win as many times as you want but you only need to lose once for there to be irrevocable change.
That is a fundamental problem of the referendum system in a democratic sense, because it unbalances the effects of a vote for status quo and a vote for change and therefore isn't equitably democratic. I'm not saying I have an answer, just raising the issue. But certainly it isn't reasonable of a losing 'no change' vote ('Yes' in Scotland or 'Brexit' in the UK) to demand another vote in just a few years unless they would likewise accept a new vote in a few years had they won - but they wouldn't.
When we vote leave what do you think the chances are that we leave the EU. I think the chances of us leaving are 50-50, I have no doubt the EU will offer us a better deal.
Worth noting:-
http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-a-majority-of-swedes-want-to-leave-the-eu-after-brexit-2016-4
Same with Scotland I think Devo-Max might have been offered, isn't that what Salmond actually wanted originally.
-
Which report suggests the UK economy will shrink? You've put the treasury report in the bin because that one suggests the economy will grow if we leave.
I have been very consistent in my post that I am talking about the comparison between two scenarios, effectively the difference between whether we stay or if we leave. We will be better off if we stay rather than leave.
But on whether leaving would actually shrink the economy rather than be worse compared to staying, well yes there are reports suggesting that. So that was what the Bank of England and Mark Carney suggested just a few days ago. And also looking at the various reports used within the treasury report - those that report the negative effect of leaving - well any that indicate a difference greater than our current growth predictions (of around 1.5-2% over the next few years if we stay) are indicating that the economy would shrink. So that is, at the very least:
Perhaps PwC/CBI predicting -3.1 to -5.5 or
Citi -4.0 or
Deutsche Bank -3.0 or
Nomura -4.0 or
Société Générale -4.0 to -8.0
-
Not read the entire thing but just wanted to say...
Does anyone really believe the ordinary Joe in the UK will see any difference. If we leave, will all this money saved by not being in mean the NHS, education and all the other institutions and services will suddenly have all the cash they need, and will the man on the street find himself the beneficiary of the proposed economic boom once free of the EU shackles.
No. nothing will change.
-
Do you think you are clearly winning then? Everyone who disagrees with you is slightly mad?
I said he was losing the argument - and that is pretty clear - the Brexiters don't actually seem to have an argument, their entire campaign seems to be based on smearing highly respected individuals and organisations and doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong' to every single credible independent economic organisation.
One by one the Brexit leadership seem to be losing it - we've had the Farage 'I won't accept it if (when) we lose' and the Johnson 'EU and Hitler have the same goals' nonsense. You only start coming out with this kind of hysterical clap-trap when you have no cogent argument to give.
-
Hysterical claptrap runs both ways however:
http://goo.gl/DWqJDq
-
Not read the entire thing but just wanted to say...
Does anyone really believe the ordinary Joe in the UK will see any difference. If we leave, will all this money saved by not being in mean the NHS, education and all the other institutions and services will suddenly have all the cash they need, and will the man on the street find himself the beneficiary of the proposed economic boom once free of the EU shackles.
No. nothing will change.
Actually the coherent argument by the remain campaign on the economy backed up by respected expert after respected expert is being accepted but the ordinary Joe.
The most recent polling shows that by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 (49% to 26%) the public think that the UK economy will get worse if we leave compared to staying. And there is a similar difference when people are asked about their own standard of living.
-
Hysterical claptrap runs both ways however:
http://goo.gl/DWqJDq
I agree - but the difference is that the remain campaign have non hysterical arguments too, and are backed up by evidence and the overwhelming (actually pretty well unanimous) agreement of credible independent economic organisations on the economy. And on wider influence and security issues, well we have no idea what ISIS actually think but we can see what company amongst world leaders the two camps are keeping. Remain supported by Obama, Clinton, all EU countries, the commonwealth, major security agencies and grouping etc etc. Leave supported by Trump, LePen and Putin (allegedly).
Brexiters seem to have no coherent and consistent argument on anything. They can't even agree what a post Brexit settlement with the EU should look like.
-
No you are Farage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29170924
Where have I ever said that the Queen should have publicly intervened to support a No vote in Scotland?
You are making stuff up yet again. Can you still to my actual views, posted on this MB, rather than some bizarre notion of what you think I think.
Given that I am not a petty nationalist, nor a monarchist I think you will find that although I didn't support No in the referendum (for many of the same reasons I support remain in this one) the views of the Queen are irrelevant to me and I would certain not have supported her wading into the political argument on Scotland, as I don't on the EU referendum.
-
Actually the coherent argument by the remain campaign on the economy backed up by respected expert after respected expert is being accepted but the ordinary Joe.
I am sure someone on the leave side could say the same
The most recent polling shows that by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 (49% to 26%) the public think that the UK economy will get worse if we leave compared to staying. And there is a similar difference when people are asked about their own standard of living.
But do they understand the arguments being made? If you asked them directly why they think as they do would they be able to give good reasons or would they parrot what others are saying taking it as gospel. I dont believe the vast majority would be ably to critically analyse the arguments, sift through the hypebole and reach a reasoned decision.
-
That simply isn't true - by and large economists are pretty good at predicting matters into the future, and more so when they can get their teeth into two different scenarios which is the case here. Sure it might be the case that in both scenarios growth is a little better or a little worse than predicted, but predicting the difference between the two is very likely to be correct. And in this case (unlike some others) there is no disagreement - all credible independent economic organisations agree that Brexit will be bad for the UK economy compared to remaining - and the reasons in the short term are obvious. The one thing that business and the 'economy' hate is uncertainty and with Brexit there will be massive uncertainty for years. Lets face it there isn't a consensus amongst the leading Brexit figures as to what the preferred economic and trading position should be with the EU post Brexit. If the campaigners haven't got a clue how on earth can business feel confident to invest etc.
This is all rubbish because if the UK starts to fail then the EU will because we buy 50-60 billion more from them than they do from us and the EU, and especially the Euro, is cracking up and is very fragile. They will also be weaker because of the lack of our membership fee. So they and the world will do all they can to give us a good deal so that the world financial market doesn't collapse.
But on the other point, actually I agree with you - it isn't just about the economics (although thats a factor). I'd have a lot more respect for Jakswan (as an example) if he accepted that the economic situation will be worse if we leave rather than remain, rather than somehow claiming that all the credible independent economic organisations are wrong and he (without one iota of economic credibility) is right. At least if he accepted we'd be worse off, but it is (in his opinion) a price worth paying, then we can have a serious debate. I'd disagree and indeed I think the EU is so fundamentally a good thing for peace, internationalisation, cooperation etc etc that I'd still be in favour even if there were a limited economic price to pay (which of course there isn't, quite the reverse). But trying to argue against all of the credible economic opinion is simply delusional.
Well, what I wrote above blows all that out of the water.
Peace? Ask the Greeks how they feel about the Germans; and visa vice. The EU is causing strife between it and its people. More and more are saying it is flawed and wrong and more and more the EU dig their high heels in and refuse to budge.
Internationalisation, cooperation? This only suits the elites and corporatists; the very rich, not the people and the person in the street.
-
Yep, just understand that, as I would suggest was made clear in my previous post. Mentioning Hitler when many of the founders of the EU had fought against Nazism is deeply offensive. So if you hold the same principle, Boris is doing the same thing.
It doesn't matter what guise authoritarianism comes in it is all the same, the rule of the few over the many with absolute power; or near enough.
-
Internationalisation, cooperation? This only suits the elites and corporatists; the very rich, not the people and the person in the street.
Don't forget that in the 50 years prior to the EU being formed the 'people and the person in the street' were likely to have been being conscripted to fight in one of two world wars, with its main base in Europe. I suspect the 'people and the person in the street' are extremely glad that internationalisation and cooperation means they haven't been conscripted to go to war in the past 70 years.
-
In one sense yes, but Hitler - Jews, you heard about the holocaust right?
Ken brought up Hitler whilst defending someone who suggested all the Jews should be sent to the USA.
They should be sent back to Germany where they came from, now that the Germans are all nice and friendly people. ;D
-
I take it jakswan and Nige are of the opinion that should leave win but by a narrow margin, we would need another vote on a few years too?
No, because the Leave campaign hasn't played dirty!
-
No, because the Leave campaign hasn't played dirty!
So comparing the EU to Hitler isn't playing dirty!?!
Or calling on the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England for simply doing his jobs etc etc.
And of course there is the disinformation - trying to imply that all credible economic organisations are lying while not providing a jot of credible evidence to contradict them might not be playing dirty in one respect but it certainly isn't playing clean.
-
I pretty much agree with this but the SNP changed after the referendum in quadrupling in size. There is a force of democracy that was recognised by Ledru-Rollin when he said 'Ve suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive'. That combined with the possibility of a Scots In, UK Out vote in the referendum can be argued to be such a change that another referendum would be justifiable.
That said I am getting bored of the constant campaign mode
That's fine by me but the Scots will find that the EU they are voting on isn't the one we have now because the UK won't be in it and this will make the EU fragile and near to bankruptcy.
-
That's fine by me but the Scots will find that the EU they are voting on isn't the one we have now because the UK won't be in it and this will make the EU fragile and near to bankruptcy.
In a hypothetical situation where the UK left the EU it is indeed true that both the UK and the remaining EU would be negatively affected. And of course there is a double whammy for the UK, in that not only would leaving affect us directly but the negative impact on the rest of the EU would affect us indirectly too give that so much of our trade is with the EU. But of course with a much greater economic size the EU is much better prepared to be able to weather any storm compared to the UK which is about 8 times smaller.
So to use the analogies that are often applied to the USA - if we leave it will result in a severe cold to the UK and also the EU will have a few coughs and sneezes, which will rebound on the UK to cause pneumonia.
-
Don't forget that in the 50 years prior to the EU being formed the 'people and the person in the street' were likely to have been being conscripted to fight in one of two world wars, with its main base in Europe. I suspect the 'people and the person in the street' are extremely glad that internationalisation and cooperation means they haven't been conscripted to go to war in the past 70 years.
Instead they have had their standard of living, in real terms, degraded and the war has been waged on them by the rich elites. Soon they will all be serfs to the corporatist feudal lords.
-
So comparing the EU to Hitler isn't playing dirty!?!
Or calling on the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England for simply doing his jobs etc etc.
And of course there is the disinformation - trying to imply that all credible economic organisations are lying while not providing a jot of credible evidence to contradict them might not be playing dirty in one respect but it certainly isn't playing clean.
I was referring to the misuse of tax payers money and Whitehall etc. to get an advantage on the referendum debate. This will be a sore point if the Remain just manage to win within the Tory party.
-
Instead they have had their standard of living, in real terms, degraded and the war has been waged on them by the rich elites. Soon they will all be serfs to the corporatist feudal lords.
So why are so many countries desperate to join the EU? Is it perhaps because they have seen the track record of the EU in developing the economies and standard of living of people in rather under-developed and poor countries to a state where they are broadly equivalent to the more established european economies. Being part of the EU makes countries richer and their people, from top to bottom, richer.
I think if you want countries that are really in thrall to corpora list feudal lords you should look across the Atlantic and perhaps to the kind of vision that Farage, IDS and Redwood would like in a post-Brexit UK, but which can't happen currently due to the tempering influence of the EU.
Don't forget that quote from Rupert Murdoch when asked by Anthony Hilton why he was so opposed to the European Union.:
'That’s easy, when I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'
-
I was referring to the misuse of tax payers money and Whitehall etc. to get an advantage on the referendum debate. This will be a sore point if the Remain just manage to win within the Tory party.
Where have the remain camp misused tax payers money - that is a very strong allegation and one you'd better have evidence to back up.
I you mean the leaflet circulated by the government prior to the campaign don't forget that in every referendum the government is allowed to set out its views in advance of the referendum campaign. That's what happened in the 75 referendum, in those on devolution, AV vote, Scottish/Welsh independence, London Mayor etc and on this one. That is standard practice, completely accepted and not misuse of tax payers money. Are you somehow implying that this referendum should be run according to different rules to all other ones - special pleading at its most blatant clearly.
-
In a hypothetical situation where the UK left the EU it is indeed true that both the UK and the remaining EU would be negatively affected. And of course there is a double whammy for the UK, in that not only would leaving affect us directly but the negative impact on the rest of the EU would affect us indirectly too give that so much of our trade is with the EU. But of course with a much greater economic size the EU is much better prepared to be able to weather any storm compared to the UK which is about 8 times smaller.
So to use the analogies that are often applied to the USA - if we leave it will result in a severe cold to the UK and also the EU will have a few coughs and sneezes, which will rebound on the UK to cause pneumonia.
Size isn't always a guarantee of survival, look at the dinosaurs!!! The small creatures were the ones who survived and populated the global. ;D
Size has costs and the EU's economy, especially the Eurozone, is stagnant, or nearly so, and just one more straw to the camels back and snap!!!!!
-
Size isn't always a guarantee of survival, look at the dinosaurs!!! The small creatures were the ones who survived and populated the global. ;D
Size has costs and the EU's economy, especially the Eurozone, is stagnant, or nearly so, and just one more straw to the camels back and snap!!!!!
Be careful what you wish for, because the worst possible thing for the UK post Brexit would be for the remaining EU economy to be badly affected, because that will rebound on us.
You actually sound as if you really want EU countries to fail to somehow prove you right, and to hell with the consequences for the UK. I cannot fathom that view - I want both the UK and our EU partners all to be doing well, and indeed the rest of the global economy. As globalisation develops the one thing we know is that we all succeed together or we all fail together. I'm in favour of the former, you seem wedded to the latter.
-
So why are so many countries desperate to join the EU? Is it perhaps because they have seen the track record of the EU in developing the economies and standard of living of people in rather under-developed and poor countries to a state where they are broadly equivalent to the more established european economies. Being part of the EU makes countries richer and their people, from top to bottom, richer.
You tell that to the Greeks!!!
I've said this before. Are you heartless or something? Do you understand what Brussels have done and doing to the Greek people?
And the countries that want to join are poor and see a free lunch.
I think if you want countries that are really in thrall to corpora list feudal lords you should look across the Atlantic and perhaps to the kind of vision that Farage, IDS and Redwood would like in a post-Brexit UK, but which can't happen currently due to the tempering influence of the EU.
I know that Farage distains the US and I see the US as part of this corporatist, elitist scum. But you're too blind to see that the EU are part and parcel of this elitist global cabal.
-
Where have the remain camp misused tax payers money - that is a very strong allegation and one you'd better have evidence to back up.
I you mean the leaflet circulated by the government prior to the campaign don't forget that in every referendum the government is allowed to set out its views in advance of the referendum campaign. That's what happened in the 75 referendum, in those on devolution, AV vote, Scottish/Welsh independence, London Mayor etc and on this one. That is standard practice, completely accepted and not misuse of tax payers money. Are you somehow implying that this referendum should be run according to different rules to all other ones - special pleading at its most blatant clearly.
They used tax payers money not their own to do that. That is playing dirty because each side has to raise its own money not nick it from the public purse. And use the government machine to create propaganda...
-
Be careful what you wish for, because the worst possible thing for the UK post Brexit would be for the remaining EU economy to be badly affected, because that will rebound on us.
You actually sound as if you really want EU countries to fail to somehow prove you right, and to hell with the consequences for the UK. I cannot fathom that view - I want both the UK and our EU partners all to be doing well, and indeed the rest of the global economy. As globalisation develops the one thing we know is that we all succeed together or we all fail together. I'm in favour of the former, you seem wedded to the latter.
Yes, I want that monster to die. It is another version of the USSR.
I do realise what that will mean but as the financial markets and the banking system are going to go pop soon anyway we are all going to have to face this massive collapse anyway.
You are sooo naïve!!! "...we all succeed together..." Tell that to the Greeks et al. Tell that to Africa et al.
-
I said he was losing the argument - and that is pretty clear - the Brexiters don't actually seem to have an argument, their entire campaign seems to be based on smearing highly respected individuals and organisations and doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong' to every single credible independent economic organisation.
I've given you the arguments, higher wages, controlled immigration, a more democratic system of government, less risk from Euro collapse, and we'll still be richer than we are now if we leave according to the treasury.
One by one the Brexit leadership seem to be losing it - we've had the Farage 'I won't accept it if (when) we lose' and the Johnson 'EU and Hitler have the same goals' nonsense. You only start coming out with this kind of hysterical clap-trap when you have no cogent argument to give.
Or you pretend the other side doesn't have an argument. :)
-
Tell that to Africa et al.
Last time I looked there weren't any African countries in the EU - I it is rather unlikely that they would have benefited from the support to develop economically and also as stable democracies that are part and parcel of being a member of the EU.
Don't forget that we consider all the EU member states as stable democracies, yet over half had no long-standing track record of democracy at the point when they applied for membership. Indeed over half had been run by authoritarian dictator in the ten years prior to applying to join. The ability of the EU to drive countries to become stable democracies is remarkable, and actually not that easy. Just look around the world at countries that lurch between being run by a dictator, then briefly become democracies before lurching back to dictatorship in a coup. This is of course what used to happen in most of the current EU member states, but since they joined the EU every one has enjoyed continual stable democracy.
-
Step 1
Find the Windows Alt code for the vowel you want to insert. The codes for umlauted vowels are: ä (0228); Ä(0196); ë(0235); Ë(0203); ï(0239); Ï(0207); ö(0246); Ö(0214); ü(0252); Ü(0220); ÿ(0225) and Ÿ(0159).
Step 2
Enable the Num Lock feature of your numerical keypad. If you're using a laptop without a numerical keypad, pressing the "Num Lock" key usually activates the numerical keypad interposed on the main keyboard.
Related Reading: How to Put an Accent on a Letter of a Word Using Your Keyboard
Step 3
Hold down the “Alt” key, type the four-digit code for the character using the numerical keypad, and then release the “Alt” key.
Na naive, load a rubbish, who needs two wee dots anyway. >:(
-
Load of böllocks.
-
I've given you the arguments, higher wages, controlled immigration, a more democratic system of government, less risk from Euro collapse, and we'll still be richer than we are now if we leave according to the treasury.
Nope those aren't arguments - just a wish list, which won't be delivered by leaving the EU.
So to nail each one:
higher wages - evidence please - all the evidence I've seen suggests lower wages as the economy would do worse if we left rather than remain leading to unemployment and suppression of wages in the wider economy. Plus also you need to consider inflation - again the expert opinion suggests upwards inflationary pressure if we leave (in part due to weakening of the pound making imports more expensive) and even if wages remained the same in absolute terms they would be reduced in real terms due to the greater increase in cost of living.
controlled immigration - but we already have that for virtually all countries in the world - so are you saying that the approach for migrants from (for example) India, or Pakistan or Argentina is perfect. It is completely under the control of the UK government (in theory). So why then has the 'controlled immigration' risen proportionately to pretty well exactly the same extent in the most recent data than the 'uncontrolled immigration' from the EU. The reality is that it is market forces that really drives things - so a government can 'pretend' it has control, but if we need migration to fill vacancies that will happen under any system and any government, because otherwise the effect on the economy and public services would be dire.
a more democratic system of government - the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK government in that two of its elements (EU parliament and Council of ministers) have a democratic mandate, whereas we have only one - the House of Commons, with the Lords undemocratic. And our system of voting in Westminster elections leads to the current situation where one party can have all the power when 63% of the people didn't vote for them. I'd be worried about vesting more and more power in Westminster, noting that we already have one of the most centralised government systems around. I think that the EU helps to provide some checks and balances to mitigate agains the worst excesses of Westminster.
less risk from Euro collapse - we aren't in the euro and therefore aren't required to provide any direct bail out to the euro (as we didn't in 2008). But of course we will be affected economically by a eurozone crash, and just as much if we are out as in. But leaving will weaken the UK economy and also have a ripple knock on effect on the rest of the EU, weakening them too. So Brexit makes the chance of a euro crash more likely, doesn't alter our exposure to it but our weakened state will make it harder for us to ride the storm if it comes. So bad all round.
we'll still be richer than we are now if we leave according to the treasury - we've done this to death - the relevant comparison is whether we'd be better off if we stay compared to if we leave and we would be. And actually the Bank of England and others are suggesting that negative growth is a distinct possibility following a Brexit vote.
-
Naïve what a load of fuss, just shows how daft I am, I thought a dipthong was a racy piece of a ladies undergarment. :-[ :-[
Sorry folks, yes, EU REFERENDUM, very interesting, carry on.
-
I think one of the problems, and indeed the naivety, of the Brexiters is that they think that just because the UK government might be empowered to take a decision (actually it nearly always is anyhow) that it will necessarily take the decision that they want.
So here are some examples:
Getting rid of all sorts of regulation - what evidence is there that a UK government outside of the EU would simply abolish all sorts of health & safety and other regulations - they won't, it is wishful thinking.
Creating a much more right wing free market approach, e.g by allowing employers greater freedom on wages and working conditions. Why would they change this - don't forget it is the UK government that brought in (and is raising) the minimum wage - why would they suddenly reverse this outside the EU.
Create a cap on immigration - there is already a controlled immigration approach outside the EU, which seems no less 'controlled' in practice (i.e. goes up and down proportionately just the same as EU migration) than EU migration - why would a UK government bring in more draconian immigration policies than it already has for non EU workers just because it is outside the EU. And of course this is based on an approach where the UK could stop free movement of labour, which would only happen if we gave up access to the EU free market.
-
Indeed.
But a lot will depend on the government after any Brexit. On nearly all the points on which people object to being in the EU, the chances are that we would be worse off.
Might be worth a thread in itself - assuming we leave, what will we do or how will we run the country - tax, NHS, human rights, etc.. Who will run it .. Boris & cabal?
What is the plan to get a free trade deal with the US without ISDS? To keep free trade with Europe without conforming to Europe wide regulations and standards? Without free movement? Who has a set of immigration controls that are actually workable/sustainable? Do they plan on going down a Trump "ban all Muslims" kind of path or what? What if Scotland then vote to leave and rejoin the EU? Anyone for re-nationalization? Banning of Chinese imports? What about all the foreign companies with major stakes and control in local industries? Are we going to take them back or sell off more?
I suspect we will go back to being the sick man of Europe, and eventually limp back to the EU or end up as Landing Strip One for the US.
The best that could happen - probably just carrying on exactly as we are now but not having to worry about being in or out of the EU or trying to reform it.
-
Indeed.
But a lot will depend on the government after any Brexit. On nearly all the points on which people object to being in the EU, the chances are that we would be worse off.
Might be worth a thread in itself - assuming we leave, what will we do or how will we run the country - tax, NHS, human rights, etc.. Who will run it .. Boris & cabal?
There was one rather non credible Brexit group whop were trying to suggest that the economy would be stronger if we left, but this was on the basis of implementing a whole raft of John Redwood type uber right wing regulatory reforms to the UK.
Now we can argue whether these would actually improve the economy (I'd argue not), but that isn't the point. The thing is that the biggest hurdle to those kind of policies being implemented isn't being a member of the EU, but the requirement that the UK electorate would have to vote for a government far, far further to the right than we have ever seen - one that could be lead by John Redwood or IDS (and he tried and failed) and to keep them in power permanently so as to prevent a more moderate government repealing the reforms. It isn't going to happen. And actually it is just as possible (although implausible) in the EU - there is no fundamental reason why the EU couldn't shift dramatically right-wards if that reflected the political persuasion of the member state governments.
So these guys are living in a fantasy land if they think by leaving the EU we'd suddenly get all sorts of IDS/John Redwood policies being implemented - to do so would require the UK electorate to vote in a government on that platform - it ain't going to happen.
-
There was one rather non credible Brexit group whop were trying to suggest that the economy would be stronger if we left, but this was on the basis of implementing a whole raft of John Redwood type uber right wing regulatory reforms to the UK.
Now we can argue whether these would actually improve the economy (I'd argue not), but that isn't the point. The thing is that the biggest hurdle to those kind of policies being implemented isn't being a member of the EU, but the requirement that the UK electorate would have to vote for a government far, far further to the right than we have ever seen - one that could be lead by John Redwood or IDS (and he tried and failed) and to keep them in power permanently so as to prevent a more moderate government repealing the reforms. It isn't going to happen. And actually it is just as possible (although implausible) in the EU - there is no fundamental reason why the EU couldn't shift dramatically right-wards if that reflected the political persuasion of the member state governments.
So these guys are living in a fantasy land if they think by leaving the EU we'd suddenly get all sorts of IDS/John Redwood policies being implemented - to do so would require the UK electorate to vote in a government on that platform - it ain't going to happen.
And actually the 'wet dreams' of what will happen if we leave the EU are diametrically opposed in some cases.
So I'm sure that John Redwood would be delighted with a kind of TTIP on steroids in which there would be no protection whatsoever for public services from aggressive intrusion of major private companies. Yet there are others who see Brexit as being a prelude to scrapping TTIP type agreements and adopting an old school protectionist approach to our industries and public services.
-
Nope those aren't arguments - just a wish list, which won't be delivered by leaving the EU.
Which we have discussed.
So to nail each one:
You mean why you disagree with each one, honestly get some perspective and humility.
higher wages - evidence please - all the evidence I've seen suggests lower wages as the economy would do worse if we left rather than remain leading to unemployment and suppression of wages in the wider economy. Plus also you need to consider inflation - again the expert opinion suggests upwards inflationary pressure if we leave (in part due to weakening of the pound making imports more expensive) and even if wages remained the same in absolute terms they would be reduced in real terms due to the greater increase in cost of living.
I assume we both agree that price is largely dictated by supply demand. Naturally my argument would be lower supply - same demand, lower immigration, is this an argument you dispute?
You are arguing that demand would fall driving prices down, based on your assertion that we would have a recession. The Treasury report which you previously relied on doesn't support that view, you are refuted.
controlled immigration - but we already have that for virtually all countries in the world - so are you saying that the approach for migrants from (for example) India, or Pakistan or Argentina is perfect. It is completely under the control of the UK government (in theory). So why then has the 'controlled immigration' risen proportionately to pretty well exactly the same extent in the most recent data than the 'uncontrolled immigration' from the EU. The reality is that it is market forces that really drives things - so a government can 'pretend' it has control, but if we need migration to fill vacancies that will happen under any system and any government, because otherwise the effect on the economy and public services would be dire.
Never said anything about it being perfect, I'm for immigration its a very positive thing for the country. I think we have to have controls, so if we have enough Doctors but too few plumbers then let plumbers in, and treat everyone equally so give the same chance to an Indian plumber as a polish one. As it is now there is no control so too many plumbers could come in driving the price plumbers can charge down.
a more democratic system of government - the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK government in that two of its elements (EU parliament and Council of ministers) have a democratic mandate, whereas we have only one - the House of Commons, with the Lords undemocratic. And our system of voting in Westminster elections leads to the current situation where one party can have all the power when 63% of the people didn't vote for them. I'd be worried about vesting more and more power in Westminster, noting that we already have one of the most centralised government systems around. I think that the EU helps to provide some checks and balances to mitigate agains the worst excesses of Westminster.
I've never voted for the Council of Ministers? So the EU is not more democratic than Westminster the best you come up with as an argument is that the EU is as undemocratic as Westminster which you then explain you see as undemocratic.
In which case you should be arguing for reform of the EU and Westminster, which of those are more likely to be reformed?
Shot - foot, well done.
less risk from Euro collapse - we aren't in the euro and therefore aren't required to provide any direct bail out to the euro (as we didn't in 2008). But of course we will be affected economically by a eurozone crash, and just as much if we are out as in. But leaving will weaken the UK economy and also have a ripple knock on effect on the rest of the EU, weakening them too. So Brexit makes the chance of a euro crash more likely, doesn't alter our exposure to it but our weakened state will make it harder for us to ride the storm if it comes. So bad all round.
EU demands Britain joins Greek rescue fund
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11737286/EU-demands-Britain-joins-Greek-rescue-fund.html
we'll still be richer than we are now if we leave according to the treasury
I agree!
-
Size isn't always a guarantee of survival, look at the dinosaurs!!!
The dinosaurs dominated the land for 120 million years. That seems like success to me.
-
EU demands Britain joins Greek rescue fund
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11737286/EU-demands-Britain-joins-Greek-rescue-fund.html
That story is from a year ago. Did we help bail Greece out in the end?
More to the point, it would have been in our interest to help bail Greece out and it's the right thing to do unless you take pleasure in watching people's lives go down the toilet.
If the Eurozone collapses, it doesn't matter whether we are in the EU or out of it, it will be very bad news for Britain. At least, if we are in the EU, the Eurozone has a smaller chance of collapse.
-
That story is from a year ago. Did we help bail Greece out in the end?
More to the point, it would have been in our interest to help bail Greece out and it's the right thing to do unless you take pleasure in watching people's lives go down the toilet.
If the Eurozone collapses, it doesn't matter whether we are in the EU or out of it, it will be very bad news for Britain. At least, if we are in the EU, the Eurozone has a smaller chance of collapse.
If we helped with a bail out or not is moot, if the EURO goes into meltdown there will be more demands to help with a bail out and the Europhiles like yourself will be handing over the cash. This will hurt people in this country as our limited resources get spread very thinly.
So you are for joining the EURO? The UK would make it stronger right?
-
I think one of the problems, and indeed the naivety, of the Brexiters is that they think that just because the UK government might be empowered to take a decision (actually it nearly always is anyhow) that it will necessarily take the decision that they want.
One the problems and indeed the dishonesty of some of the Bremaiers is that they make up arguments that have not been made and assert things are true without evidence.
So here are some examples:
Getting rid of all sorts of regulation - what evidence is there that a UK government outside of the EU would simply abolish all sorts of health & safety and other regulations - they won't, it is wishful thinking.
I've never said that.
Creating a much more right wing free market approach, e.g by allowing employers greater freedom on wages and working conditions. Why would they change this - don't forget it is the UK government that brought in (and is raising) the minimum wage - why would they suddenly reverse this outside the EU.
I never said that.
based on an approach where the UK could stop free movement of labour, which would only happen if we gave up access to the EU free market.
You don't know that.
-
I agree!
Blimey - resorting to agreeing with your own comment - well I guess you'll have to as no-one else with any credible knowledge of economics is going to agree with you. All the credible economic organisation agree with me - that the UK will be worse off if we leave compared to if we stay.
-
Blimey - resorting to agreeing with your own comment - well I guess you'll have to as no-one else with any credible knowledge of economics is going to agree with you. All the credible economic organisation agree with me - that the UK will be worse off if we leave compared to if we stay.
We'll still be richer than we are now if we leave according to the treasury report, is fact.
-
If we helped with a bail out or not is moot,
Why did you bring it up then?
if the EURO goes into meltdown there will be more demands to help with a bail out and the Europhiles like yourself will be handing over the cash. This will hurt people in this country as our limited resources get spread very thinly.
If the Eurozone goes down the toilet it will drag us in with it no matter whether we are in the EU or not. We can stick two fingers up at the beleaguered people who live in the Eurozone or we can help try to stop it and perhaps save ourselves in the process.
So you are for joining the EURO? The UK would make it stronger right?
No. The Euro was always a bad idea, but it exists now and there's no way to dismantle it without a catastrophe.
-
We'll still be richer than we are now if we leave according to the treasury report, is fact.
Wrong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564
Analysis which is entirely consistent with their earlier report which focussed on the long term but which included analysis indicating significant short term reduction in GDP compared to the situation where we leave, sufficient to tip the UK economy into negative growth territory.
-
Wrong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564
Analysis which is entirely consistent with their earlier report which focussed on the long term but which included analysis indicating significant short term reduction in GDP compared to the situation where we leave, sufficient to tip the UK economy into negative growth territory.
Please stop lying, the Treasury Report I was referring to predicted in GDP terms we'll be richer than we are now if we leave, that is a stone cold fact.
This new drivel by a man who is supposed to be protecting our economy is damaging our economy by talking it down so badly.
On the Sunday Politics the predictions from one of those reports that Davey is a fan boy of put it something like this:-
Growth in UK economy by 2030
Stay 42%
Leave with free trade deal 39%
Leave with no free trade deal 36%
What a cheap price for freedom!
-
Why did you bring it up then?
If the Eurozone goes down the toilet it will drag us in with it no matter whether we are in the EU or not. We can stick two fingers up at the beleaguered people who live in the Eurozone or we can help try to stop it and perhaps save ourselves in the process.
No. The Euro was always a bad idea, but it exists now and there's no way to dismantle it without a catastrophe.
By you not arguing for us joining the EURO is you effectively sticking two fingers up at the beleaguered people who live in the Eurozone.
-
Please stop lying, the Treasury Report I was referring to predicted in GDP terms we'll be richer than we are now if we leave, that is a stone cold fact.
Nope this analysis (from the Treasury) is, unsurprisingly, completely consistent with their earlier report - the difference being that this report focusses on short range effects (over the first few years) while the earlier report headlined on the effects by 2030, but of course modelled the early years hit to the economy as part of that analysis.
This new drivel by a man who is supposed to be protecting our economy is damaging our economy by talking it down so badly.
But this is from the Treasury, you know the people who produced that report which you are fixated with (why I have no idea). So when the Treasury produce something that you mistakenly interpret as being positive to your position you bring it up endlessly, when the self same people produce something you don't like it is drivel - double standards to the n-th degree.
On the Sunday Politics the predictions from one of those reports that Davey is a fan boy of put it something like this:-
Growth in UK economy by 2030
Stay 42%
Leave with free trade deal 39%
Leave with no free trade deal 36%
Citation please or are these numbers just more made up stuff from you and your Brexit chums.
Sounds a bit like the earlier Treasury figures, except you have them wrong. The Treasury predict that by 2030 Brexit would result in a loss of GDP of approximately 4% if we become a member of the EEA (which would mean signing to up pretty less all EU regulations including free movement of labour), over 6% if we negotiate a bilateral deal and 7.5% without a deal - compared to the case where we remain. That's a big hit on our economy compared to staying. And of course there will be a big economic hit in the early years which is likely to result in recession (as indicated but the Treasury, the Bank of England, PwC/CBI, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Nomura, Société Générale etc)
What a cheap price for freedom!
Your complacency about the damage that Brexit would do to our economic performance in both the short and long terms is really quite staggering.
-
Nope this analysis (from the Treasury) is, unsurprisingly, completely consistent with their earlier report - the difference being that this report focusses on short range effects (over the first few years) while the earlier report headlined on the effects by 2030, but of course modelled the early years hit to the economy as part of that analysis.
Where in the report does it mention this?
But this is from the Treasury, you know the people who produced that report which you are fixated with (why I have no idea). So when the Treasury produce something that you mistakenly interpret as being positive to your position you bring it up endlessly, when the self same people produce something you don't like it is drivel - double standards to the n-th degree.
I'm sorry you don't like the fact that this report states that we will be better off than we are now if we leave. Don't get me wrong I think its garbage but you cited it as evidence for your position.
Citation please or are these numbers just more made up stuff from you and your Brexit chums.
I can't check (on train) but I think its in this clip
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vxspb
They also discuss the billions that HMRC have forced to pay back to big businesses as a result of EU rules. No wonder they are in favour of staying!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c3fcd5a-4287-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html#axzz49TJdkQoN
Sounds a bit like the earlier Treasury figures, except you have them wrong. The Treasury predict that by 2030 Brexit would result in a loss of GDP of approximately 4% if we become a member of the EEA (which would mean signing to up pretty less all EU regulations including free movement of labour), over 6% if we negotiate a bilateral deal and 7.5% without a deal - compared to the case where we remain. That's a big hit on our economy compared to staying. And of course there will be a big economic hit in the early years which is likely to result in recession (as indicated but the Treasury, the Bank of England, PwC/CBI, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Nomura, Société Générale etc)
Which is a nonsense.
Your complacency about the damage that Brexit would do to our economic performance in both the short and long terms is really quite staggering.
I'm not buying what you are selling.
-
Where in the report does it mention this?
All over the place. Over and over the earlier report indicates that is focusses on the long term and that 'The short-term economic impact will be assessed in a future government publication' - on other words the one published today.
But in the earlier report it is clear that there will be a serious 'shock' to the economy in the short term - e.g. chapter 3 of the report which indicates very clearly the short term risks, plus also includes (on p135) a range of independent estimates of the size of that short term economic shock.
I'm sorry you don't like the fact that this report states that we will be better off than we are now if we leave. Don't get me wrong I think its garbage but you cited it as evidence for your position.
I can't check (on train) but I think its in this clip
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vxspb
Hmm - that's convenient - can't back up your arguments. Bit like your continued failure to provide a report fro a credible independent economic organisation that thinks that the UK will be better off if we leave than if we stay.
They also discuss the billions that HMRC have forced to pay back to big businesses as a result of EU rules. No wonder they are in favour of staying!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c3fcd5a-4287-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html#axzz49TJdkQoN
Behind the ft paywall so cannot read - hmm how convenient for you again.
Which is a nonsense.
What all these highly respected credible and independent economic organisations or Jakswan - whose economic credibility is ...?
I'm not buying what you are selling.
I'm not selling anything, merely providing the expert opinion. You on the other hand are selling myth and fantasy that somehow if we leave the UK economy will just carry on swimmingly in comparison with the situation if we stay, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
-
All over the place. Over and over the earlier report indicates that is focusses on the long term and that 'The short-term economic impact will be assessed in a future government publication' - on other words the one published today.
So the report we were discussing didn't actually claim we would be having a recession glad we cleared that up.
But in the earlier report it is clear that there will be a serious 'shock' to the economy in the short term - e.g. chapter 3 of the report which indicates very clearly the short term risks, plus also includes (on p135) a range of independent estimates of the size of that short term economic shock.
But the report concludes if we leave we will be richer than we are now by 2030, undermines your argument really.
Hmm - that's convenient - can't back up your arguments. Bit like your continued failure to provide a report fro a credible independent economic organisation that thinks that the UK will be better off if we leave than if we stay.
Behind the ft paywall so cannot read - hmm how convenient for you again.
Watch the clip its 9 minutes as I recall, it has a Bremainer from your buddies at the CBI.
What all these highly respected credible and independent economic organisations or Jakswan - whose economic credibility is ...?
We can both cite expert opinion supporting our positions, I think it gets us no where.
I'm not selling anything, merely providing the expert opinion. You on the other hand are selling myth and fantasy that somehow if we leave the UK economy will just carry on swimmingly in comparison with the situation if we stay, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Davey you are no expert. I think the Treasury report is a nonsense, you consider it 'expert evidence', that report concludes by 2030 we will be better off then we are now if we leave. To pretend that it doesn't is a fantasy of yours.
-
So the report we were discussing didn't actually claim we would be having a recession glad we cleared that up.
Indeed it did as the estimates on negative short term effect are sufficient to counter the predicted levels of growth in a remain scenario. But as they always said the detailed report on short term effects would be published later - and indeed this is what has happened with publication this morning:
So we now have:
http://tinyurl.com/hxfnjz7
Which focuses on the short term impact to our economy.
To go with:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/jar59tq
Which focuses on long term effects.
Both are consistent one with another and the conclusion is clear - this a direct quote from the report published today:
'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'
And this is from the same people who you keep endlessly referring to on their long range analysis as if it somehow backs up your view. It doesn't - the Treasury view is very clear - if we leave the economy will shrink resulting in recession in the short term. The recovery from that recession will not be sufficient to make up the hit, such that the economy will be substantially smaller even in 2030 if we leave compared to remaining.
Lets hope you aren't one of those 500,000 who will lose their jobs in the next few years if we vote for Brexit next month.
Moderator: edited to shorten two URLs
-
Watch the clip its 9 minutes as I recall, it has a Bremainer from your buddies at the CBI.
Just have - and I'm struggling to see how anything in that interview backs up your case.
And yes I can see the particular report, which is from the CBI/PWC - indeed one of the reports mentioned on p135 of the Treasury report. It doesn't make comfortable reading for Brexiters as it suggests a significant hit on the economy with Brexit in the short term which is never recovered.
So here are some actual quotes from the report:
'We estimate that total GDP in 2020 could be around 3% and 5.5% lower under the FTA and WTO scenarios respectively than if the UK remains in the UK'
'We estimate that GDP per household could be around £2,100-3,700 lower in 2020 if the UK leaves the EU.'
'UK employment (the number of people employed) in 2030 could be between 350,000 and 600,000 lower in our two exit scenarios relative to remaining in the EU."
-
Points to Sarah Wollaston
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eurosceptic-tory-mp-dr-sarah-wollaston-refuses-to-hand-out-misleading-vote-leave-nhs-leaflets-a7043166.html
-
So comparing the EU to Hitler isn't playing dirty!?!
No. Playing dirty means hitting below the belt and causing pain. He did not compare the EU with Hitler. However, at best it was amusing that Hitler got reference into all this and at worst just plain stupid.
Or calling on the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England for simply doing his jobs etc etc.
That was a plausible request in my view as he over stepped the mark into the political arena.
And of course there is the disinformation - trying to imply that all credible economic organisations are lying while not providing a jot of credible evidence to contradict them might not be playing dirty in one respect but it certainly isn't playing clean.
As you know I don't agree that these so called professional and independent organisation are worth tiddly squat. They are all run by the same kind of people who are pure idiots. They are all part of this Neo-Liberal project as is the EU. You can't trust them!!!
-
And this is from the same people who you keep endlessly referring to on their long range analysis as if it somehow backs up your view. It doesn't - the Treasury view is very clear - if we leave the economy will shrink resulting in recession in the short term. The recovery from that recession will not be sufficient to make up the hit, such that the economy will be substantially smaller even in 2030 if we leave compared to remaining.
Yes we'll be better off in 2030 than we are now if we leave the EU.
Lets hope you aren't one of those 500,000 who will lose their jobs in the next few years if we vote for Brexit next month.
These 500,000 job losses are a fantasy, from the report:-
Immediate impact of a vote to leave the EU on the UK (% difference from base level unless specified otherwise)
Shock scenarioa Severe shock scenarioa
GDP -3.6% -6.0%
Nothing changes if we vote leave, its a two year process. 6% immediately is utterly ridiculous.
I have to wonder why Cameron and Osborne felt it would be so bad why they are having a referendum in the first place.
-
Just have - and I'm struggling to see how anything in that interview backs up your case.
And yes I can see the particular report, which is from the CBI/PWC - indeed one of the reports mentioned on p135 of the Treasury report. It doesn't make comfortable reading for Brexiters as it suggests a significant hit on the economy with Brexit in the short term which is never recovered.
So here are some actual quotes from the report:
'We estimate that total GDP in 2020 could be around 3% and 5.5% lower under the FTA and WTO scenarios respectively than if the UK remains in the UK'
'We estimate that GDP per household could be around £2,100-3,700 lower in 2020 if the UK leaves the EU.'
'UK employment (the number of people employed) in 2030 could be between 350,000 and 600,000 lower in our two exit scenarios relative to remaining in the EU."
So your buddies the CBI's report does actually conclude the following:-
Growth in UK economy by 2030
Stay 42%
Leave with free trade deal 39%
Leave with no free trade deal 36%
-
The dinosaurs dominated the land for 120 million years. That seems like success to me.
But the fact is they became a liability when the new conditions arrived where their style of living, adaptation and big size answer to life weighed them down and brought about their demise. It is the same with the EU. And we have a foreteller in this with the USSR.
-
That story is from a year ago. Did we help bail Greece out in the end?
No, thank god.
More to the point, it would have been in our interest to help bail Greece out...
No it wouldn't, Greece is bankrupt they haven't a hope in hell in paying back their debts.
...and it's the right thing to do unless you take pleasure in watching people's lives go down the toilet.
No it is not, see above. The right thing to have done was to write down their debts. The people taking pleasure in watching the Greeks go down the toilet were the Troika.
If the Eurozone collapses, it doesn't matter whether we are in the EU or out of it, it will be very bad news for Britain. At least, if we are in the EU, the Eurozone has a smaller chance of collapse.
The Euro is going to fail anyway so best to get as far as possible from that pile of dung. We shouldn't give our freedom away just to try to keep that abortion together!!!
-
So your buddies the CBI's report does actually conclude the following:-
Growth in UK economy by 2030
Stay 42%
Leave with free trade deal 39%
Leave with no free trade deal 36%
Lets put that in real money shall we.
That means that with the trade deal we would be £1.2 billion a week worse off than if we remain.
Without the deal that would be about £2.5 billion a week.
Strange how the Brexiters obsess about the supposed £350 million a week we 'send' to the EU (which is of course a lie) yet are totally blasé about losing between £1.2 and £2.5 billion a week from our economy. And the 350,000-600,000 lost jobs in the economy compared to staying.
And don't forget that the CBI/PWC estimates are towards the lower end of the expert opinion on how badly our economy would be hit by Brexit.
-
By you not arguing for us joining the EURO is you effectively sticking two fingers up at the beleaguered people who live in the Eurozone.
No I'm not. I'm not suggesting we should leave Greece to crash and burn. Sticking two fingers up seems to be your department.
-
He did not compare the EU with Hitler.
Boris Johnson did - and Napoleon.
I have to laugh at all the Brexiters who came out claiming it was a historian's analysis. What Boris said was
Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.
That's not a historian's analysis, it's a cheap sound bite.
-
Boris Johnson did - and Napoleon.
I have to laugh at all the Brexiters who came out claiming it was a historian's analysis. What Boris said was
'Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.'
That's not a historian's analysis, it's a cheap sound bite.
Does anyone seriously think that the EU will end in 'tragedy' in the manner of Hitler and Napoleon - i.e. with a major European war and millions dead. Sure the EU might fall apart, but if it did so it would be likely to be via a series of country based referendums followed by a load of negotiations on exit. Hardly the same thing.
-
I suspect we will see more of this approach from Remain - though good to see someone admit some issues with their own side, just like Sarah Wollaston for Leave
https://next.ft.com/content/1fe4e0ec-1e96-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15
-
Lets put that in real money shall we.
I suspect you are going to do that but ok.
That means that with the trade deal we would be £1.2 billion a week worse off than if we remain.
Without the deal that would be about £2.5 billion a week.
Show your workings but ok, assuming this is GDP?
Strange how the Brexiters obsess about the supposed £350 million a week we 'send' to the EU (which is of course a lie) yet are totally blasé about losing between £1.2 and £2.5 billion a week from our economy. And the 350,000-600,000 lost jobs in the economy compared to staying.
Strange how some Bremainers still can't understand the differance between Govt. funds and GDP and comparing them is nonsense. I've already taken you to task on this.
And don't forget that the CBI/PWC estimates are towards the lower end of the expert opinion on how badly our economy would be hit by Brexit.
And don't forget that forecasting what the GDP would be in 14 years time is an utter lottery.
-
Odds now shifted to 6/1 on for Remain
-
I suspect you are going to do that but ok.
Show your workings but ok, assuming this is GDP?
GDP is currently approx. £2,000billion - if that rose by 42% then it would be £2,840 billion by 2030 (as estimated if we remain). If it only grows by 39% then it would be £2,780billion or by just 36% it would be £2,720billion (which are the figures suggested for the EEA-type scenario and a looser bilateral arrangement. Those differences are approx. £60 billion and £120 billion respectively, which on a weekly basis provides the figures I gave.
Strange how some Bremainers still can't understand the differance between Govt. funds and GDP and comparing them is nonsense. I've already taken you to task on this.
I understand the difference perfectly, but government spending is currently 43% - so that hit of £1.2-2.5billion of GDP per week equates to a hit of between £500million and £1.2billion a week hit to public purse - somewhat larger than you £350million a week (which is in itself a lie). And by the way the CBI/PWC modelling factor in the contributions to the EU so the difference really is £500million and £1.2billion a week, not £500million and £1.2billion a week minus net contribution to the EU.
And don't forget that forecasting what the GDP would be in 14 years time is an utter lottery.
Not helping your cause because there is absolute consistency in expert opinion on the effect of Brexit in the short term on the economy - a very significant hit, which is as likely as not to result in negative growth in the short term. So the Treasury suggest this to be about 6% while the CBI/PWC indicate this to be 3-5.5% lower.
-
I understand the difference perfectly, but government spending is currently 43% - so that hit of £1.2-2.5billion of GDP per week equates to a hit of between £500million and £1.2billion a week hit to public purse - somewhat larger than you £350million a week (which is in itself a lie). And by the way the CBI/PWC modelling factor in the contributions to the EU so the difference really is £500million and £1.2billion a week, not £500million and £1.2billion a week minus net contribution to the EU.
So the difference in terms of government spending is that in 14 years time the government might have £150 million more to spend than if we left the EU. Well actually that is not true is it because our payments will go up substantially because a lot of it is based on GDP. So the £350 million we pay now will also rise by 42% if we stay £497million.
So the difference is £3 million a week and in government spending terms almost irrelevant.
What cheap price freedom!
-
No I'm not. I'm not suggesting we should leave Greece to crash and burn. Sticking two fingers up seems to be your department.
If we joined the EURO would the EURO be safer?
-
If we joined the EURO would the EURO be safer?
What do you mean by "would the EURO be safer"? and why do you keep shouting?
-
So the difference in terms of government spending is that in 14 years time the government might have £150 million more to spend than if we left the EU. Well actually that is not true is it because our payments will go up substantially because a lot of it is based on GDP. So the £350 million we pay now will also rise by 42% if we stay £497million.
So the difference is £3 million a week and in government spending terms almost irrelevant.
What cheap price freedom!
No it isn't because firstly the £350 million a week is a lie - and even were it the gross amount the relevant component is the net payment and secondly because alterations in GDP take account of simple inflationary changes and are therefore the differences adjusted back to 2016 prices.
So you can see this very clearly on the Treasury 'long term' report (on page 7). There the middle point (i.e. not simply going for EEA which would of course still require substantial net EU contribution, as is the case for Norway) the annual effect on receipts is £36billion (at 2015 prices) - our net EU contribution is about £8 billion a year (again at 2015 prices) - so government accounts will be not far off £30 billion worse off per annum at 2015 prices, or £600 million a week. And that takes account of change in net contribution to the EU and also relies on us sorting a free trade deal with the EU within 2 years of leaving.
-
What cheap price freedom!
I disagree because I see no meaningful loss of freedom by being a member of the EU, which is at least as democratic as our UK government, arguable rather more so.
But also I thought you wanted to control levels of migration - you do realise that the CBI/PWC modelling of negative effect on the economy from leaving the EU is based on relaxing migration - making it easier for immigrants to get visas to come here. Were they to have modelled a situation where migration was significantly curtailed by the UK government the effect on the economy would, of course, be far worse as migrants are significant net contributors to our economy.
-
What do you mean by "would the EURO be safer"? and why do you keep shouting?
Evasion and whataboutery.
Would the Euro currency be safer if the UK joined?
-
I disagree because I see no meaningful loss of freedom by being a member of the EU, which is at least as democratic as our UK government, arguable rather more so.
I disagree because I do see meaningful loss of freedom by being a member of the EU, which is not as democratic as our UK government, arguable rather less so.
The new EU regulations on E-Cigs will impact me, how can I get the law revoked?
-
The new EU regulations on E-Cigs will impact me, how can I get the law revoked?
In what way does this affect you.
Can you confirm that this EU directive was not approved by the UK government through the council of ministers, nor by elected MEPs including those from the UK, nor implemented into UK law by the UK government and UK parliament.
And of course if you want to change it you can do so via the normal democratic channels, so to lobby the UK government to press for change, to vote for MPs in the UK government who will change the regulations, to vote in MEPs who will also change the regulations.
You seem to be confusing 'freedom' with always getting your own way, being allowed to do exactly what you want and liking every law or regulation passed. Within any democratic system there will be times when governments (with democratic mandate) bring in laws that you don't like and oppose very strongly. And that happens at every level, just as often at the UK level as at the EU level. I don't think that really means curtailment of 'freedom' unless you are a pure libertarian, i.e. someone who thinks that every individual must be allowed to do exactly as they wish without restriction from any government or law - but I don't think you do, and if you were a pure libertarian the UK government would be far more problematic to you than the EU as the vat, vast majority of the legislation that restricts our pure freedom to do exactly as we like emanates from the UK government, not from the EU.
-
In what way does this affect you.
I vape, makes Eliquid more expensive, means I have to use ineffective system.
Can you confirm that this EU directive was not approved by the UK government through the council of ministers, nor by elected MEPs including those from the UK, nor implemented into UK law by the UK government and UK parliament.
Not sure even if I could find out the system is so bureaucratic I have zero confidence anything I do will make the slightest difference.
You seem to be confusing 'freedom' with always getting your own way,
No I just want to feel that my vote actually matters so that politicians have to listen to my point of view if they want my vote.
-
I vape, makes Eliquid more expensive, means I have to use ineffective system.
So just to check (as I have no idea, neither smoking nor vaping) when the The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 came into force last Friday you had to pay more for your fix than you had, for example last Monday. It may well be true, but I'm just checking. And even if true this why is this necessarily a bad thing or necessarily the fault of the EU (given that the regulations have the approval of the UK government at every stage). Year after year my glass of wine goes up because of changes to the duty applied by the UK government, why is that any different?
Not sure even if I could find out the system is so bureaucratic I have zero confidence anything I do will make the slightest difference.
The regulations (see here):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/507/pdfs/uksi_20160507_en.pdf
were drafted by the UK government and laid before the UK parliament who approved them. The early EU regulations were approved both by the Council of ministers (including the UK government) and the European parliament (including UK MEPs).
Where exactly is there a problem from a freedom/democracy point of view - there isn't. Overall seems eminently sensible legislation as it regulates an are (e-cigarettes) which have appeared pretty recently and which were pretty unregulated despite many containing significant levels of nicotine. Also seems eminently sensible to broadly harmonise regulation across the EU, which helps consumers and producers alike.
No I just want to feel that my vote actually matters so that politicians have to listen to my point of view if they want my vote.
Not unreasonable - but why is this somehow a problem in the EU but not in the UK parliament - I have a say in a greater proportion of MEPs than UK MPs and I now live in a pretty safe Tory seat in the UK - my MP doesn't need to give a damn what I think as my vote is pretty irrelevant to her in our first past the post system.
Don't forget that in the UK most people live in safe seats where their vote is unlikely to make a difference. Plus few MPs win the support of a majority of their electorate, and we currently have a government which received the support of under 24% of the electorate, just 36% of those that voted, yet gained 51% of the seats and 100% of the power.
So I agree that democratic deficit is an issue, but if you are actually concerned about democratic deficit I suggest you start by looking rather closer to home than the EU.
-
So just to check (as I have no idea, neither smoking nor vaping) when the The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 came into force last Friday you had to pay more for your fix than you had, for example last Monday. It may well be true, but I'm just checking. And even if true this why is this necessarily a bad thing or necessarily the fault of the EU (given that the regulations have the approval of the UK government at every stage). Year after year my glass of wine goes up because of changes to the duty applied by the UK government, why is that any different?
Smokers elect to vape is a good thing? The new regs limit the sale of eliquid to 10ml, makes it more expansive as you will be unable to buy 30ml. However its a side issue for this thread.
Don't forget that in the UK most people live in safe seats where their vote is unlikely to make a difference. Plus few MPs win the support of a majority of their electorate, and we currently have a government which received the support of under 24% of the electorate, just 36% of those that voted, yet gained 51% of the seats and 100% of the power.
So I agree that democratic deficit is an issue, but if you are actually concerned about democratic deficit I suggest you start by looking rather closer to home than the EU.
Democracy is not quite as simple as that, politicians are held to account in this country not just by the ballot box but by the media. Sharing a common language / culture its much easier to raise issues by getting in touch with press as well as contacting special interest groups and MPs. Who all share the same culture.
My only option for the EU is get in touch with a powerless MEP.
-
Democracy is not quite as simple as that, politicians are held to account in this country not just by the ballot box but by the media. Sharing a common language / culture its much easier to raise issues by getting in touch with press as well as contacting special interest groups and MPs. Who all share the same culture.
You can do just the same for the EU, and indeed many do. You will undoubtedly be pushing against an open door with much of the UK 'popular' press if you want to take issue with the EU.
My only option for the EU is get in touch with a powerless MEP.
Why is your MEP (or rather MEPs - I'll come back to that in moment) any more 'powerless' than you MP - they aren't.
But you have a number of MEPs, with the election being regional, so it is likely that you will be able to find one whose views align with your and is happy to take up your issue. With only one MP, if they don't agree you are extremely unlikely to have them fighting your corner (as they won't agree) - the sum total of your efforts to get them to champion your cause will be a brief 'standard' letter explaining that while they respect your views they frankly don't give a damn (written in rather more parliamentary language).
-
Evasion and whataboutery.
Says the man who is trying to divert a discussion on our EU membership to being about our potential Euro membership,
Would the Euro currency be safer if the UK joined?
I had figured out the "if the UK joined" part. I was asking what you meant by "safer".
-
Smokers elect to vape is a good thing? The new regs limit the sale of eliquid to 10ml, makes it more expansive as you will be unable to buy 30ml. However its a side issue for this thread.
No it isn't. It's the first answer anybody has given to the question I asked earlier about finding some aspect in which the EU has affected your life. Having just read up on the new regulation, it really does seem overly heavy handed.
However, do not be under any illusion that the regulation will go away if we leave the EU. The law that the UK parliament enacted to enforce the directive will still have force and will need to be repealed. I think you have a snowball's chance in hell of making that happen: the government seems to be very down on any kind of recreational drug (except the PM's drug of choice - alcohol - of course) as evidenced by the new ban on "legal" highs which they enacted without any help from the EU.
-
No it isn't. It's the first answer anybody has given to the question I asked earlier about finding some aspect in which the EU has affected your life. Having just read up on the new regulation, it really does seem overly heavy handed.
However, do not be under any illusion that the regulation will go away if we leave the EU. The law that the UK parliament enacted to enforce the directive will still have force and will need to be repealed. I think you have a snowball's chance in hell of making that happen: the government seems to be very down on any kind of recreational drug (except the PM's drug of choice - alcohol - of course) as evidenced by the new ban on "legal" highs which they enacted without any help from the EU.
And not only did the UK parliament approve the regulations drafted by the UK government that imposes the changes into UK law, but the UK government approved the regulations at EU level and the elected MEPs including those from the UK approved it in the EU parliament.
So it has UK approval written all over it, and JP is correct it isn't going away and almost certainly would have been introduced even if we weren't in the EU.
On whether it is overly draconian - well I'm not sure it is. Don't forget this only applies to vaping products that include nicotine, in other words something that is addictive and damaging to health. So it isn't the case of 'cigarettes dangerous, nicotine containing vaping safe' but 'cigarettes dangerous, nicotine containing vaping slightly less dangerous'. So although we might prefer people to be using nicotine vaping to cigarettes, it would be better if people didn't smoke at all or vaped with nicotine-free products (which are except from the law).
I am pretty concerned about the current (but presumably now changing) marketing of nicotine vaping as cool and glamorous, the sort of thing we used to see for cigarettes back in the 1970s and earlier. Likewise the packaging. And also I think the regulations ensure higher quality standards on the products which will help improve safety. SO all in all I have no problem with regulations which provide a framework which sees vaping as perhaps preferably to smoking but recognises that it isn't anything like as preferable as getting off nicotine dependency altogether.
-
Odds now shifted to 6/1 on for Remain
That means that to win £1 you have to put down £6 doesn't it? If that is right - I'm not a betting person!! - then I'll give a little cheer. :)
That doesn't sound right... hmmm
Just confirm, please, that these odds mean most people are in favour of remaining IN the eU.
-
Just confirm, please, that these odds mean most people are in favour of remaining IN the eU.
All it means is that most people who are betting think that the result will be for Remain.
-
Thank you, JeremyP. That is encouraging.
I hope a large number of young people register to vote in time.
-
Boris Johnson did - and Napoleon.
I have to laugh at all the Brexiters who came out claiming it was a historian's analysis. What Boris said was
That's not a historian's analysis, it's a cheap sound bite.
But he didn't say the EU was the same as the Nazis only that they are trying to unify Europe as did many others, and this is historically correct.
-
You can do just the same for the EU, and indeed many do. You will undoubtedly be pushing against an open door with much of the UK 'popular' press if you want to take issue with the EU.
Why is your MEP (or rather MEPs - I'll come back to that in moment) any more 'powerless' than you MP - they aren't.
MY local MP potentially is directly tied to Govt or Shadow Govt. which can directly propose new legislation and have enough power to get it through. An MEP can't come close.
-
MY local MP potentially is directly tied to Govt or Shadow Govt. which can directly propose new legislation and have enough power to get it through. An MEP can't come close.
Although the European commission formally introduces legislation, that legislation is usually at the behest of the Council (i.e. our government and that of other member states) or suggested by MEPs in the European parliament (i.e. our elected MEPs). The process is little different to our UK process, where legislation is drafted by the civil service at the behest of government.
So I am struggling with your view. Every Christmas I receive a card from one MP (one of the rare surviving LibDems) and one MEP (a Labour member in my region) - can you explain to me why the former has more influence than the latter, beyond the obvious fact that there are 751 MEPs and 650 MPs.
And this whole line of thinking is deeply muddled in a schrodinger's cat kind of manner - so the EU is simultaneously toothless, while completely running our lives. It can't be both.
-
Although the European commission formally introduces legislation, that legislation is usually at the behest of the Council (i.e. our government and that of other member states) or suggested by MEPs in the European parliament (i.e. our elected MEPs).
Other member states and MEPS outside of the UK and not accountable to UK electorate in anyway. You could argue that a politician standing out of my area is not accountable to me however due to the party system there is a form of accountability.
Also you haven't addressed the shared culture aspect, I'll give you an example. The Google Tax saga John McDonnell was advocating that a UK sales tax be introduced which was a nonsense because Google doesn't pay tax here because the sales are in Ireland and a UK sales tax would have zero impact. Had he carried on with this nonsense I could approach the media and have asked them to challenge John on this flawed policy.
The process is little different to our UK process, where legislation is drafted by the civil service at the behest of government.
So I am struggling with your view. Every Christmas I receive a card from one MP (one of the rare surviving LibDems) and one MEP (a Labour member in my region) - can you explain to me why the former has more influence than the latter, beyond the obvious fact that there are 751 MEPs and 650 MPs.
And this whole line of thinking is deeply muddled in a schrodinger's cat kind of manner - so the EU is simultaneously toothless, while completely running our lives. It can't be both.
Another strawman from a Bremainer.
-
My hairdresser was just asking me how I'm voting - she's got no clue and is asking all her clients for ideas. Lots of Brexiters around here apparently.
-
I've just spent an interesting hour on the vote leave thread on Facebook I give you this little sample of the words that pass for reasoning on there go like:
Stupid cunt, you really havent red up on this have you. China will h ve us a trade deal, they have even daid so. Im glad the last world war was in the 30s coz cunts like you dont have a spine and you are an embarrassment to this country and the men and women that have fought and died for this country. If I ever see you in the street I will teach ou the meaning of being britsihsh you patheic embarrassment of a cunt
I apologise for the language but it does give you a full flavour of what passes for thinking in some Brexiters minds. I had mildly questioned our ability to get good trade agreements on our own and received the above well reasoned response!
-
It's all emotion (generally unpleasant) and no logic or reasoning.
-
It's all emotion (generally unpleasant) and no logic or reasoning.
YEs - I hadn't realised how unpleasant though :( It makes our little board seem full of jolly nice refined folks ;D
-
My hairdresser was just asking me how I'm voting - she's got no clue and is asking all her clients for ideas. Lots of Brexiters around here apparently.
Just been out with a few friends, lifelong lefties, hate Cameron scare stories, think Corbyn is a nice man but a bit of a joke, Brexit all the way. Meanwhile sister doesn't know, might not actually vote at a push for remain.
Time to bet methinks!
-
Other member states and MEPS outside of the UK and not accountable to UK electorate in anyway. You could argue that a politician standing out of my area is not accountable to me however due to the party system there is a form of accountability.
The MP for Reading West is not accountable to the electorate in Brighton East in any way. Your point?
Also you haven't addressed the shared culture aspect, I'll give you an example. The Google Tax saga John McDonnell was advocating that a UK sales tax be introduced which was a nonsense because Google doesn't pay tax here because the sales are in Ireland and a UK sales tax would have zero impact. Had he carried on with this nonsense I could approach the media and have asked them to challenge John on this flawed policy.
Google will always be able to avoid taxes in countries with high tax by basing their operations outside that country. The only way to stop that is cooperation between countries and coordinated taxes. Unfortunately,cit seems you leavers don't want coordinated taxes: Jack is screaming because the EU forces us to set VAT in the range 5% to infinity.
-
Just been out with a few friends, lifelong lefties, hate Cameron scare stories, think Corbyn is a nice man but a bit of a joke, Brexit all the way. Meanwhile sister doesn't know, might not actually vote at a push for remain.
Time to bet methinks!
As long as you've got your checkbook ready for a bit of charitable giving for the workhouses for those made unemployed by Brexit and cheap third world labour Jak.
-
As long as you've got your checkbook ready for a bit of charitable giving for the workhouses for those made unemployed by Brexit and cheap third world labour Jak.
What will Brexit do next? Give everyone piles and halitosis? Guarantee rain and 5°C temperatures on every bank holiday? Massacre the firstborn and bring on plagues of locusts?
-
What will Brexit do next? Give everyone piles and halitosis? Guarantee rain and 5°C temperatures on every bank holiday? Massacre the firstborn and bring on plagues of locusts?
Boris reminds me of the half metamorphosed alien in Carpenter's The Thing
.......................so we are doomed.
-
What will Brexit do next? Give everyone piles and halitosis?
.............too late for you then?
-
MEPS outside of the UK and not accountable to UK electorate in anyway.
What a ridiculous statement.
The European parliament is accountable to the EU electorate, the UK parliament is accountable to the UK electorate. The clue is in the name.
So to suggest that the European parliament is somehow illegitimate because not all MEPs are accountable to the UK electorate is the equivalent of arguing that the UK parliament is somehow illegitimate because not all MPs are accountable to the Scottish electorate, or the London electorate etc.
And the reality is that not a single one of the 650 MPs in Westminster is accountable to the entire UK electorate - they are only accountable to the electorate in their individual constituencies. So only one of 650 MPs is directly accountable to me as a voter - I have absolutely no electoral democratic influence on the other 649. So my influence extends to just 0.15% of MPs.
Interestingly a rather greater proportion of MEPs (7 out of 751) or 0.93% are directly accountable to me and to whom I have a electoral democratic influence in their selection.
-
And the reality is that not a single one of the 650 MPs in Westminster is accountable to the UK electorate - they are only accountable to the electorate in their individual constituencies.
And the members of the House of Lords aren't accountable to anybody, except maybe the Queen.
-
And the members of the House of Lords aren't accountable to anybody, except maybe the Queen.
That's right.
So of all the governance levels where I have a vote - District Council, County Council, UK Parliament and European Parliament the one where I have the least influence as a voter is the UK Parliament where I my vote can only directly influence one member of that parliament out of a total of 1452 members of the UK Parliament - and indeed none of the UK electorate has direct influence over 802 of those members.
-
We have a postal vote, the form should arrive by the end of next week. We will both tick the remain box and put it straight in the post, end of!
-
We have a postal vote, the form should arrive by the end of next week. We will both tick the remain box and put it straight in the post, end of!
Good - go for it.
-
What a ridiculous statement.
The European parliament is accountable to the EU electorate, the UK parliament is accountable to the UK electorate. The clue is in the name.
So to suggest that the European parliament is somehow illegitimate because not all MEPs are accountable to the UK electorate is the equivalent of arguing that the UK parliament is somehow illegitimate because not all MPs are accountable to the Scottish electorate, or the London electorate etc.
And the reality is that not a single one of the 650 MPs in Westminster is accountable to the entire UK electorate - they are only accountable to the electorate in their individual constituencies. So only one of 650 MPs is directly accountable to me as a voter - I have absolutely no electoral democratic influence on the other 649. So my influence extends to just 0.15% of MPs.
Interestingly a rather greater proportion of MEPs (7 out of 751) or 0.93% are directly accountable to me and to whom I have a electoral democratic influence in their selection.
I can see we're going to need to dumb this down for you. You seem to have a ridiculously simple view of how democracy actually works.
Lets take TTIP, lets say I'm dead set against it, as a citizen I can attempt to apply pressure to the government to not proceed with this policy. I can vote differently, I can try to change my local MP (who'll bring a voting block with him/her if they are a member of a big party), I can use our culture and request interviewers in the media put this on the agenda, plus lots of other things.
Now I know the US will have a view and certainly the giant US corporations are slavering at the prospect but that would be the same for a UK/US deal.
However the government is also going to be coming under pressure in the other direction from the EU, Germany / France, EU Council, possibly 27 other states who I'm unable to influence in any meaningful way whatsoever.
The EU pressure negates mine, democracy is undermined.
The EU could be reformed to be more democratic but because it doesn't share a culture it will always be a poor imitation.
Also Davey have you backtracked on 'we;ll be poorer if we leave'? Heard Andrew Neil earlier state to a Bremainer every single report says eventually we'll be richer than we are now if we leave, the point was conceded by the Bremainer.
-
Lets take TTIP, lets say I'm dead set against it, as a citizen I can attempt to apply pressure to the government to not proceed with this policy.
The TTIP cannot be approved without the specific authority of all EU member state governments - so if you don't like it you can put pressure on the UK government and if that is sufficient for the UK government to decide not to support the TTIP then it won't happen. The situation would be exactly the same were the UK to be outside the EU and negotiating a bilateral trade agreement so there is no difference in the result (or otherwise) of pressure you may be able to bring to bear.
Of course were the UK to be negotiating on its own and given the imbalance in economic power between the USA and the UK (unlike the USA and the EU) we'd be offered a son of TTIP, with less favourable conditions for the UK and more for the USA. So if you don't like the TTIP you sure as hell aren't going to like a USA/UK bilateral deal.
Also Davey have you backtracked on 'we;ll be poorer if we leave'? Heard Andrew Neil earlier state to a Bremainer every single report says eventually we'll be richer than we are now if we leave, the point was conceded by the Bremainer.
I have said all along that we would be poorer if we leave compared to if we stay - that remains my view because it is the view taken by every credible independent economic organisation.
There is a credible argument (consistent with a number of the reports from those credible independent economic organisations) that we would be worse off in real terms, in other words that we'd see negative growth in the short term.
That is my view, backed up by experts. Can you provide me (for the umpteenth time of asking) with any credible independent economic organisation that considers that we will be better off if we leave compared to staying.
-
Also Davey have you backtracked on 'we;ll be poorer if we leave'? Heard Andrew Neil earlier state to a Bremainer every single report says eventually we'll be richer than we are now if we leave, the point was conceded by the Bremainer.
You have a choice of a 5% pay rise or a 10% pay rise. Also, if you accept the 5% pay rise, the neighbours will get really pissed off.
Which do you take?
-
The TTIP cannot be approved without the specific authority of all EU member state governments - so if you don't like it you can put pressure on the UK government and if that is sufficient for the UK government to decide not to support the TTIP then it won't happen. The situation would be exactly the same were the UK to be outside the EU and negotiating a bilateral trade agreement so there is no difference in the result (or otherwise) of pressure you may be able to bring to bear.
If the other 27 member states want TTIP there will be pressure from them on our government to adopt it, this negates any pressure I can apply.
Of course were the UK to be negotiating on its own and given the imbalance in economic power between the USA and the UK (unlike the USA and the EU) we'd be offered a son of TTIP, with less favourable conditions for the UK and more for the USA. So if you don't like the TTIP you sure as hell aren't going to like a USA/UK bilateral deal.
However the UK government will not have any pressure from EU countries to accept so it will be a more democratic decision.
I have said all along that we would be poorer if we leave compared to if we stay - that remains my view because it is the view taken by every credible independent economic organisation.
You did claim earlier in thread we would be poorer I'm glad you have backtracked from that.
There is a credible argument (consistent with a number of the reports from those credible independent economic organisations) that we would be worse off in real terms, in other words that we'd see negative growth in the short term.
Actually the latest propaganda from the Treasury made a few errors in this short term negative growth forecast and even then it was predicted to be 0.5% over two quarters, tiny compared to minus 6% from 2008 crash. A cheap price for democracy even if it were credible, which it isn't.
That is my view, backed up by experts. Can you provide me (for the umpteenth time of asking) with any credible independent economic organisation that considers that we will be better off if we leave compared to staying.
My view is if we leave the EU will be richer than we are now, all of your credible reports support that view.
-
I've just spent an interesting hour on the vote leave thread on Facebook I give you this little sample of the words that pass for reasoning on there go like:
I apologise for the language but it does give you a full flavour of what passes for thinking in some Brexiters minds. I had mildly questioned our ability to get good trade agreements on our own and received the above well reasoned response!
You are far from being mild, Trenty Boy. I know, I've had to deal with your onslaughts. Can you prove to us that you aren't a c***?
We don't need trade deals necessarily we can go by WTO rulings.
-
Google will always be able to avoid taxes in countries with high tax by basing their operations outside that country. The only way to stop that is cooperation between countries and coordinated taxes.
And we can do that outside the EU i.e. we don't need to be part of a political union to do that - and it would have to be globally as well.
Unfortunately,cit seems you leavers don't want coordinated taxes: Jack is screaming because the EU forces us to set VAT in the range 5% to infinity.
No I'm not screaming - only when the pain gets too much. Lying again I see Jeremy. And the thing about VAT etc. is about controlling it ourselves instead of being told what to do by an authoritarian regime.
-
What will Brexit do next? Give everyone piles and halitosis? Guarantee rain and 5°C temperatures on every bank holiday? Massacre the firstborn and bring on plagues of locusts?
According to Cameron even worst than that, WWIII and the collapse of our pensions...
-
You have a choice of a 5% pay rise or a 10% pay rise. Also, if you accept the 5% pay rise, the neighbours will get really pissed off.
Which do you take?
And don't forget that if you take the 5% rise one of the consequences will be higher levels of inflation so the differential will be even greater in real terms.
-
And we can do that outside the EU i.e. we don't need to be part of a political union to do that - and it would have to be globally as well.
No I'm not screaming - only when the pain gets too much. Lying again I see Jeremy. And the thing about VAT etc. is about controlling it ourselves instead of being told what to do by an authoritarian regime.
Screaming again, Jack.
We have VAT rates varying between 0% and 20% depending on the goods in question, so how is the EU controlling our VAT rates?
Also, if we are going to make the likes of Google from pay more tax, we will have to enter into agreements with other countries about what tax to charge them, so make up your mind as to whether you want countries to be in complete control of their taxes or Google to pay more tax, because you can't have both.
-
This referendum vote for Jobs, employment rights, wages and pensions.
Still waiting for figures on these from Brexit.
-
Screaming again, Jack.
We have VAT rates varying between 0% and 20% depending on the goods in question, so how is the EU controlling our VAT rates?
Also, if we are going to make the likes of Google from pay more tax, we will have to enter into agreements with other countries about what tax to charge them, so make up your mind as to whether you want countries to be in complete control of their taxes or Google to pay more tax, because you can't have both.
Y o u n e e d t o t u r n d o w n y o u r h e a r i n g a i d d o w n o l d m a n!!!
Am only whispering
I've explained the first bit to you twice.
I never mentioned the word 'complete', which makes your statement a straw man.
-
This referendum vote for Jobs, employment rights, wages and pensions.
Still waiting for figures on these from Brexit.
Vlad, do you really want to live in the USSR 2.0? Or if not you your children's children? This is about the future, not some short term blip.
-
Vlad, do you really want to live in the USSR 2.0? Or if not you your children's children? This is about the future, not some short term blip.
I want them to live under a government which is upfront and provides the figures. For the fourth time of asking please provide them.
The only figures I have so far are from the millionaire Arron Banks and they are based on an average wage of 45,000.
Will the government pay the mortgages and rents of those made unemployed by Brexit or not?
Banks likens those who will lose their jobs to people fighting in the war,
Will the brexit government house them and job them like after the second world war.......or call them loafing spongers like after the first war?
Post war welfare state or the so called land fit for heroes which turned out to be nothing of the sort. What shall it be Jack.......what shall it be?
-
I've explained the first bit to you twice.
No. You have asserted that the EU control our VAT rates twice without presenting a shred of evidence that they do and in the face of patient explanations of why you are wrong that a five year old could understand.
I never mentioned the word 'complete', which makes your statement a straw man.
So you don't mind if countries aren't in complete control of their taxes. Fine, the EU's rules on VAT shouldn't be a problem for you then.
-
You are far from being mild, Trenty Boy. I know, I've had to deal with your onslaughts. Can you prove to us that you aren't a c***?
We don't need trade deals necessarily we can go by WTO rulings.
What onslaughts exactly? I know we disagree on the EU - but I don't recall being either foul mouthed to you or offensive.
In fact have I ever used language in that way and of that offensive nature?
-
You have a choice of a 5% pay rise or a 10% pay rise. Also, if you accept the 5% pay rise, the neighbours will get really pissed off.
Which do you take?
If the 10 percent comes with strings attached like, my neighbours will be deciding how i live my life not my family, other members of my family will have to face a pay cut, I have to pay to be a member of a club i can't leave, etc. I'd be happy with 5 percent.
The Bremainers are obsessed with money, more important things in life than money.
-
That's easy to say if the hit will still leave you with enough to put food on the table for your family. Because of my circumstances it's entirely possible that I won't and there are millions like me.
-
That's easy to say if the hit will still leave you with enough to put food on the table for your family. Because of my circumstances it's entirely possible that I won't and there are millions like me.
All of Daveys "credible sources" support the view we'll be richer than we are now if we leave.
See past the spin, propaganda and scare stories.
-
All of Daveys "credible sources" support the view we'll be richer than we are now if we leave.
"We'll be richer" is shorthand for "on average, we'll be richer". It doesn't mean that some people won't lose their jobs.
Throughout the whole BHS debacle, our economy has been growing (aka we are getting richer) but that doesn't alter the fact that many people in BHS are suddenly much poorer.
-
All of Daveys "credible sources" support the view we'll be richer than we are now if we leave.
See past the spin, propaganda and scare stories.
And what is past the Bremain calculations? The Brexit sums full of contradictions. The Brexit government.......What will that be like.
Spell out what we will have. A state to patch up those heroes who lost homes and jobs for the sake of Britain.........or a globalist, wage reducing hyperthatcherism where control of migrants turns out to mean merely selecting where they come from and how cheaply they are paying them.
-
"We'll be richer" is shorthand for "on average, we'll be richer". It doesn't mean that some people won't lose their jobs.
Throughout the whole BHS debacle, our economy has been growing (aka we are getting richer) but that doesn't alter the fact that many people in BHS are suddenly much poorer.
True if we remain or leave.
-
The Bremainers are obsessed with money, more important things in life than money.
But Jak.....it is the Brexitters who have that figure written on the side of their bus....
Given that Brexiteers think money important, can you tell us how the money will be spent in the event of Brexit?
-
Apologies if this has been posted before but it's a thought provoking article.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/28/eu-referendum-brexiters-vote-leave
-
True if we remain or leave.
Fewer people will be reduced to poverty if we remain. That's a good thing.
-
But Jak.....it is the Brexitters who have that figure written on the side of their bus....
Given that Brexiteers think money important, can you tell us how the money will be spent in the event of Brexit?
a figure that is a proven lie to boot.
-
Gove slams government for immigration record.
This would be the same government he has been a senior minister in for six years.
-
Gove slams government for immigration record.
This would be the same government he has been a senior minister in for six years.
And it's the British government, not the EU.
-
Fewer people will be reduced to poverty if we remain. That's a good thing.
Not necessarily big business are desperate for us to remain, they could get richer whilst individuals get poorer.
-
Not necessarily big business are desperate for us to remain, they could get richer whilst individuals get poorer.
OK let's have the figures on how the brexit government of Gove and Johnson intend to reduce spending cuts and put the onus back on balancing spending cuts and tax increases.
-
OK let's have the figures on how the brexit government of Gove and Johnson intend to reduce spending cuts and put the onus back on balancing spending cuts and tax increases.
Dunno ask them, you do know this isn't a general election right?
-
Dunno ask them, you do know this isn't a general election right?
Johnson on TV saying the money will go to farmers.
Hasn't it been tentatively promised to science research and the health service.
-
Johnson on TV saying the money will go to farmers.
Hasn't it been tentatively promised to science research and the health service.
He's a politician.
-
Johnson on TV saying the money will go to farmers.
Hasn't it been tentatively promised to science research and the health service.
But doesn't it already go to the farmers and also to scientific research - so isn't he simply saying that money that used to go to those people, will still go to those people. In which case where does all this 'take back control' stuff come from if you are simply going to do exactly what you used to do.
Actually the scientific research is a really bad example for the Brexiters, as the quality of the UK science base means we get back considerably more than we put in as the science grants are awarded on the basis of quality. So if we left we'd either need to put more funding into science in order to fund the same amount of research or we'd have to cut funding. But even if the UK chose to fund at the same levels scientist wouldn't be happy as science is collaborative and scientist are really keen on the ability within the EU to apply for grants with the top scientist across the continent. Sure we'd like something more global still (but there is very little) but currently the EU funding approach is a flagship for supporting multinational collaboration.
-
Not necessarily big business are desperate for us to remain, they could get richer whilst individuals get poorer.
Don't talk bollocks.
-
Not necessarily big business are desperate for us to remain, they could get richer whilst individuals get poorer.
No, big business need solvent, well off and wealthy individuals to buy their goods and services. The more people with income to spend the happier they are.
-
But doesn't it already go to the farmers and also to scientific research - so isn't he simply saying that money that used to go to those people, will still go to those people. In which case where does all this 'take back control' stuff come from if you are simply going to do exactly what you used to do.
Actually the scientific research is a really bad example for the Brexiters, as the quality of the UK science base means we get back considerably more than we put in as the science grants are awarded on the basis of quality. So if we left we'd either need to put more funding into science in order to fund the same amount of research or we'd have to cut funding. But even if the UK chose to fund at the same levels scientist wouldn't be happy as science is collaborative and scientist are really keen on the ability within the EU to apply for grants with the top scientist across the continent. Sure we'd like something more global still (but there is very little) but currently the EU funding approach is a flagship for supporting multinational collaboration.
We would have an extra £175 million a week, extra, more, greater, larger.
-
No, big business need solvent, well off and wealthy individuals to buy their goods and services. The more people with income to spend the happier they are.
Thanks Rhi at least a coherent point rather than Jeremys Vladish type drivel. The ultimate driver of any business is its shareholders and any big business is a slave to profit, it will pay as little as it can.
If you think more GDP equates to everyone getting richer suggest you visit the USA.
-
Thanks Rhi at least a coherent point rather than Jeremys Vladish type drivel. The ultimate driver of any business is its shareholders and any big business is a slave to profit, it will pay as little as it can.
But its shareholders only get a dividend if there is a profit and without that the value plummets. All big businesses rely on enough people using their services or purchasing their goods and that requires solvency at the very least.
-
But its shareholders only get a dividend if there is a profit and without that the value plummets. All big businesses rely on enough people using their services or purchasing their goods and that requires solvency at the very least.
And companies pay tax on their profits, and shareholder pay tax on the dividends they receive from that profit.
-
But its shareholders only get a dividend if there is a profit and without that the value plummets. All big businesses rely on enough people using their services or purchasing their goods and that requires solvency at the very least.
Again USA you can find one of largest GDPs in the world yet see some of the worst poverty.
-
And companies pay tax on their profits, and shareholder pay tax on the dividends they receive from that profit.
Well unless the EU orders the government to pay it back.
Inland Revenue faces paying out tens of billions in tax refunds
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c3fcd5a-4287-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html#axzz4AF0MhB6W
-
Well unless the EU orders the government to pay it back.
Inland Revenue faces paying out tens of billions in tax refunds
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c3fcd5a-4287-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html#axzz4AF0MhB6W
Oh dear once again placing blame at the door of the EU when it should lie much closer to home.
This (I think - its behind the paywall) is about how interest is paid when there has been either overpaid or underpaid tax. Various companies have taken HMRC to court on this on the basis that they believe it should be based on compound interest not simple interest. This is working its way through the UK courts.
It has been heard in the UK High Court - the government lost (nothing to do with the EU).
So the government took it to the UK Court of Appeal - the government lost (again nothing to do with the EU)
The government are seeking to take this to the UK Supreme Court - they might win, but if they don't while we remain in the EU there is a final stage, the European Court of Justice which could bail us out (and would likely do so - see below). If we had left the EU and the Supreme Court ruled against then that would be that, no-where else to go.
But back to the European Court of Justice - actually back in 2012 they ruled that there is no EU law right to compound interest and they kicked it to the UK to sort out.
So in fact it is the UK courts which are ruling in favour of Littlewoods and others getting compound interest and costing the HMRC billions, while the EU have already ruled that they have no right to compound interest.
But then when did a Brexiter ever actually bother with the facts rather than their prejudice that every problem is due to the EU.
-
Thanks Rhi at least a coherent point rather than Jeremys Vladish type drivel.
No, your point was the Vladish type drivel (except Vlad has been relatively sane on this thread by comparison to the nonsense you have been coming up with). The country will be richer if we stay in the EU. You can't refute it so you make up a hypothetical "evil big business" instead. Sorry, but you are really stretching on this one.
The ultimate driver of any business is its shareholders and any big business is a slave to profit, it will pay as little as it can.
Has it ever occurred to you to ask who the shareholders are? A vast quantity of shares in large companies are owned by other companies who invest money on behalf of ordinary people. If you have a pension, an ISA, a unit trust, a savings account or any one of a number of other financial products, I guarantee you are indirectly one of the shareholders to which big business is a slave.
If you think more GDP equates to everyone getting richer suggest you visit the USA.
Nobody has claimed that
If you think the only acceptable outcome is everybody getting richer, you might as well piss in a volcano. The best we can hope for is to maximise the number of people getting richer or the average wealth of each person. We can't prevent some people from getting poorer but, the richer the rest of us are, the more money there is available to support the unfortunate ones.
-
Again USA you can find one of largest GDPs in the world yet see some of the worst poverty.
I really doubt that the poverty in the USA is anything like the poverty in rural Bangladesh.
-
Well unless the EU orders the government to pay it back.
Inland Revenue faces paying out tens of billions in tax refunds
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c3fcd5a-4287-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html#axzz4AF0MhB6W
Can't read the article without paying the FT but surely it was the HMRC's fault if they overcharged companies for tax. Isn't the EU doing the right thing if they order the HMRC to pay back money it should never have collected?
-
No, your point was the Vladish type drivel (except Vlad has been relatively sane on this thread by comparison to the nonsense you have been coming up with). The country will be richer if we stay in the EU. You can't refute it so you make up a hypothetical "evil big business" instead. Sorry, but you are really stretching on this one.
Sorry Jeremy but according to all of Daveys "credible sources" we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU.
If you think Vlad is posting more coherent arguments than myself it might be time to consider that you are dogmatically clinging to a position and are immune to reason.
Has it ever occurred to you to ask who the shareholders are? A vast quantity of shares in large companies are owned by other companies who invest money on behalf of ordinary people. If you have a pension, an ISA, a unit trust, a savings account or any one of a number of other financial products, I guarantee you are indirectly one of the shareholders to which big business is a slave.
Nobody has claimed that
Not sure you finished this sentence, have another go.
If you think the only acceptable outcome is everybody getting richer, you might as well piss in a volcano. The best we can hope for is to maximise the number of people getting richer or the average wealth of each person. We can't prevent some people from getting poorer but, the richer the rest of us are, the more money there is available to support the unfortunate ones.
Which is fine and since we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU, leaving the EU won't stop us achieving this goal.
-
I am not sure how it can be calculated how rich we will be if we leave?
How can anyone know what trade deals we will have with Europe?
How can anyone be sure it will not cost us more?
-
Sorry Jeremy but according to all of Daveys "credible sources" we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU.
But not as rich as if we stay in the EU. Do you want a 5% or a 10% pay rise?
If you think Vlad is posting more coherent arguments than myself it might be time to consider that you are dogmatically clinging to a position and are immune to reason.
No, I see you failing to acknowledge basic economics and ignoring facts.
Not sure you finished this sentence, have another go.
Only the full stop was missing. You said "If you think more GDP equates to everyone getting richer suggest you visit the USA."
I was referring to your implication that we claim more GDP equates to everyone getting richer.
By the way, you skipped the part of my post about how most of us are indirectly the shareholders to whom big business is allegedly (by you) enslaved.
Which is fine and since we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU, leaving the EU won't stop us achieving this goal.
But if we stay in the EU there will be fewer really poor people than if we leave and the government will have more money available to help them.
You are trying to compare leaving the EU to a situation that will not be the case, namely that the economy doesn't grow at all. It's a fallacious comparison and you probably know it, but your dogmatic clinging overrides common sense.
-
I am not sure how it can be calculated how rich we will be if we leave?
Various institutions have made forecasts based on economic models of how the economy will behave if we leave and if we stay. So far the vast majority have said that we will be better off if we stay in.
How can anyone know what trade deals we will have with Europe?
We can be sure it will be worse than the one we have now because the one we have now is the best one possible.
How can anyone be sure it will not cost us more?
Nobody can be sure, but the predictions are not just wild guesses, unlike the stuff that Boris, Nigel and Michael are pulling out of their bottoms.
-
I am not sure how it can be calculated how rich we will be if we leave?
How can anyone know what trade deals we will have with Europe?
How can anyone be sure it will not cost us more?
Economic models can never be perfect, there are always uncertain factors and unexpected events occurring in the world. The Remain campaign were quite wrong to quote such precise figures because they imply a level of precision that is just not possible.
Having said that, the Treasury economic model is infinitely better than anything that the Brexit camp are offering us.
No one could really argue that IF Britain got full access to the EU market (as now) AND didn't have to pay a membership fee AND didn't have to abide by EU regulations AND was able to negotiate good trade deals with other major trade blocks - then we would all be better off.
But that is a bit like saying that if you could just get six numbers right you would win the lottery.
It's just wishful thinking.
-
But not as rich as if we stay in the EU. Do you want a 5% or a 10% pay rise?
If the 10 percent comes with strings attached like, my neighbours will be deciding how i live my life not my family, other members of my family will have to face a pay cut, I have to pay to be a member of a club i can't leave, etc. I'd be happy with 5 percent.
No, I see you failing to acknowledge basic economics and ignoring facts.
The basic economics is that we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU in GDP terms, also save £175million a week, more democracy, have controlled immigration, less discrimination to non-eu immigrants, control our own laws.
You disagree which is fine but I'm not aware of any facts that you have presented that I have ignored. Still baffled by your attitude to UK jobs, outsourcing the NHS, and generally thinking our tax money going abroad results in us getting more money.
Only the full stop was missing. You said "If you think more GDP equates to everyone getting richer suggest you visit the USA."
I was referring to your implication that we claim more GDP equates to everyone getting richer.
When you said 'Fewer people will be reduced to poverty if we remain. That's a good thing.' that was the implication.
By the way, you skipped the part of my post about how most of us are indirectly the shareholders to whom big business is allegedly (by you) enslaved.
But if we stay in the EU there will be fewer really poor people than if we leave and the government will have more money available to help them.
Oh I think I see the point, i.e. more GDP equates to more government revenue which can help those in poverty. I don't believe that since it very much depends on predicting what GDP would be in 14 years time (a guess), what UK governments are elected and what is dictated by the EU.
You are trying to compare leaving the EU to a situation that will not be the case, namely that the economy doesn't grow at all. It's a fallacious comparison and you probably know it, but your dogmatic clinging overrides common sense.
Not at all, you agree that according to Davey's "credible sources" they all claim that we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU?
The fallacious part is the spin, if you listened to the headlines it will be a massive recession, World War 3, and poverty on a scale where we will be unable to feed ourselves. As I recall the CBI forecast was by 2030 the UK economy will be 41% larger if we remain and 39% if we leave.
-
Economic models can never be perfect, there are always uncertain factors and unexpected events occurring in the world. The Remain campaign were quite wrong to quote such precise figures because they imply a level of precision that is just not possible.
Yes those using these economic models suggested when we left the ERM similiair things were predicted.
Having said that, the Treasury economic model is infinitely better than anything that the Brexit camp are offering us.
No one could really argue that IF Britain got full access to the EU market (as now) AND didn't have to pay a membership fee AND didn't have to abide by EU regulations AND was able to negotiate good trade deals with other major trade blocks - then we would all be better off.
But that is a bit like saying that if you could just get six numbers right you would win the lottery.
It's just wishful thinking.
You can win the lottery with three numbers as I recall.
-
Yes those using these economic models suggested when we left the ERM similiair things were predicted.
As I recall leaving the ERM was a pretty disastrous affair for our economy - it's probably a fair bet that leaving the EU will be many times worse.
You can win the lottery with three numbers as I recall.
If you regard that as winning, it's little wonder you are in favour of Brexit.
-
I want them to live under a government which is upfront and provides the figures. For the fourth time of asking please provide them.
The only figures I have so far are from the millionaire Arron Banks and they are based on an average wage of 45,000.
1) Will the government pay the mortgages and rents of those made unemployed by Brexit or not?
2) Banks likens those who will lose their jobs to people fighting in the war,
Will the brexit government house them and job them like after the second world war.......or call them loafing spongers like after the first war?
3) Post war welfare state or the so called land fit for heroes which turned out to be nothing of the sort. What shall it be Jack.......what shall it be?
1) and 2) are assumptions. Where's your proof for this? And this then makes 3) irrelevant or a straw man.
-
Can anybody explain the leave campaigns referendum broadcast.
Will queues to see the doctor really disappear with the nastier wing of the Tory party in power?
-
Can anybody explain the leave campaigns referendum broadcast.
Will queues to see the doctor really disappear with the nastier wing of the Tory party in power?
You're thinking in the short term. It is the long term that is the real prize here. Once we are rid ourselves of the EU we can then rid ourselves of the rotten politics of Westminster.
-
You're thinking in the short term. It is the long term that is the real prize here. Once we are rid ourselves of the EU we can then rid ourselves of the rotten politics of Westminster.
By leaving the EU we will simply be centralising yet more power at Westminster - and we already have one of the most centralised governance of advanced democracies. We will lose the checks and balances that are afforded by being a member of the EU and that worries me greatly. Particularly as we have a system of 'democracy' where one party can gain 100% of the power with just 37% of the votes cast and 25% support of the electorate. And we have no democratically accountable second chamber.
-
As I recall leaving the ERM was a pretty disastrous affair for our economy - it's probably a fair bet that leaving the EU will be many times worse.
What followed was a boom, what was predicted was doom by much the same people that now predict doom.
If you regard that as winning, it's little wonder you are in favour of Brexit.
I suggest your recollection is hazy maybe if you fix your memory Brexit will be your favourite.
-
If the 10 percent comes with strings attached like, my neighbours will be deciding how i live my life not my family
The 10% comes with the same strings attached as now. The 5% comes with different strings which may be worse or maybe better, you just don't know.
other members of my family will have to face a pay cut, I have to pay to be a member of a club i can't leave, etc. I'd be happy with 5 percent.
How do the other members of your family who you are condemning to pay cuts feel about you turning down a 10% pay rise in favour of a 5% one just so you don't have to listen to the neighbours telling you what length to cut your lawn to? And, by the way, you can't borrow their hedge trimmer anymore.
The basic economics is that we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU in GDP terms,
You really don't have a clue.
also save £175million a week
Great, we'll all be nearly £3 a week better off except those of us who lose our jobs, but hey, your inward looking nationalism will be worth it. Well done.
more democracy,
It's been demonstrated on this thread that we already have democracy and, in some respect more now than we would without the EU.
have controlled immigration,
We already have controlled immigration. You try leaving this country and then getting back in again without your passport. The only open border we have with any other country is the one with the Republic of Ireland and that agreement predates the EU.
less discrimination to non-eu immigrants, control our own laws.
You want to make it easier for non EU immigrants to get in? That surprises me.
Still baffled by your attitude to UK jobs, outsourcing the NHS, and generally thinking our tax money going abroad results in us getting more money.
I'm not surprised you are baffled, you have continually demonstrated an inability to understand basic economics.
Let me tell you a fact: all this hand wringing about British jobs going to foreigners is just hypocritical nonsense. Nobody really cares about where our goods and services come from, they care about quality and price, mostly price. Look at all the stuff you own like your car, your TV, your computer, your clothes, your phone, your electrical goods. How much of it was made in Britain? You know why so little of the stuff we buy was made in Britain? It's because, faced with a choice between saving British jobs and having a better quality product for less money, almost all of us went for the latter option.
I don't believe that since it very much depends on predicting what GDP would be in 14 years time (a guess), what UK governments are elected and what is dictated by the EU.
And yet all the best "guesses" say it's better to remain in the EU. They aren't really guesses , by the way, they are economic models. They are more likely to be right than Boris "let me Godwin you" Johnson.
The fallacious part is the spin, if you listened to the headlines it will be a massive recession, World War 3
Yes, it would be like a new Nazi conquest, oh, no, wait, it was Boris who said that about staying in. Don't try to pin the spin thing on us.
As I recall the CBI forecast was by 2030 the UK economy will be 41% larger if we remain and 39% if we leave.
And that 3% equates to a lot of extra mouths fed.
-
What followed was a boom, what was predicted was doom by much the same people that now predict doom.
And that was in spite of staying in the EU - or perhaps because of.
The ERM was not the EU. The Euro is not the EU. I really don't know why any of you think either of them are relevant to the topic of leaving the EU.
-
The 10% comes with the same strings attached as now. The 5% comes with different strings which may be worse or maybe better, you just don't know.
Have to make a judgement call then.
How do the other members of your family who you are condemning to pay cuts feel about you turning down a 10% pay rise in favour of a 5% one just so you don't have to listen to the neighbours telling you what length to cut your lawn to? And, by the way, you can't borrow their hedge trimmer anymore.
My family will vote on it, these neighbours sound horrible.
You really don't have a clue.
Wow another Vladish zinger from Jeremy.
Great, we'll all be nearly £3 a week better off except those of us who lose our jobs, but hey, your inward looking nationalism will be worth it. Well done.
We'll be better off then we are now if we leave, who is going to lose their jobs?
It's been demonstrated on this thread that we already have democracy and, in some respect more now than we would without the EU.
You and Davey have demonstrated no such thing, I have outlined how the EU undermines UK democracy and you both failed to counter the argument.
We already have controlled immigration. You try leaving this country and then getting back in again without your passport. The only open border we have with any other country is the one with the Republic of Ireland and that agreement predates the EU.
You know there are some low blows in this debate, I don't think Johnson has covered himself in glory and I think Osborne's spin is dishonest, the real low point is the obfuscation by Bremainers on not understanding the difference between controlled immigration and controlled borders. I'll explain it to you once again if you like but thought I'd expose your dishonesty first.
You want to make it easier for non EU immigrants to get in? That surprises me.
Why because I disagree with you I'm one the "bad guys"?
I'm not surprised you are baffled, you have continually demonstrated an inability to understand basic economics.
There is economics and Jerenomiocs, if you follow Jerenomics you give money away to make money.
Let me tell you a fact: all this hand wringing about British jobs going to foreigners is just hypocritical nonsense. Nobody really cares about where our goods and services come from, they care about quality and price, mostly price. Look at all the stuff you own like your car, your TV, your computer, your clothes, your phone, your electrical goods. How much of it was made in Britain? You know why so little of the stuff we buy was made in Britain? It's because, faced with a choice between saving British jobs and having a better quality product for less money, almost all of us went for the latter option.
I know this is going to shock you but knowing one fact doesn't mean one world view is correct. Politics and people are complex just because I might chose to not donate everything to a cause doesn't mean I don't value the cause at all. Some people buy local produce that is more expensive than that shipped in from further away, they also might not do that if the price becomes too prohibitive.
Many family and friends will be affected by the closure of Port Talbot steelworks, I know you see their jobs as expendable, you would prefer to look after Chinese workers because that means you can buy cheaper products, not all of us feel the same way.
And yet all the best "guesses" say it's better to remain in the EU. They aren't really guesses , by the way, they are economic models. They are more likely to be right than Boris "let me Godwin you" Johnson.
The economic models, which have been really unreliable or just plain wrong in the past suggest we would be slightly betteroff if we stay rather then go. Clearly if its more money for Jeremy we know which way Jeremy will go but some of us are not just ruled by money.
Yes, it would be like a new Nazi conquest, oh, no, wait, it was Boris who said that about staying in. Don't try to pin the spin thing on us.
Oh let me be clear, spin has been applied from both sides, I can see that, I don't go running after every dog whistle, do you?
And that 3% equates to a lot of extra mouths fed.
I know its tricky for you but the figures I cited were 39% and 41%, did you mean 2%?
-
You and Davey have demonstrated no such thing, I have outlined how the EU undermines UK democracy and you both failed to counter the argument.
You have made a range of rather fanciful claims about the effect of the EU on us, mostly completely wrong. The most recent being the issue of compound interest on overpaid VAT in which the EUCJ has specifically ruled that under EU law there is no right to compound interest (in other words ruling in favour of the government) while it is the UK courts that have ruled against the government considering that under UK law (which is under the control of the UK government) there is a right to compound interest.
So Jeremy and I disagree with you - we tend to make comments based on facts, not on myth - you are going to get one hell of a shock if we Brexit and you discover all those 'bad' things you blame on the EU are actually good old fashioned, home grown, UK problems.
There is economics and Jerenomiocs, if you follow Jerenomics you give money away to make money.
It is called investment - ever heard of that Jaks. So for every £1 we 'invest' in the EU we get back about £10 in increased GDP, with all the benefits that provides such as more jobs, better pay, more tax income, greater ability to spend on public services etc etc.
Sound like sound economics and a smart move to invest that £1 to earn £10.
-
The ERM was not the EU. The Euro is not the EU. I really don't know why any of you think either of them are relevant to the topic of leaving the EU.
I think it is relevant in as much as it demonstrates how devastating these major 'perturbations' can be to our economy and how the only winners are the speculators.
There is no doubt that trillions of pounds would be electronically shifted around the world following a Brexit vote. A few people would make a lot of money and we would be the losers.
-
You and Davey have demonstrated no such thing, I have outlined how the EU undermines UK democracy and you both failed to counter the argument.
You mean you made claims about the nasty EU that could not be backed up by facts.
You know there are some low blows in this debate, I don't think Johnson has covered himself in glory and I think Osborne's spin is dishonest
I agree there have been low blows on both sides, but the Leave campaign seems to have nothing but low blows. The Remain campaign does at least have some real arguments on its side.
the real low point is the obfuscation by Bremainers on not understanding the difference between controlled immigration and controlled borders.
Immigration into this country is controlled and our borders are controlled, except for the one with the Republic of Ireland and that is open thanks to a bilateral deal with the RoI, not the EU.
There is economics and Jerenomiocs, if you follow Jerenomics you give money away to make money.
This is all you really need to show that my claim you don't understand basic economics is true. As PD points out, this is a well established principle called "investment". Take your pension: you give people money and they make you money.
Many family and friends will be affected by the closure of Port Talbot steelworks, I know you see their jobs as expendable, you would prefer to look after Chinese workers because that means you can buy cheaper products, not all of us feel the same way.
Several points here:
Firstly, all jobs are expendable. Your job is expendable, my my job is expendable. In fact, people who work in my industry are constantly under threat from offshore programmers.
Secondly, nobody goes out to "prefer Chinese workers", they go out to buy a car or a phone and the one that they like the best at the price they can afford happens to have been made in China. Don't paint me as the bad guy for laying out honestly what almost everybody does (except you, apparently, but I don't really believe that).
I'm very sorry for the Port Talbot steel workers and I have no problem with the government and the EU giving them money (part of which comes from my taxes and your taxes) to survive and get back on their feet, but I'd much rather they found something more positive to do than make steel that nobody wants to buy.
The economic models, which have been really unreliable or just plain wrong in the past suggest we would be slightly betteroff if we stay rather then go. Clearly if its more money for Jeremy we know which way Jeremy will go but some of us are not just ruled by money.
No, mostly they suggest we will be quite a bit better off. The report from the IFS said £4000 per family per year. Leavers have suggested that the figure might be significantly lower than that at "only" £2,000 per family per year, as if £2,000 is not a big deal and could easily be lost down the back of the sofa.
-
Substantial tightening of the odds in last few days. Now 3/1 on to stay
-
You mean you made claims about the nasty EU that could not be backed up by facts.
No I explained in detail how the EU undermines British democracy.
I agree there have been low blows on both sides, but the Leave campaign seems to have nothing but low blows. The Remain campaign does at least have some real arguments on its side.
Oh come on Jeremy you honestly believe there is no legitimate argument for leaving?
Immigration into this country is controlled and our borders are controlled, except for the one with the Republic of Ireland and that is open thanks to a bilateral deal with the RoI, not the EU.
If someone wants to enter the UK from the EU, their passport must be checked however we do not have the right to refuse them entry on economic grounds. We can refuse to allow Indian coders but can't refuse Spanish ones. Heck we might need coders but I'd prefer the best ones be allowed entry, not discriminate against the Indian ones simply because they are not European.
This is all you really need to show that my claim you don't understand basic economics is true. As PD points out, this is a well established principle called "investment". Take your pension: you give people money and they make you money.
This refers to outsourcing the NHS to the most efficient parts of the EU where you argued that NHS money leaving to fund operations abroad would come back. Davey is citing the £1 - £10 figures which if fanciful nonsense.
Several points here:
Firstly, all jobs are expendable. Your job is expendable, my my job is expendable. In fact, people who work in my industry are constantly under threat from offshore programmers.
Define expendable:-
of relatively little significance, and therefore able to be abandoned or destroyed.
So peoples livelihoods are of little significance?
Secondly, nobody goes out to "prefer Chinese workers", they go out to buy a car or a phone and the one that they like the best at the price they can afford happens to have been made in China. Don't paint me as the bad guy for laying out honestly what almost everybody does (except you, apparently, but I don't really believe that).
I never claimed I didn't do that my point was its not the black and white issue you presented.
I'm very sorry for the Port Talbot steel workers and I have no problem with the government and the EU giving them money (part of which comes from my taxes and your taxes) to survive and get back on their feet, but I'd much rather they found something more positive to do than make steel that nobody wants to buy.
Again its not as simple as that people want to buy the steel but due to over supply the price has been driven down. There are too many people working in steel across the world, someone has to lose out, I'd prefer our government take action to ensure that the job losses don't entirely fall in the UK. You on the other hand see UK jobs as expendable apparently.
No, mostly they suggest we will be quite a bit better off. The report from the IFS said £4000 per family per year. Leavers have suggested that the figure might be significantly lower than that at "only" £2,000 per family per year, as if £2,000 is not a big deal and could easily be lost down the back of the sofa.
As I recall the IFS claimed that would be £4,000 per household better of in GDP terms, not per family, not household income. I don't think GDP per household is a widely used stat merely created so Bremaiers can spout it.
-
Latest polls show Brexit ahead: http://goo.gl/n16nb8
-
We are a nation of utter dipsticks.
-
Dear Shaker,
http://goo.gl/n16nb8
Bugger!! Another Scottish referendum, ah well! If you can't beat em join em, time to invest in Scottish flags and move to Edinbugger >:( >:( :( :(
Gonnagle.
-
Sterling's taken a hit. ::)
-
We are a nation of utter dipsticks.
True, but then I thought that long ago.
-
If someone wants to enter the UK from the EU, their passport must be checked however we do not have the right to refuse them entry on economic grounds. We can refuse to allow Indian coders but can't refuse Spanish ones.
But if we need coders we will let them both in regardless of whether there is 'nominal' immigration control. Why, because the whole thing is governed by economic not by politics. If we have skills shortages and jobs that are necessary and cannot be filled any government will ensure that those jobs are filled with migrant workers.
And we see this already - there is a rather interesting aspected to our 'dual' migration approach - in other words free movement from the EU and 'controlled' migration from outside the EU. You'd expect to see much more fluctuation in the 'uncontrolled' EU element compared to the 'controlled' one - but you don't non EU migration goes up and down (on the basis of economic performance and employment requirement) just as much as the EU migration. So while in practice it may seem more 'controlled' in reality it isn't.
Point being were there to be no free movement of labour from the EU and a similar controlled system applied to both EU and non EU migrants I think we'd see exactly the same type of migration fluctuations, driven by economics, as we see now. The notion that we'd suddenly reduce migration to the tens of thousands is naive, unless of course our economy tanks ... hmmm ... wait a minute, that rings a bell. Yup that's what will happen post Brexit - so that's their solution - limit migration because our economy has fallen off a cliff and their aren't jobs to be filled.
-
True, but then I thought that long ago.
That doesn't make it any less galling.
-
Sterling's taken a hit. ::)
And I gather there are a bunch of Hedge fund managers funding a private exit poll so they are forewarned of the likely result early in the day and can then 'gamble' (based on their exit poll) on the level of sterling rise (if we remain) or fall (if we vote Brexit), thereby making a massive killing.
-
We have just received our ballot papers and have voted to remain in the EU. I am about to post them.
-
And I gather there are a bunch of Hedge fund managers funding a private exit poll so they are forewarned of the likely result early in the day and can then 'gamble' (based on their exit poll) on the level of sterling rise (if we remain) or fall (if we vote Brexit), thereby making a massive killing.
Of course.
George Soros is always one to watch around this kind of thing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2015/07/07/forbes-flashback-george-soros-british-pound-euro-ecb/#e504c533cefc
He broke the pound before and it's been argued he brought about the 2008 crash - he certainly made a killing from it.
-
And I gather there are a bunch of Hedge fund managers funding a private exit poll so they are forewarned of the likely result early in the day and can then 'gamble' (based on their exit poll) on the level of sterling rise (if we remain) or fall (if we vote Brexit), thereby making a massive killing.
The kind of instability that would follow a Brexit vote would be a golden opportunity for all kinds of speculators.
-
That doesn't make it any less galling.
Well = look on the bright side Rhi - if the Brexiteers do win you can spend the rest of your life saying 'I told you so'.
I know it's cold comfort - but you do have to look for every silver lining you can!
-
Sterling's taken a hit. ::)
Good news for exporters!
-
Well = look on the bright side Rhi - if the Brexiteers do win you can spend the rest of your life saying 'I told you so'.
I know it's cold comfort - but you do have to look for every silver lining you can!
Yes, the kids and I will enjoy that while eating our soup made out of weeds and old trainers.
-
No I explained in detail how the EU undermines British democracy.
No, you made some invalid assertions about it.
Oh come on Jeremy you honestly believe there is no legitimate argument for leaving?
No I don't. I can't think of any way in which the people that live in the UK would be better off outside the EU.
If someone wants to enter the UK from the EU, their passport must be checked however we do not have the right to refuse them entry on economic grounds.
No, and this won't change after we leave the EU, not if we want a good trade deal with it.
We can refuse to allow Indian coders but can't refuse Spanish ones. Heck we might need coders but I'd prefer the best ones be allowed entry, not discriminate against the Indian ones simply because they are not European.
Well surely that means we would need to relax the rules a bit on Indian coders, not stop the Spanish ones from getting in.
This refers to outsourcing the NHS to the most efficient parts of the EU where you argued that NHS money leaving to fund operations abroad would come back.
No, I argued in general terms that getting better value abroad generally isn't a losing situation for us.
Davey is citing the £1 - £10 figures which if fanciful nonsense.
No it isn't. I do agree that, if we leave the EU not all of that £10 will go away.
Define expendable:-
of relatively little significance, and therefore able to be abandoned or destroyed.
So peoples livelihoods are of little significance?
That's most dishonest of you. In this context it means that nobody is so indispensable they cannot be fired. Stop poisoning the well.
I never claimed I didn't do that my point was its not the black and white issue you presented.
I didn't present it as a black and white issue.
Again its not as simple as that people want to buy the steel but due to over supply the price has been driven down. There are too many people working in steel across the world, someone has to lose out, I'd prefer our government take action to ensure that the job losses don't entirely fall in the UK. You on the other hand see UK jobs as expendable apparently. [/b]
Given that some people have to be fired, unfortunately, surely the people who should lose their jobs are the ones who are the worst at making steel? You cast me as the villain because I understand that too much steel production means people have to be fired and am honest enough to say so, but you are the same as me except you don't want to fire people based on merit but on where they live.
As I recall the IFS claimed that would be £4,000 per household better of in GDP terms, not per family, not household income. I don't think GDP per household is a widely used stat merely created so Bremaiers can spout it.
The point still stands.
-
Yes, the kids and I will enjoy that while eating our soup made out of weeds and old trainers.
Bloody hell - your kids will think you've come into money, Rhi ;)
-
We have just received our ballot papers and have voted to remain in the EU. I am about to post them.
Why didn't you say had I known you were going to vote this way I'd have changed my mind. :o
-
True, but then I thought that long ago.
The fact that we are even having the debate shows us that it is true.
-
Good news for exporters!
Not when they are hit with tariffs.
Bad news for the ordinary man on the street as there will be inflationary pressures as everything we import will cost more, which drives down real-terms incomes as cost of living rises. Plus inflation will result in the Bank of England needing to raise interest rates increasing the costs of mortgages. And with the down-turn in the economy if we leave compared to staying there will be loss of jobs and downwards pressure on wages.
So a nasty little three way perfect storm.
1. Cost of living increases
2. Wages rising less than if we remain
3. Increased mortgage costs
-
Good news for exporters!
Bad news for anybody not exporting.
-
But if we need coders we will let them both in regardless of whether there is 'nominal' immigration control. Why, because the whole thing is governed by economic not by politics.
What if we don't need coders we can strop the Indian ones entering but if you are EU you are allowed to enter.
If we have skills shortages and jobs that are necessary and cannot be filled any government will ensure that those jobs are filled with migrant workers.
Sure I've said multiple times immigration is a good thing.
And we see this already - there is a rather interesting aspected to our 'dual' migration approach - in other words free movement from the EU and 'controlled' migration from outside the EU. You'd expect to see much more fluctuation in the 'uncontrolled' EU element compared to the 'controlled' one - but you don't non EU migration goes up and down (on the basis of economic performance and employment requirement) just as much as the EU migration. So while in practice it may seem more 'controlled' in reality it isn't.
So because it moves the same way it is actually the same?
Point being were there to be no free movement of labour from the EU and a similar controlled system applied to both EU and non EU migrants I think we'd see exactly the same type of migration fluctuations, driven by economics, as we see now. The notion that we'd suddenly reduce migration to the tens of thousands is naive, unless of course our economy tanks ... hmmm ... wait a minute, that rings a bell. Yup that's what will happen post Brexit - so that's their solution - limit migration because our economy has fallen off a cliff and their aren't jobs to be filled.
Which of your "credible sources" claim the economy will tank? Answer none of them.
I think you are arguing a straw man, if we have the jobs I favour immigration, I just want to control it so that wages are not undercut.
Stewart Rose 'If you’re short of labour, the price of labour would go up. So Yes. But that’s not necessarily a good thing.’
-
Davey is citing the £1 - £10 figures which if fanciful nonsense.
No it isn't - indeed this is rather conservative.
Our net contribution to the EU is about £6billion per year. A fairly conservative estimate of the hit to our economy if we leave compared to remaining is about 3% of GDP (this is typically based on us having a Norway-style EEA arrangement so free movement of labour would have to remain and we'd still have to be contributing, in the same manner as Norway which is one of the larger net contributors per person into the EU budget, even though they aren't members).
3% of GDP is about £60billion per year - so every £1 we 'invest' earns us £10 in additional GDP, or about £4.50 in additional public expenditure.
Most estimates modelling a non-EEA type arrangement of bilateral arrangement with the EU suggest about 5-6% hit to GDP compared to remaining - so that would £15-20 for every £1 we 'invest'.
If we are simply on WTO trading terms then that rises to about £25 for every £1 we 'invest'.
These are real numbers from real reports from real independent and credible economic organisations. So rather than just dismissing them in a rather childish manner, why don't you provide your own figures from credible and independent economic organisations to refute them. Oh but you can't, because their aren't any.
-
Which of your "credible sources" claim the economy will tank? Answer none of them.
Every one of them predicts a significant hit on the economy if we leave compared to remaining, resulting in reduced GDP compared to remaining, less jobs, reduced personal income etc etc if we leave compared to remaining.
So suggest in the short term we will be tipped into negative growth, a recession even (e.g. Bank of England, Treasury, CBI/PWC, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Nomura, Société Générale) each of which predicts a short term loss of GDP of 3% to 8% if we leave compared to staying which more than cancels out the predicted growth in the remain modelling - in other words we'd see negative growth, the economy shrinking.
-
What if we don't need coders we can strop the Indian ones entering
Whoah!
-
What if we don't need coders we can strop the Indian ones entering but if you are EU you are allowed to enter.
If there are no coding jobs, they'll stop coming.
-
If there are no coding jobs, they'll stop coming.
Different question really, but what stops people coming without a job and just living off the state?
-
Different question really, but what stops people coming without a job and just living off the state?
Because they can't - EU migrant are not entitled to the same benefits as UK citizens. They can't claim benefits for 3 months and even after that must be either in work, seeking to work (with a realistic chance of getting a job) or alternatively they must be able to demonstrate they have enough money to live without resorting to benefits.
-
Because they can't - EU migrant are not entitled to the same benefits as UK citizens. They can't claim benefits for 3 months and even after that must be either in work, seeking to work (with a realistic chance of getting a job) or alternatively they must be able to demonstrate they have enough money to live without resorting to benefits.
What happens if they just turn up anyway?
Can we deport them, or do we have to support them?
What if they are ill etc, do we have to treat them (I would think so).
-
What happens if they just turn up anyway?
Can we deport them, or do we have to support them?
What if they are ill etc, do we have to treat them (I would think so).
We don't have to provide them with benefits unless they are working or actively looking for work, and then only once they have been here for a while.
Sure they are entitled to health care, but that's no different to us being entitled to healthcare if we are in another EU country. Indeed there was an item on the radio this morning where they were interviewing a bunch of Brit ex-pats in Spain and they were praising the Spanish health system, that they could access, and expressing concern about what would happen if we left.
And don't forget that EU migrants contribute much more in taxation than they take in benefits and or cost public services, and also that the typical demographic of someone coming to the UK from other EU countries is that they are coming to work, are not of an age where they are likely to be a burden on the NHS etc. That is rather different to the demographic of Brits in Spain I would imagine.
-
What happens if they just turn up anyway?
Can we deport them, or do we have to support them?
What if they are ill etc, do we have to treat them (I would think so).
The 'free movement' right is a right to live and work, not a right to be supported by the state.
-
We don't have to provide them with benefits unless they are working or actively looking for work, and then only once they have been here for a while.
Sure they are entitled to health care, but that's no different to us being entitled to healthcare if we are in another EU country. Indeed there was an item on the radio this morning where they were interviewing a bunch of Brit ex-pats in Spain and they were praising the Spanish health system, that they could access, and expressing concern about what would happen if we left.
And don't forget that EU migrants contribute much more in taxation than they take in benefits and or cost public services, and also that the typical demographic of someone coming to the UK from other EU countries is that they are coming to work, are not of an age where they are likely to be a burden on the NHS etc. That is rather different to the demographic of Brits in Spain I would imagine.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of remaining because of all the points you have made which I thank you.
I think the biggest attraction for the exit vote, will be the ability to control immigration.
I design computer systems, and test it with silly ridiculous values to make sure the system has an answer.
So, if you example the entire population of Poland decided one day to all move to England, what would stop them?
I know our infrastructure and housing and health could not cope, but I don't care about the outcome. I am just asking if the system has a fail safe that kicks in before it falls apart?
-
The 'free movement' right is a right to live and work, not a right to be supported by the state.
Agreed, but what stops it happening anyway.
I do not care what it is supposed to be for, I am asking what stops people just coming anyway.
This is a massive vote winner for the exit in my view.
-
So, if you example the entire population of Poland decided one day to all move to England, what would stop them?
What would stop them - the cost of living.
If you aren't working then you can't claim benefits so you'd have to have enough independent wealth to be able to afford to live in the UK without working. And given that the cost of living is low in Poland, but high in the UK there won't be many who would be able to afford to do that - so economics prevails. I'm not sure of the figures but I doubt there are many retired and/or deliberately non working Poles in the UK.
But actually if they have enough independent wealth to be able to live in the UK, without working and without relying on benefits, why wouldn't we want them here. They would be contributing to the UK economy by spending their independent wealth here. We don't seem to stop independently wealthy Americans, or Russians or Chinese coming and living here and spending their fortunes here and none of those are in the EU - why would it be different for EU nationals.
-
What would stop them - the cost of living.
If you aren't working then you can't claim benefits so you'd have to have enough independent wealth to be able to afford to live in the UK without working. And given that the cost of living is low in Poland, but high in the UK there won't be many who would be able to afford to do that - so economics prevails. I'm not sure of the figures but I doubt there are many retired and/or deliberately non working Poles in the UK.
But actually if they have enough independent wealth to be able to live in the UK, without working and without relying on benefits, why wouldn't we want them here. They would be contributing to the UK economy by spending their independent wealth here. We don't seem to stop independently wealthy Americans, or Russians or Chinese coming and living here and spending their fortunes here and none of those are in the EU - why would it be different for EU nationals.
You are being reasonable, and I am being completely unreasonable (as I am with my systems in destruction tests).
Again I am testing with silly numbers.
So 20 million people arrive, they have no money , no means of working (and for this test they do not care)
Do we let them starve?
Do we round them up and ship them off?
If not, then we have to house and feed them. The system only stops people coming when the country is on its knees.
This seems like a bad system, and one to which the exit people can play to. The immigration non system is floored.
I could pose the same question about the USA. What if everyone wanted to live in Florida from the US, and I guess there is nothing to stop that happening other than system failure.
It's the system overload or failure that I usually try to prevent, but it seems that in this and the US case, there is no protection, and things just get very bad to the point where people leave because things get bad.
-
I think the biggest attraction for the exit vote, will be the ability to control immigration.
Yes it is but they have been lied to about that. If we leave the EU, our control over immigration will not change. We'll have to do a trade deal with the EU and it will have to include free movement of labour, not only because the other member states will insist on it, but because many British citizens work in rest of the EU and want to remain in their jobs.
So, if you example the entire population of Poland decided one day to all move to England, what would stop them?
Logistics.
-
Yes it is but they have been lied to about that. If we leave the EU, our control over immigration will not change. We'll have to do a trade deal with the EU and it will have to include free movement of labour, not only because the other member states will insist on it, but because many British citizens work in rest of the EU and want to remain in their jobs.
Logistics.
I agree.
With logistics again, they come in a steady constant stream to the point of overload.
Again the logistics only stops the flow once it is overloaded and failed. I like to design things that cope before destruction.
To make in none racist, lets assume the whole of the UK want to move to the south of France.
-
Again I am testing with silly number.
So 20 million people arrive, they have no money , no means of working.
Do we let them starve?
Do we round them up and ship them off?
But it isn't going to happen. Why would it - why would millions of people up and leave their country to go somewhere else where they can't survive. They might if they were fleeing a war zone but that is a different matter.
You could say the same but within the UK - there is nothing in principle to stop the 20 million people who live in London and the South East all upping sticks and moving to north west Scotland tomorrow. If they did the north west of Scotland clearly couldn't cope and we'd be in melt down. There is nothing that the UK government could do to prevent this, as it doesn't have any mechanisms to control migration within the UK.
What stops it happening is economics and social ties and that is exact the same (but to a much, much greater extent) what stops vast numbers of people without means of support arriving from other EU countries to the UK. So if you aren't worried about it in the context of intra-UK migration then you certainly shouldn't worry from other EU countries.
-
But it isn't going to happen. Why would it - why would millions of people up and leave their country to go somewhere else where they can't survive. They might if they were fleeing a war zone but that is a different matter.
You could say the same but within the UK - there is nothing in principle to stop the 20 million people who live in London and the South East all upping sticks and moving to north west Scotland tomorrow. If they did the north west of Scotland clearly couldn't cope and we'd be in melt down. There is nothing that the UK government could do to prevent this, as it doesn't have any mechanisms to control migration within the UK.
What stops it happening is economics and social ties and that is exact the same (but to a much, much greater extent) what stops vast numbers of people without means of support arriving from other EU countries to the UK. So if you aren't worried about it in the context of intra-UK migration then you certainly shouldn't worry from other EU countries.
I am not particularly worried, but from the people I speak to that will vote leave, this is a major point to them.
This topic could swing it, especially perhaps with older people.
I saw Sean Lock make a joke saying that the vote should be open to 16 year olds as it is their future. Also, that people over 70 should NOT be allowed to vote as its not their future.
-
To make in none racist, lets assume the whole of the UK want to move to the south of France.
Why complicate it with cross border migration - see my example. Given the ease of resettling where the culture ids broadly the same and the language is the same (and you can claim benefits) surely the most likely scenario isn't the whole of the UK wanting to move to the south of France, but the whole of the UK deciding to move to one small part of the UK (e.g. north west Scotland).
If this seems implausible and not something you worry about, then you should certainly not worry about a cross border 20 million migration.
-
I am not particularly worried, but from the people I speak to that will vote leave, this is a major point to them.
This topic could swing it, especially perhaps with older people.
Indeed - but this is classic dog whistle project fear stuff of the worst kind. The reality is we won't suddenly be facing millions and millions of additional migrants arriving if we stay, and also because migration (and its control) is effectively based on economics, even if we leave you can bet your bottom dollar that migration numbers will hardly change and that the kind of people who end up here now will still end up here after Brexit - you know the people who clean your hospital, work in your care homes, pick fruit and veg (at one end of the spectrum) and highly trained nurser, doctors, academics etc at the other. Why, because we need them.
-
To make in none racist, lets assume the whole of the UK want to move to the south of France.
Speaking as someone who is currently in the south west of France, it has been pissing down with rain for five days, and, on the first day of June it is necessary to use heating systems and electric blankets. The whole of the UK would say "we didn't think this is what it would be like" and bugger back home.
Perhaps a more important question is why would everybody in the UK come here? The same is true of Poland - why would the whole of Poland come to the UK? This is just an unrealistic scare put around by the Brexiters to wind up their potential supporters.
But then, why is the "remain" portion of the political establishment not providing information as cogent and as clear as that we are seeing from Professor Davey on this forum?
-
I am not particularly worried, but from the people I speak to that will vote leave, this is a major point to them.
This topic could swing it, especially perhaps with older people.
The 'let's control our borders' lot often hold up Australia and Canada as fantastic examples of countries that control their migration clearly suggesting that they'd never allow the levels of net migration that we see in 'uncontrolled' UK.
Bit of a problem for them - net migration in both Australia and Canada per 1,000 population is about twice that of the UK.
-
The 'let's control our borders' lot often hold up Australia and Canada as fantastic examples of countries that control their migration clearly suggesting that they'd never allow the levels of net migration that we see in 'uncontrolled' UK.
Bit of a problem for them - net migration in both Australia and Canada per 1,000 population is about twice that of the UK.
Good points, that I will use next time.
-
Speaking as someone who is currently in the south west of France, it has been pissing down with rain for five days, and, on the first day of June it is necessary to use heating systems and electric blankets. The whole of the UK would say "we didn't think this is what it would be like" and bugger back home.
... only to find it exactly the same there.
-
The 'let's control our borders' lot often hold up Australia and Canada as fantastic examples of countries that control their migration clearly suggesting that they'd never allow the levels of net migration that we see in 'uncontrolled' UK.
Bit of a problem for them - net migration in both Australia and Canada per 1,000 population is about twice that of the UK.
Is that correct? Wow, I bet Leave never mention that. I looked at Wiki, which has Australia at 5.65, Canada, 5.66, Switzerland, 4.74, Norway, 7.25, and UK, 2.54.
I think I'm going to check these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
-
Is that correct? Wow, I bet Leave never mention that. I looked at Wiki, which has Australia at 5.65, Canada, 5.66, Switzerland, 4.74, Norway, 7.25, and UK, 2.54.
I think I'm going to check these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
Full details here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html
-
Well, I'm amazed, as Australia is always being touted as having found the solution to migration, with their points system, and so on. But they have double the rate as the UK. Norway has triple our rate.
-
I don't get this, as the net migration figure for the last year is 300, 000, isn't it? That is 0.5% of 60 million. I must be doing something wrong.
-
Well, I'm amazed, as Australia is always being touted as having found the solution to migration, with their points system, and so on. But they have double the rate as the UK. Norway has triple our rate.
I'm assuming that these countries have smallish populations and skills shortages, so they recruit from abroad - doctors, nurses, teachers etc.
Eta just read exactly this on the Beeb - point-based systems are designed to increase migration, of the 'right kind'.
-
I don't get this, as the net migration figure for the last year is 300, 000, isn't it? That is 0.5% of 60 million. I must be doing something wrong.
Not sure what methodology they are using, but presumably it is consistent. But even if the UK figure was 5 per 1000 it would still be smaller than both Australia or Canada. And indeed many of the other countries held up by Brexit as shining examples outside of the EU, e.g. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland also have net migration at similar levels again.
-
point-based systems are designed to increase migration, of the 'right kind'.
But isn't 'of the right kind' merely code for people to fill jobs we can't currently fill. So if we can't get enough plumbers, or nurses or care home workers, or doctors, or hospital cleaners any points based system will still allow those vacancies to be filled from abroad.
-
But isn't 'of the right kind' merely code for people to fill jobs we can't currently fill. So if we can't get enough plumbers, or nurses or care home workers, or doctors, or hospital cleaners any points based system will still allow those vacancies to be filled from abroad.
Not something I'll quibble with. But the idea that a points system is designed to keep people out is a nonsense. It isn't.
-
I saw Sean Lock make a joke saying that the vote should be open to 16 year olds as it is their future. Also, that people over 70 should NOT be allowed to vote as its not their future.
I'm not sure I agree about the 16 year old thing because, if we trusted 16 year olds to vote sensibly, we'd let them vote in ordinary general elections.
However, there is definitely a case not to let people older than a certain age vote because there are no consequences for them. Having said that, many of these people will have children, grand children and great grandchildren. Why not let them vote for what they think is in their descendants' best interest?
-
Yes, a point system is definitely being sold as a barrier by some Leave campaigners; of course, it could be used as one, but the Australian stats show how it's not there, or at any rate, it allows higher migration than here.
-
Having heard various radio and read message board opinions about remain or leave, I find it worring to hear (as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread) the very minor - I wonder whether to use the word 'trivial' - points raised by those who want to leave. They seem to focus on one aspect which they personally find a nuisance and do not appear to consider the longer term future, or to take into account the past, or the connection that we have, and will increasingly need to have, with the rest of the world.
-
Having heard various radio and read message board opinions about remain or leave, I find it worring to hear (as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread) the very minor - I wonder whether to use the word 'trivial' - points raised by those who want to leave. They seem to focus on one aspect which they personally find a nuisance and do not appear to consider the longer term future, or to take into account the past, or the connection that we have, and will increasingly need to have, with the rest of the world.
Exactly. And more often than not, the alleged nuisance turns out to be the fault of the British government when you finally look into it.
-
I am not particularly worried, but from the people I speak to that will vote leave, this is a major point to them.
This topic could swing it, especially perhaps with older people.
I saw Sean Lock make a joke saying that the vote should be open to 16 year olds as it is their future. Also, that people over 70 should NOT be allowed to vote as its not their future.
I can't for the life of me understand why older people would vote to leave. Even if the long-term prospects of Brexit weren't disastrous, the short-term certainly would be. I suspect that my generation would all be dead before things things started to improve.
-
If what I hear locally is right, no migrant workers, no carrot harvest.
-
By leaving the EU we will simply be centralising yet more power at Westminster - and we already have one of the most centralised governance of advanced democracies. We will lose the checks and balances that are afforded by being a member of the EU and that worries me greatly. Particularly as we have a system of 'democracy' where one party can gain 100% of the power with just 37% of the votes cast and 25% support of the electorate. And we have no democratically accountable second chamber.
The EU has 100% of the power with no mandate, zilch, Zero%!!!
And you're stupid enough to want to give them even more power...
-
We are a nation of utter dipsticks.
That made me chuckle. It's not your usual fair Rhi.
I think that is pretty much true of many nations, but all this political correctness has addled peoples' minds; even the police as in Rotherham.
-
Yes, the kids and I will enjoy that while eating our soup made out of weeds and old trainers.
Luxury! In my day our dad would beat us before we went to bed. Then we'd lick road clean with tongue and be lucky if we got an old oily rang to chew for supper...
-
Bad news for anybody not exporting.
We need more exports because our current account deficit is too high. So drop pound drop...
-
We don't have to provide them with benefits unless they are working or actively looking for work, and then only once they have been here for a while.
Sure they are entitled to health care, but that's no different to us being entitled to healthcare if we are in another EU country. Indeed there was an item on the radio this morning where they were interviewing a bunch of Brit ex-pats in Spain and they were praising the Spanish health system, that they could access, and expressing concern about what would happen if we left.
And don't forget that EU migrants contribute much more in taxation than they take in benefits and or cost public services, and also that the typical demographic of someone coming to the UK from other EU countries is that they are coming to work, are not of an age where they are likely to be a burden on the NHS etc. That is rather different to the demographic of Brits in Spain I would imagine.
There is an interesting programme called "How To Get a Council House" on Channel 4 - not sure if there is a thread about this on here.
The programme is about people turning up to the London borough of Hounslow Housing Office to get either housing benefit to help with private rental accommodation or preferably to get a council house. It says that migrants getting priority for housing is a myth. Migrants are treated the same as everyone else.
As there is an extreme shortage of council houses, the Housing Officers try to help those they think are in most need. Hence a Romanian migrant called Florin got JSA for a while, then went back to Romania, got his wife and 5 kids and came back to the UK despite not having a job or any accommodation.. Everyone helping him in Britain acknowledged it was highly irresponsible of him to do this. He and his family spent a couple of nights in a homeless shelter with the 5 kids, and then the Housing Officers decided he qualified for help because he was actively looking for work and had received JSA in the past, and because he had 5 kids with him who couldn't be left on the streets, he and his family were housed in Birmingham as the rent the council paid on his behalf was cheaper there than in London - it was £750 per month.
He was still unemployed 5 weeks later - though obviously it's possible he is working cash in hand. In theory his benefits will stop after 3 months if he hasn't found employment, but with 5 kids it is unlikely that the family will be turfed out even if he hasn't found a job. I doubt the council are going to let 5 little kids sleep rough. He said he left Romania and brought his kids because he could not bear to watch them starve and that there was a better life for them in the UK. He wants them to go to school and learn English and have a better future than they would have in Romania.
I think it is this kind of situation that the Leave campaign think should be stopped - where someone foreign who hasn't paid into the system gets priority over someone else who has paid into the system through NI or taxes, because the foreign person is in greater need. So I assume Florin and his wife and kids would not have been allowed into the country under the policy advocated by the Leave campaign without him having either a firm job offer or a realistic prospect of employment because he had skills that were in short supply in Britain, and without showing that they would not be a burden on the State.
I am not sure what the Leave campaign think about British people who have not paid into the system being prioritised for help with housing over migrants who have paid into the system through NI and taxes but who then become unemployed through no fault of their own.
-
It says that migrants getting priority for housing is a myth. Migrants are treated the same as everyone else.
Of course it is, but I can understand that if you haven't got a house you might believe the myth
As there is an extreme shortage of council houses, the Housing Officers try to help those they think are in most need.
Which is, of course, a failure that rests squarely with the UK government, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.
I am not sure what the Leave campaign think about British people who have not paid into the system being prioritised for help with housing over migrants who have paid into the system through NI and taxes but who then become unemployed through no fault of their own.
And here perhaps is the nub of the issue - whether we should prioritise people who happen to be born in the UK whether or not they have contributed to the UK or whether we should priories those who have contributed to the UK wherever they might have been born.
-
The EU has 100% of the power
No it doesn't - it has very little power and any power is has is granted by, and can be taken away, by its member states. That is the way the EU is set up - it is controlled by and power is vested in the EU by member states.
with no mandate, zilch, Zero%!!!
Wrong - any decision taken at EU level is decided by the council of ministers which is, effectively the democratically elected governments of the member states and the EU parliament, which is a democratically elected body.
And you're stupid enough to want to give them even more power...
Who is saying we are giving them more power - if we stay they will retain the power (see above) that they have. By contrast if we leave we will grant yet more power to the most centralised of government structures, that of the Westminster House of Commons, where a government can have 100% of the power with barely more that one third of the support of the electorate. That really worries me, and it should too if you are thinking straight.
-
Year and years ago when I was an activist in the Green Party it opposed the EU (and certainly the Euro) on the basis that sustainable decisions had yo be made as locally as possible. In principle I still agree with that, but it doesn't happen and won't happen. The world's a very different place from twenty years' ago.
-
Year and years ago when I was an activist in the Green Party it opposed the EU (and certainly the Euro) on the basis that sustainable decisions had yo be made as locally as possible. In principle I still agree with that, but it doesn't happen and won't happen. The world's a very different place from twenty years' ago.
That isn't inconsistent with the EU which espouses the principle of subsidiarity, namely that decisions should be taken at the most local practicable level. There are, of course, environmental issues that can only be solved by actions at much, much greater levels and the EU or globally are most appropriate.
-
That isn't inconsistent with the EU which espouses the principle of subsidiarity, namely that decisions should be taken at the most local practicable level. There are, of course, environmental issues that can only be solved by actions at much, much greater levels and the EU or globally are most appropriate.
But this is why the Euro has been so unstable to the brink of collapse, and why it's entirely possible it will still crater. In order to work properly it requires one fiscal policy for the whole of the Eurozone. Because member states wanted to retain fiscal autonomy there isn't one; instead there is the fudge of conditions that are somehow supposed to work for an incredibly diverse range of economies. The EU isn't centralised enough where it matters most, the Eurozone even more so.
-
But this is why the Euro has been so unstable to the brink of collapse, and why it's entirely possible it will still crater. In order to work properly it requires one fiscal policy for the whole of the Eurozone. Because member states wanted to retain fiscal autonomy there isn't one; instead there is the fudge of conditions that are somehow supposed to work for an incredibly diverse range of economies. The EU isn't centralised enough where it matters most, the Eurozone even more so.
That's why the Euro causes weak economies so much trouble. In order for the Euro to work properly, you need money to flow from the stronger states to the weaker states. Within a country, this happens almost automatically. Weaker areas take in less tax and consume more welfare and other aide. However, between autonomous countries, this becomes a big issue because any transfer of cash is highly visible and politically sensitive.
There are two ways in which it could be better
1. The Euro could not exist - this would have been better for everybody, but it's too late now.
2. The Eurozone could integrate more. Essentially it has to become a federation with a central government like the USA. There are probably a lot of People in the Eurozone for whom this would be very unpalatable.
-
Exactly.
-
2. The Eurozone could integrate more. Essentially it has to become a federation with a central government like the USA. There are probably a lot of People in the Eurozone for whom this would be very unpalatable.
I think that the Eurozone has got to integrate if it is to survive and prosper - but that idea tends to terrify people who see fear a Europe dominated by a powerful Germany.
-
I think that the Eurozone has got to integrate if it is to survive and prosper - but that idea tends to terrify people who see fear a Europe dominated by a powerful Germany.
I'm not entirely sure the Germans are that thrilled at the prospect.
-
Indeed - but this is classic dog whistle project fear stuff of the worst kind. The reality is we won't suddenly be facing millions and millions of additional migrants arriving if we stay, and also because migration (and its control) is effectively based on economics, even if we leave you can bet your bottom dollar that migration numbers will hardly change and that the kind of people who end up here now will still end up here after Brexit - you know the people who clean your hospital, work in your care homes, pick fruit and veg (at one end of the spectrum) and highly trained nurser, doctors, academics etc at the other. Why, because we need them.
However there is a point at which services start to get stretched, and limits need to be put in place, you might argue this figure is 3, 30,000, 300,000, 3 million, 30 million. We can discuss what this figure should be and have this debate in society among the electorate.
I think the government should be able to decide based on consensus of electorate, can't do that in the EU, democracy undermined, vote leave.
-
I think that the Eurozone has got to integrate if it is to survive and prosper - but that idea tends to terrify people who see fear a Europe dominated by a powerful Germany.
I don't think its that people are terrified just that they don't want to be part of it, vote leave.
-
However there is a point at which services start to get stretched, and limits need to be put in place, you might argue this figure is 3, 30,000, 300,000, 3 million, 30 million. We can discuss what this figure should be and have this debate in society among the electorate.
I think the government should be able to decide based on consensus of electorate, can't do that in the EU, democracy undermined, vote leave.
I think this is the point I was trying to make.
With uncontrolled immigration, it only slows down once the country is trashed.
Not a good method.
-
I think the government should be able to decide based on consensus of electorate, can't do that in the EU, democracy undermined, vote leave.
Resources in London are getting overstretched, we need to stop Johnny Provincialler from coming in, let's vote for London to leave England so we can set up border controls.
This is what you sound like.
In reality, free movement within Europe means free movement into and out of the UK. Long before the system breaks down, migration out of the UK will exceed migration into the UK.
What are you going to tell the hundreds of thousands of Brits who will be kicked out of their jobs in other countries in the EU? "Sorry I fucked your life up but my paranoia is more important than your livelihood"?
Of course, actually, that won't happen because any free trade deal we do with the EU after we leave will include free movement of labour. You have been lied to by the likes of Boris, Michael and Nigel. Leaving the EU will not solve the perceived problems of immigration.
-
With uncontrolled immigration, it only slows down once the country is trashed.
Does it? Can you provide any supporting evidence?
-
Does it? Can you provide any supporting evidence?
It is clear that if the entire population of France and Germany and Poland, all moved to the UK we could not cope.
People would have to stand on each others shoulders by then, but the point is that it would fail.
I know people suggest it will never happen, but what is the mechanism to stop it happening BEFORE it adversley affects the country?
I do not see any, and that it what plays into the Vote leave side.
-
Interesting that German unemployment is going down. I don't know whether migrants are included in the stats, but I've noticed this in some English towns - immigrants come in, and unemployment goes down.
-
It is clear that if the entire population of France and Germany and Poland, all moved to the UK we could not cope.
And if the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man descended on London, we couldn't cope. Anybody can dream up a fantasy scenario and say "look this would be bad". The is no realistic way in which we would ever have to deal with the entire population of another country coming here all at once.
I know people suggest it will never happen, but what is the mechanism to stop it happening BEFORE it adversley affects the country?
Long before you got close to the scenario you describe, Britain would become an unattractive place to move to.
-
Interesting that German unemployment is going down. I don't know whether migrants are included in the stats, but I've noticed this in some English towns - immigrants come in, and unemployment goes down.
More people means more work.
-
As far as economics goes, typically the more people the more growth. Historically, the biggest problems have been due to not having enough people. We don't live in a closed system unable to import resources. Unemployment is down in the UK despite the problems due to uncontrolled immigration.
The industrial revolution started in England partly because of a population boom when people started drinking tea instead of fresh, polluted, water or beer (better but unhelpful).
Better management is often more effective than trying to control absolute numbers.
-
As far as economics goes, typically the more people the more growth. Historically, the biggest problems have been due to not having enough people. We don't live in a closed system unable to import resources. Unemployment is down in the UK despite the problems due to uncontrolled immigration.
The industrial revolution started in England partly because of a population boom when people started drinking tea instead of fresh, polluted, water or beer (better but unhelpful).
Better management is often more effective than trying to control absolute numbers.
It also suggests that governments do not control immigration, and would do so at their peril. For example, some farmers in Lincs, Norfolk and Essex are saying that reduced immigration will kill their business, as local white people simply will not work in the fields.
So these shortages of labour suck in new labour. Historically, this came from rural areas I suppose - e.g. the industrial towns in the North brought in agricultural labourers to work in the factories. But now this is not possible, so it has become transnational.
But then Leave need not mount a rational argument, they only have to hint at hordes of fuzzy-wuzzies, and hope that people will react in fear.
-
Of course it is, but I can understand that if you haven't got a house you might believe the myth
Which is, of course, a failure that rests squarely with the UK government, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.
Presumably the Brexiters have a plan to tackle the Immigration Tribunals which over-rule Home Office decisions to refuse entry or deport people? The Brexit argument is that Tribunals are applying EU law and if freed from this requirement, the Home Office would have more control of who it lets in.
Since there is a labour shortage, an Australian style points system favoured by Brexiters (Australia apparently has twice the number of immigrants per head as Britain) would still allow immigrants in to put pressure on infrastructure such as schools, housing and healthcare. More than 260,000 immigrants arrive in Australia each year on temporary visas - employers can sponsor foreign workers to come in on temporary visas.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/01/brexiters-missing-point-australian-style-immigration-conservatives
Also, I haven't seen any evidence that Immigration tribunals, which are independent of the government, would rule in favour of Home Office decisions if we were not in the EU, or how this will solve the problems of people on low incomes.
I don't see how more controlled immigration will make renting or buying in England affordable - currently on average people spend half their pay on rent with it going up to 72% in London.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/16/tenants-in-england-spend-half-their-pay-on-rent
People who are unemployed or on low wages or zero hours contracts can't afford rent and landlords do not want to rent to people on Housing Benefit as they have an image of being bad tenants - so those problems won't go away by controlling immigration.
I also hope a Brexiter could explain how controlling immigration would do away with zero hours contracts, or stop a business bringing in immigrants as cheap labour for low-skilled jobs because there are jobs that need to be filled and local people will not work for the wages offered, either because they are better off not working based on current welfare policies or because they don't have the skills. Given the high cost of living, especially rent, businesses can't afford to pay the wages local people want to be paid for low-skilled jobs.
Due to the lack of housing, even people in relatively well-paid skilled jobs often feel like they are struggling to afford rent and the high cost of living, and it doesn't get any easier for them given that in today's age of technology the solution for businesses to high salary costs which they can't recoup in fee income, is simply to outsource many tasks off-shore, especially in relation to many office jobs. One solution I suppose is for everyone but the wealthy elite to downgrade their expectations, aspirations and retirement prospects.
The govt issued a press release a while back claiming they were working with the Met police to clear off homeless migrants, who were in the UK illegally since they had no means to support themselves, and put them on planes or coaches back to say Romania or Bulgaria. But the numbers sent back are not increasing public trust in the system, even though the Met police started checking the immigration status of people they arrested for other crimes and apparently found only a very small proportion of people arrested had immigration issues. Also nothing seems to stop deported EU migrants from returning. On the other hand the number of homeless Polish sleeping on the streets has dropped as the Polish economy has improved so apparently a lot of homeless Poles went home. If Britain leaves the EU it seems likely that this will adversely affect the economies of other countries in the EU and make Britain more appealing.
And here perhaps is the nub of the issue - whether we should prioritise people who happen to be born in the UK whether or not they have contributed to the UK or whether we should priories those who have contributed to the UK wherever they might have been born.
If you do not have a home or are unemployed, regardless of your contributions to the system through NI or tax, people have this expectation that they cannot be left to starve or sleep on the streets. So people in priority need - pregnant women or people with dependent children or old or mentally ill or disabled or young people or those leaving the armed forces or prison - will always have priority over those who have paid into the system but do not fall into these categories.
One of the issues for those focusing on immigration is that migrants with dependent children will get help with rent, when they should be sent back after 3 months because they don't have a means of supporting themselves and are therefore not meeting the criteria for having a legal right to be in Britain. But again this is a tiny part of the huge housing problem, high cost of living, soaring healthcare costs due to high treatment costs or an ageing population etc in England so not sure how tightening immigration will solve these problems and I am not clear how Brexiters plan on doing a better job of immigration enforcement, given all the cuts to spending.
-
However there is a point at which services start to get stretched, and limits need to be put in place, you might argue this figure is 3, 30,000, 300,000, 3 million, 30 million. We can discuss what this figure should be and have this debate in society among the electorate.
I think the government should be able to decide based on consensus of electorate, can't do that in the EU, democracy undermined, vote leave.
But it has never done that for migration from countries that aren't in the EU, nor in fact did it prior to joining the EU. Throughout migration has been based on economic necessity, the need to fill jobs - so that was the case for Irish navies, through bus drivers from the West Indies and currently eastern europeans to harvest crops. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a situation where the electorate says, sure 300,000 is enough and the government places a cap at that number. It won't happen - why - because the 300,001st person might be the one needed in a critical position which cannot be filled otherwise.
Whether or not we are in the EU will make no difference to the primary economic driver of migration on both sides. And of course net migration is no lower in countries that the Brexit people hold up as shining examples of 'controlled' migration. When adjusted for total population annual net migration in Australia and Canada isn't in the 'tens of thousands' - nope it is nearer half a million (for a country of 60 million).
-
It also suggests that governments do not control immigration, and would do so at their peril. For example, some farmers in Lincs, Norfolk and Essex are saying that reduced immigration will kill their business, as local white people simply will not work in the fields.
So these shortages of labour suck in new labour. Historically, this came from rural areas I suppose - e.g. the industrial towns in the North brought in agricultural labourers to work in the factories. But now this is not possible, so it has become transnational.
But then Leave need not mount a rational argument, they only have to hint at hordes of fuzzy-wuzzies, and hope that people will react in fear.
Exactly, if we lose migrant labour we will be in BIG trouble.
-
It is clear that if the entire population of France and Germany and Poland, all moved to the UK we could not cope.
People would have to stand on each others shoulders by then, but the point is that it would fail.
I know people suggest it will never happen, but what is the mechanism to stop it happening BEFORE it adversley affects the country?
I do not see any, and that it what plays into the Vote leave side.
Sorry this is complete straw man argument.
The UK would be completely screwed if 30 million of our wiring age population all upped and left for another country - by your argument that the UK should have a mechanism to stop it happening, you should therefore require the UK to have a policy that prevents people leaving the UK, as well as one to prevent them arriving. Sounds rather authoritarian to me - didn't the ex communist countries used to have this policy?
-
I think BR has a point that some Leave campaigners don't mind suggesting that millions of Turks, or whoever, are about to enter the UK, just as Farage used to say that millions of Romanians were. It may actually frighten some people into voting Leave.
-
And if the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man descended on London, we couldn't cope. Anybody can dream up a fantasy scenario and say "look this would be bad". The is no realistic way in which we would ever have to deal with the entire population of another country coming here all at once.
Long before you got close to the scenario you describe, Britain would become an unattractive place to move to.
Well said. I wish more people who come up with these imagined situations would follow their thoughts through logically to see where they would actually lead.
-
Resources in London are getting overstretched, we need to stop Johnny Provincialler from coming in, let's vote for London to leave England so we can set up border controls.
This is what you sound like.
So you are against democracy now?
In reality, free movement within Europe means free movement into and out of the UK. Long before the system breaks down, migration out of the UK will exceed migration into the UK.
What are you going to tell the hundreds of thousands of Brits who will be kicked out of their jobs in other countries in the EU? "Sorry I fucked your life up but my paranoia is more important than your livelihood"?
Give the dog whistle a rest no one will be kicked out of their jobs.
Of course, actually, that won't happen because any free trade deal we do with the EU after we leave will include free movement of labour. You have been lied to by the likes of Boris, Michael and Nigel. Leaving the EU will not solve the perceived problems of immigration.
I don't think you are listening lets try again.
We both agree that immigration is a good thing, however do we both agree at some point we will have a infrastructure issues, e.g. housing shortage, lack of school places, lack of hospital beds, etc? You might think that figure is no where near being hit, you might think its 20 million a year, I might think its less than that.
So we agree on the principle but disagree over a figure, that is it, doesn't make me an evil person, stop demonising people and engage.
The actual point I was making that this country should decide that figure, after debate, discussion, due democratic process. You might well argue that Britain having that control is as daft as London having that control and all borders should be open to everyone from everywhere?
-
Further evidence indicating that immigration in the UK is lower than in the countries the Brexiters keep saying we could be like, including Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, and massively lower (under half) of their gold standards for 'controlled' immigration, e.g. Australia.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/immigration-system-boris-australia_uk_574eceb9e4b0089281b4fc8c
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.shtml
Indeed despite the free movement in the EU there is only one EU country (Luxembourg - for rather obvious reasons that it is tiny) that has migration greater than Australia - and the norm is that migration in the EU is half that of Australia. With the exception of the micro-states, the highest migration in any european country is in Switzerland which isn't in the EU.
-
A healthy economy will always tend to suck-in migrants because it needs them. Brexit might well reduce net migration but the price will be a trashed economy.
-
Well, non-EU migrants are at a high rate, aren't they? Presumably, these can be controlled, but also presumably, it would be unwise to do so, in terms of the economy and areas such as education. So governments have limited scope.
-
I don't think you are listening lets try again.
We both agree that immigration is a good thing, however do we both agree at some point we will have a infrastructure issues, e.g. housing shortage, lack of school places, lack of hospital beds, etc? You might think that figure is no where near being hit, you might think its 20 million a year, I might think its less than that.
So we agree on the principle but disagree over a figure, that is it, doesn't make me an evil person, stop demonising people and engage.
The actual point I was making that this country should decide that figure, after debate, discussion, due democratic process. You might well argue that Britain having that control is as daft as London having that control and all borders should be open to everyone from everywhere?
As an employer, if I have a labour shortage I will not consider the strain on infrastructure before I sponsor a migrant. The infrastructure is the government's problem to sort out, not mine. I pay corporation, income and PAYE taxes and business rates to help fund the government to sort out housing, health and education services.
If I can't employ a suitable person, regardless of whether I have to get them in from abroad, I lose business, my profits drop, which impacts on the economy and also means I pay less taxes. So regardless of all your debating and talk of infrastructure - the market will determine where the labour goes, and the only debate to be had is how to put enough pressure on the infrastructure to change policies that limit supply of affordable infrastructure.
-
Sorry this is complete straw man argument.
The UK would be completely screwed if 30 million of our wiring age population all upped and left for another country - by your argument that the UK should have a mechanism to stop it happening, you should therefore require the UK to have a policy that prevents people leaving the UK, as well as one to prevent them arriving. Sounds rather authoritarian to me - didn't the ex communist countries used to have this policy?
Again, I do not think like this, but people I have spoken to that will vote leave have.
I liked you example that all the people in the north could move south, but don't.
I will try that one on them.
-
Well said. I wish more people who come up with these imagined situations would follow their thoughts through logically to see where they would actually lead.
Well I did, and as Jeremy agrees it would lead to an unattractive place to be, and THAT is the point.
People stop coming when the country has failed, which leaves the rest of us with a failed country.
I do not think this, but I know people that do.
-
As an employer, if I have a labour shortage I will not consider the strain on infrastructure before I sponsor a migrant. The infrastructure is the government's problem to sort out, not mine. I pay corporation, income and PAYE taxes and business rates to help fund the government to sort out housing, health and education services.
If I can't employ a suitable person, regardless of whether I have to get them in from abroad, I lose business, my profits drop, which impacts on the economy and also means I pay less taxes. So regardless of all your debating and talk of infrastructure - the market will determine where the labour goes, and the only debate to be had is how to put enough pressure on the infrastructure to change policies that limit supply of affordable infrastructure.
Sorry but its simply not true that market is the only factor on where people live, governments control a countries border and decide who is allowed to enter, in a democracy that government is accountable to the electorate. Unless the power is centralised at EU level which to a certain extent it is.
-
Sorry but its simply not true that market is the only factor on where people live, governments control a countries border and decide who is allowed to enter, in a democracy that government is accountable to the electorate. Unless the power is centralised at EU level which to a certain extent it is.
But if we still want to trade with the EU after Brexit we still have to accept the free movement of people as Norway currently does - and Norway still has to pay for the privilidge without having any say. Why would anyone in their right mind choose an option that gives you all of the disadvantages with none of the advantages. The Brexit position on this matter does not make sense.
See this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model
-
But if we still want to trade with the EU after Brexit we still have to accept the free movement of people as Norway currently does - and Norway still has to pay for the privilidge without having any say. Why would anyone in their right mind choose an option that gives you all of the disadvantages with none of the advantages. The Brexit position on this matter does not make sense.
We'll still trade with the EU, remains to be seen if we can negotiate free trade deal without free movement. Its not just about money but democracy.
-
Sorry but its simply not true that market is the only factor on where people live, governments control a countries border and decide who is allowed to enter, in a democracy that government is accountable to the electorate. Unless the power is centralised at EU level which to a certain extent it is.
I am not suggesting that the market is the only factor, and yes the government determines the level of migrant workers. We have an on-line sponsor management points system to admit skilled non-EU workers, which can also be used for EU migrants if we leave the EU. We will need to add another tier for fruit picker, street cleaner and care worker type jobs because currently the system is used for students and jobs that would require the equivalent of an NVQ6 qualification and above.
I am saying that a strain on infrastructure caused by EU migrants is a problem to be overcome by investing in infrastructure or finding creative solutions or dowgrading expectations of what the state will provide because I think market forces and the need for EU labour and Britain's economic growth will be a higher priority for businesses and therefore for governments, than the impact of EU migration on free or cheap infrastructure services.
I could be wrong but I don't think leaving the EU will solve the lack of funding for infrastructure problems or the housing shortages. Even if we extend the points based work visa system to EU migrants rather than accept free movement of people, and have a category for fruit pickers, the number of migrants we need due to labour shortages will put a strain on infrastructure. Not to mention the cost of immigration enforcement at Dover and patrolling shore lines.
Just wondering if Brexiters have figured out who they will point the finger at next if there are bigger cuts to welfare because the growth in Britain's post-Brexit GDP can't keep up with the increasing welfare demands of an ageing population.
-
We'll still trade with the EU, remains to be seen if we can negotiate free trade deal without free movement. Its not just about money but democracy.
Negotiating a free trade deal without free movement is not going to happen - why would the EU want to do us any favours if we so royally mess up the current system. IF we vote for Brexit I can see them making it very difficult for us. Not because they are going to be particularly vindictive but because they will have different priorities (sorting out the mess that WILL occur if we do leave) which will no longer include us.
As to democracy - yea, Gove & Johnson are going to be the ones to hand us that. Uh -uh.
-
We'll still trade with the EU, remains to be seen if we can negotiate free trade deal without free movement. Its not just about money but democracy.
I wouldn't put money on us getting a deal significantly different to Norway or Switzerland, which would mean that we would still have to accept free movement. The 'Free Trade Deal' that the Brexitors go on about is pure fantasy.
-
I am not suggesting that the market is the only factor, and yes the government determines the level of migrant workers. We have an on-line sponsor management points system to admit skilled non-EU workers, which can also be used for EU migrants if we leave the EU. We will need to add another tier for fruit picker, street cleaner and care worker type jobs because currently the system is used for students and jobs that would require the equivalent of an NVQ6 qualification and above.
I am saying that a strain on infrastructure caused by EU migrants is a problem to be overcome by investing in infrastructure or finding creative solutions or dowgrading expectations of what the state will provide because I think market forces and the need for EU labour and Britain's economic growth will be a higher priority for businesses and therefore for governments, than the impact of EU migration on free or cheap infrastructure services.
I could be wrong but I don't think leaving the EU will solve the lack of funding for infrastructure problems or the housing shortages. Even if we extend the points based work visa system to EU migrants rather than accept free movement of people, and have a category for fruit pickers, the number of migrants we need due to labour shortages will put a strain on infrastructure. Not to mention the cost of immigration enforcement at Dover and patrolling shore lines.
Just wondering if Brexiters have figured out who they will point the finger at next if there are bigger cuts to welfare because the growth in Britain's post-Brexit GDP can't keep up with the increasing welfare demands of an ageing population.
Fair enough I disagree but valid points.
If Brexit goes more horribly wrong than everyone has predicted (no 25%+ GDP growth by 2030) then those that voted for Brexit will have to live with their decision.
-
Negotiating a free trade deal without free movement is not going to happen - why would the EU want to do us any favours if we so royally mess up the current system. IF we vote for Brexit I can see them making it very difficult for us. Not because they are going to be particularly vindictive but because they will have different priorities (sorting out the mess that WILL occur if we do leave) which will no longer include us.
Remains to seen, economies in the EU are not doing well, putting up trade barriers is not going to be a sensible decision for them.
As to democracy - yea, Gove & Johnson are going to be the ones to hand us that. Uh -uh.
Don't vote conservative then!
-
I wouldn't put money on us getting a deal significantly different to Norway or Switzerland, which would mean that we would still have to accept free movement. The 'Free Trade Deal' that the Brexitors go on about is pure fantasy.
The free trade deal with Canada, Turkey, South Korea, fantasy as well?
-
The free trade deal with Canada ...
What free trade deal with Canada - there isn't one even though there have been formal negotiations for 8 years and the original announcement of the intention to develop a deal was 12 years ago.
And even if it was ratified it only covers goods, not services and you might want to check the extent of our services trade with the EU. So if our negotiations are like Canada and assuming an announcement to develop a deal happens on the 24th June we can anticipate that we still won't have a deal in 2028 and the draft deal wouldn't involve services. Hmm Canada isn't such a great example for the Brexiters to use - but as ever they don't tend to look at the actually evidence as they are too busy hand waving in their fantasy economics, magic money tree world.
-
The free trade deal with Canada, Turkey, South Korea, fantasy as well?
There are a small number of countries that would trade with us on that basis - that's a million miles away from the kind of 'Free Trade Zone' that has been put forward as our salvation (but unfortunately does not exist)
-
Remains to seen, economies in the EU are not doing well, putting up trade barriers is not going to be a sensible decision for them.
Don't vote conservative then!
Gove or Johnson could be prime minister within weeks of the referendum and there wouldn't be a vote for another 3 and a half years. If employers were then able to fix hours of work at will It would be relatively easy to arrange a ''work some extra hours for Britain'' day on polling day 2020.
-
The free trade deal with ... Turkey
Turkey gets a deal because it has applied to join the EU.
-
The free trade deal ... South Korea
The South Korea deal is primarily about goods, there is limited free trade liberalisation on services
-
The problem is, it's not good enough just to get some kind of 'rough and ready' deal that gives us some kind of access to the EU. If we don't have unrestricted access (as now), all those multinationals that have created so many jobs and brought so much prosperity to this country will be off like a flash.
-
The problem is, it's not good enough just to get some kind of 'rough and ready' deal that gives us some kind of access to the EU. If we don't have unrestricted access (as now), all those multinationals that have created so many jobs and brought so much prosperity to this country will be off like a flash.
Indeed - we are already seeing companies including Brexit break clauses in contracts for inward investment into the UK, allow them to walk away if the UK votes to leave.
-
Indeed - we are already seeing companies including Brexit break clauses in contracts for inward investment into the UK, allow them to walk away if the UK votes to leave.
The likes of Nissan and Toyota rely on tariff-free access to the EU and totally open borders to shift their goods and parts - and even staff around Europe. If we screw-up on providing that for them, we would no longer be an attractive location and they would probably be off to Eastern Europe.
-
So you are against democracy now?
So if Londoners voted to leave the UK and put up border controls, that would not be democratic?
Give the dog whistle a rest no one will be kicked out of their jobs.
No they won't because we will not be allowed to change the current rules on EU immigration if we want a trade deal with the EU.
If we throw caution to the wind and throw up immigration barriers, do you think France and Spain and Germany will stand idly by letting our ex-pats take their jobs.
I don't think you are listening lets try again.
No, it's you that's not listening.
The actual point I was making that this country should decide that figure, after debate, discussion, due democratic process.
And the point I was making is that we will not be able to make that decision, not unless we close out borders with the EU and that would be a disaster.
You might well argue that Britain having that control is as daft as London having that control and all borders should be open to everyone from everywhere?
Yep. Sounds good to me
-
I listened to the PM's in or out slot around 5:30 and raised a cheer for Bill Oddie who is definitely for remaining in. There were also two 18-year-olds - in my opinion - yes, very biased thank goodness! - the girl, a clear remain in, was far more clear and logical, so I hope many young people heard her and, most importantly, make sure they register to vote.
-
So if Londoners voted to leave the UK and put up border controls, that would not be democratic?
Yes of course don't believe in self-determination?
No they won't because we will not be allowed to change the current rules on EU immigration if we want a trade deal with the EU.
So you lot keep asserting.
If we throw caution to the wind and throw up immigration barriers, do you think France and Spain and Germany will stand idly by letting our ex-pats take their jobs.
Any change to treaties would not effect immigrants, there is an agreement that covers that.
No, it's you that's not listening.
Well you seemed to have ignored much of my post so....
And the point I was making is that we will not be able to make that decision, not unless we close out borders with the EU and that would be a disaster.
Well I disagree that it would be diaster, and will be voting leave, you disagree vote remain.
Yep. Sounds good to me
So you want completely open borders, a scary prospect, if Bremainers are advocating this we should vote leave.
-
Fair enough I disagree but valid points.
If Brexit goes more horribly wrong than everyone has predicted (no 25%+ GDP growth by 2030) then those that voted for Brexit will have to live with their decision.
Yes we will have to disagree. I wish I shared your optimism about the stoicism of the British people - but I think that all ended some time after the Blitz.
I think they will still be blaming migrants taking their jobs through the visa system and the lack of availability of council houses and landlords not willing to rent to people on Housing Benefit and not getting enough welfare to prevent rent arrears and eviction and the crowded classrooms and the NHS waiting times and the cuts to welfare and the high cost of living, the use of food banks, homelessness because of high rents etc .
The UK sponsor management system has allowed lots of non-EU migrants to come in as students and workers - it's pretty easy to become a licensed sponsor.
I think people will also complain about migrants sneaking illegally into the UK or over-staying after their visas run out and the lack of funding for enforcement and detention centres and the cost of policing immigration.
-
No it doesn't - it has very little power and any power is has is granted by, and can be taken away, by its member states. That is the way the EU is set up - it is controlled by and power is vested in the EU by member states.
WRONG!!!
So what is Ever-Closer-Union then? And this talk of a federal state? And what do you think is going on in the EZ - and don't naively say we aren't in it as if the people of Brussels with all their power aren't going to grab more in the future.
You have a very poor understanding of human nature. Have you read the book Animal Farm? Brussels are the pigs, the EP are the sheep and Greece are the cows...
Wrong - any decision taken at EU level is decided by the council of ministers which is, effectively the democratically elected governments of the member states and the EU parliament, which is a democratically elected body.
WRONG!!!
We have no British people in Brussels as they are all bought off and are working for the EU - you can't have two master!!!
Who is saying we are giving them more power - if we stay they will retain the power (see above) that they have. By contrast if we leave we will grant yet more power to the most centralised of government structures, that of the Westminster House of Commons, where a government can have 100% of the power with barely more that one third of the support of the electorate. That really worries me, and it should too if you are thinking straight.
WRONG!!!
Nothing stands still and the status quo is not on the table.
If we leave we can work to change the system we have now at Westminster.
-
Year and years ago when I was an activist in the Green Party it opposed the EU (and certainly the Euro) on the basis that sustainable decisions had yo be made as locally as possible. In principle I still agree with that, but it doesn't happen and won't happen. The world's a very different place from twenty years' ago.
But things are changing because of the internet. This big size global thingy is on the way out for various reasons. Radio 4 had a programme about Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful". If you can find it it may help to explain things.
-
Sorry this is complete straw man argument.
The UK would be completely screwed if 30 million of our wiring age population all upped and left for another country - by your argument that the UK should have a mechanism to stop it happening, you should therefore require the UK to have a policy that prevents people leaving the UK, as well as one to prevent them arriving. Sounds rather authoritarian to me - didn't the ex communist countries used to have this policy?
No, their policy was to forcibly move people from their homelands so that they lost their national loyalties to them and so wouldn't try to rebel against Moscow. By moving them they lost the reason to resist and made them more compliant and dejected - though hoping the next generation wouldn't have any memories of a homeland and so become the homogenous bland Soviet.
This is the idea behind multiculturalism and free movement but instead of forced deportation just let the poorer lot invade the richer peoples and hope this will dilute the national fervour over time.
-
But if we still want to trade with the EU after Brexit we still have to accept the free movement of people as Norway currently does - and Norway still has to pay for the privilidge without having any say. Why would anyone in their right mind choose an option that gives you all of the disadvantages with none of the advantages. The Brexit position on this matter does not make sense.
This is pure rubbish!!!
-
This is pure rubbish!!!
I am undone by your exclamation marks
-
But if we still want to trade with the EU after Brexit we still have to accept the free movement of people as Norway currently does - and Norway still has to pay for the privilidge without having any say. Why would anyone in their right mind choose an option that gives you all of the disadvantages with none of the advantages. The Brexit position on this matter does not make sense.
This is pure rubbish!!!
This is very much not rubbish, and it's right at the core of the lie that the Brexit bunch are peddling.
1/ Norway and Switzerland have to accept the same free movement of labour as EU countries.
2/ If we are lucky we might get a similar arrangement for the UK (if not we will be in very deep shit)
3/ We will still have to accept EU migrants (which will be fortunate because we need so many of them)
Sorry that's it: the best future that a Brexit might bring us would be remarkably similar to the status quo - except we won't have any say in running things.
-
This is pure rubbish!!!
DO your exclamation marks alone disprove this. I think not.
If Brexit win - I'll give you 6 months and you'll be begging to be let back in. Trouble is for the rest of us it will be too late.
Anyway the word you should have used is balderdash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Only cos it brings a little variety to your constant use of WRONG & rubbish!!!! - and yet so often that is all it is an exclamation with no argument to back it up. Ne'er mind keep taking the tabloids)
-
2/ If we are lucky we might get a similar arrangement for the UK (if not we will be in very deep shit)
All of the "credible sources" predict we will be richer than we are now even if we don't get a free trade deal.
-
All of the "credible sources" predict we will be richer than we are now even if we don't get a free trade deal.
The only 'sources' I've heard making such optimistic predictions are a small bunch of hard-line Brexitors who are far from credible.
-
I had to turn off Radio 4 again this morning - too much attention given to Ian Duncan-Smith's comments that the audience laughed at David Cameron without, in my opinion, giving equal time to those who did not laugh. Nor could I listen to much of the phone-in comments on Five Live last night; a few moderately expressed, rational comments, many ranting, single-issue outers.
-
My daughters have reported that a poll among pupils in their school was in favour of Brexit.
-
I had to turn off Radio 4 again this morning - too much attention given to Ian Duncan-Smith's comments that the audience laughed at David Cameron without, in my opinion, giving equal time to those who did not laugh. Nor could I listen to much of the phone-in comments on Five Live last night; a few moderately expressed, rational comments, many ranting, single-issue outers.
There have always been a section of the British public who become quite irrational as soon as the word 'immigration' is mentioned and they are being 'egged-on' by some pretty dubious characters.
Duncan Smith was the worst leader that the Tories have had in a very long time and he must have been a great help to Blair in securing him his second term. For some reason the right of the party think he is great though his record shows him to be a duplicitous bastard.
-
The only 'sources' I've heard making such optimistic predictions are a small bunch of hard-line Brexitors who are far from credible.
You then are a classic example of how propaganda, spin and lies can be effective.
The pro-remain predictions all claim we will be richer than we are now regardless of any trade deal.
-
You then are a classic example of how propaganda, spin and lies can be effective.
The pro-remain predictions all claim we will be richer than we are now regardless of any trade deal.
On the contrary, it is you that have bought into falsehoods.
A significant number of the expert reports do predict negative growth over a period of up to 5 years meaning we will be poorer. And of course negative growth needs to be reversed over a time to before the original baseline GDP may be attained again - i.e. GDP returns to levels as of summer 2016.
Also you need to understand the difference between absolute and real GDP growth. The cost of living increases so there can be absolute GDP growth but we will in real terms be poorer if that GDP growth doesn't match inflationary growth, so in real terms there is negative growth.
Just so you can pop off the blinkers, unwed yourself from the propaganda and actually see the world as it is, lets try this example. Which of the following is 'richer' in reality, in other words greater purchasing power - someone earning £25,000 in 1975 or someone earning £30,000 in 2016. In your bizarre world the £30k earning person is richer - but of course they aren't - £25k in 1975 was a massive salary and could buy an average-ish house outright and still have half salary left. £30k in 2016 is middlish income. It is clear that the person earning £25k is richer in reality, even not in absolute terms, because of the change in cost of living.
So back to the actual debate - trotting out tired old cliches such as 'we will be richer than we are now' is pointless, nonsense, and quite probably wrong, because it takes no account of the change in cost of living - note too that Brexit is likely to increase cost of living changes.
And putting that all aside, the really important question is relative - will we be better off if we leave or remain - every credible independent economic organisation thinks the same on this - we will be worse off if we leave compared to remaining.
-
My daughters have reported that a poll among pupils in their school was in favour of Brexit.
Must be a rather unusual demographic as all polls ave suggested the youngest are most in favour of staying. Certainly my kids and their friends are massively pro-EU. My 17 year old son is somewhat pissed off that he can't vote, as it is his future that is being affected.
-
There have always been a section of the British public who become quite irrational as soon as the word 'immigration' is mentioned and they are being 'egged-on' by some pretty dubious characters.
Sections... both sides have irrational elements and will resort to name calling to shut down debate on the issue.
-
You then are a classic example of how propaganda, spin and lies can be effective.
The pro-remain predictions all claim we will be richer than we are now regardless of any trade deal.
All respected bodies are predicting a better future for the UK if we remain in the EU. Yes, there are all kinds of odd-ball 'experts' claiming that some kind of a Free-Trade agreement would bring us to a land of Milk and Honey, but no such structure exists - it's just wishful thinking.
As I have pointed out before, unless we have really good access to the EU market, Britain will lose a lot of multinationals and that will be seriously bad news for our economy.
-
Sections... both sides have irrational elements and will resort to name calling to shut down debate on the issue.
I was referring specifically to immigration. You only need to see some of the interviews on TV to see the wild emotions that the subject can trigger.
-
Sections... both sides have irrational elements and will resort to name calling to shut down debate on the issue.
Hmm - the old, 'well there are arguments on both sides' type disingenuous non-sense as if expert views are balanced. Bit like climate change - sure you can find the occasional nut job 'scientist' who denies climate change but the vast, vast majority of scientists accept the evidence for climate change. Likewise with economist on Brexit - there are a few odd balls, but the vast, vast majority are clear that leaving will be bad for the UK economy in comparison to remaining.
And on name-calling - well I'm sorry the shrill, excitable, un-evidenced ranting is coming almost exclusively from one side. Pointing out the economic dangers of Brexit by reporting expert opinion isn't the same as making statements that are flat out wrong, lies - e.g. the continued use of the £350million a week figure (savaged by the ONS) and claiming that it is the EU forcing HMRC to pay compound interest in VAT overpayment (when the EUCJ specifically rules in favour of the UK government saying their is no right in EU law to compound interest).
Problem is that evangelicals of all description have made up their minds and try to find 'facts' - whether true or not to justify their pre-judged dogma. And the classic Brexit mindset is clearly evangelical and driven by dogma, rather then truth or evidence.
-
On the contrary, it is you that have bought into falsehoods.
...
Also you need to understand the difference between absolute and real GDP growth. The cost of living increases so there can be absolute GDP growth but we will in real terms be poorer if that GDP growth doesn't match inflationary growth, so in real terms there is negative growth.
First let me clarify my statement; all "credible sources" (those decided by valid by Davey, I don't think they are credible) claim by 2030 we will be richer than we are now if we leave.
Just so you can pop off the blinkers, unwed yourself from the propaganda and actually see the world as it is, lets try this example.....
Yes we all know how inflation works Davey. So are you claiming some "credible sources" (those decided by valid by Davey, I don't think they are credible) claim by 2030 we will be poorer (if you take account of inflation) than we are now if we leave.
So back to the actual debate - trotting out tired old cliches such as 'we will be richer than we are now' is pointless, nonsense, and quite probably wrong, because it takes no account of the change in cost of living - note too that Brexit is likely to increase cost of living changes.
Probably wrong or actually wrong?
And putting that all aside, the really important question is relative - will we be better off if we leave or remain - every credible independent economic organisation thinks the same on this - we will be worse off if we leave compared to remaining.
Surely it is down to the voter to decide what is the most important question. They might actually think that as long the economy continues to grow we don't need EU bureaucrats in charge.
-
Problem is that evangelicals of all description have made up their minds and try to find 'facts' - whether true or not to justify their pre-judged dogma. And the classic Brexit mindset is clearly evangelical and driven by dogma, rather then truth or evidence.
Strange isn't it, I can see your argument its entirely valid, I disagree but I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is "evangelical and driven by dogma". If I thought like that I'd have to take a long hard look in the mirror and ponder if I'm actually a hypocrite.
According to the FT:-
Jeremy Corbyn has taken aim at his own side in the EU referendum campaign by claiming that Treasury forecasts about the dire consequences of a vote to leave were “histrionic” hype and “myth-making”.
That is the leader of your own party isn't it Davey?
-
Strange isn't it, I can see your argument its entirely valid, I disagree but I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is "evangelical and driven by dogma". If I thought like that I'd have to take a long hard look in the mirror and ponder if I'm actually a hypocrite.
You guys are exactly like climate change deniers. Expert after expert, credible independent economic organisation after credible independent economic organisation uses their massive levels of expertise to assess consequences of Brexit and they all agree that we will be worse off after Brexit than if we remain. Yet the Brexiters ignore all the evidence, childishly name-calling and insulting credible and respected experts, claiming there is some great conspiracy.
I'm struggling to see how you can disagree with all the expert opinion, unless your are:
A) also a credible expert (are you - you don't come across as a credible and respected economic expert)
or
B) have a range of alternative credible independent economic organisations who provide an opposite opinion (I've asked till I'm blue in the face but still nothing from you, zip, zilch.
or
C) not bothered with the facts but make up you mind counter to the evidence in which case your views are dogmatic and evangelical rather than evidence-based.
According to the FT:-
That is the leader of your own party isn't it Davey?
What makes you think I am currently a member of the Labour party.
-
You guys are exactly like climate change deniers. Expert after expert, credible independent economic organisation after credible independent economic organisation uses their massive levels of expertise to assess consequences of Brexit and they all agree that we will be worse off after Brexit than if we remain. Yet the Brexiters ignore all the evidence, childishly name-calling and insulting credible and respected experts, claiming there is some great conspiracy.
I'm struggling to see how you can disagree with all the expert opinion, unless your are:
A) also a credible expert (are you - you don't come across as a credible and respected economic expert)
or
B) have a range of alternative credible independent economic organisations who provide an opposite opinion (I've asked till I'm blue in the face but still nothing from you, zip, zilch.
or
C) not bothered with the facts but make up you mind counter to the evidence in which case your views are dogmatic and evangelical rather than evidence-based.
Have you thought that if the CBI are right 41% GDP growth remain 36% GDP by 2030 growth leave might be a price I'm prepared to pay to leave? I don't trust these forecasts since many of those making them predicted the same thing would happen if we left the ERM and all of them failed to see the 2008 crash.
Economics is more an art than a science. :)
What makes you think I am currently a member of the Labour party.
Apologies thought you were?
-
Have you thought that if the CBI are right 41% GDP growth remain 36% GDP by 2030 growth leave ...
Ah progress - you appear to be accepting that we will be nearly £2billion a week (at 2016 prices) worse off if we leave that remaining - thats about £900million a week knocked off public spending. Progress at last.
... might be a price I'm prepared to pay to leave?
But it isn't just you that will be paying, it will be everyone. And no I don't think it si a price worth paying at all - not least because I strongly support the EU as an organisation that provides stability, prosperity, peace, freedom and rights - and also has acted to dampen petty nationalism.
I don't trust these forecasts since many of those making them predicted the same thing would happen if we left the ERM and all of them failed to see the 2008 crash.
Economics is more an art than a science. :)
Oh and you were doing so well - back to your climate change denier mentality - all the experts say so, but they're all wrong - I know better. Dogmatic, evangelical claptrap. Still waiting for your alternative view from any credible independent economic organisation.
Apologies thought you were?
Not any more and the aforementioned current leader is the reason.
-
The current leader is the reason that I am.
-
The current leader is the reason that I am.
Enjoy opposition do you? Like the Tories in power?
-
Enjoy opposition do you? Like the Tories in power?
No. I like my Labour politicians actually to be Labour politicians, not pretend Tories.
-
No. I like my Labour politicians actually to be Labour politicians, not pretend Tories.
I though they were just a 1970's re-enactment group.
-
No. I like my Labour politicians actually to be Labour politicians, not pretend Tories.
I like mine to be able to actually make change happen, and to do that they need to be elected and that requires them to be electable.
Never had much time for those 'our politics is pure' types who prefer the purity of their ideology over the pragmatic requirements of politics, that you only change people's lives if you are in government.
I saw plenty of that type in the late 90s - hated being in a position where they could actually make changes, preferred opposition so slunk off to the SWP and pretended that they were changing the world by holding monthly political meetings attended by half a dozen like minded extreme left wingers. Interestingly most were uber-middle class academics.
-
The Loonie Left are really good at living-up to the stereotype.
It's just a shame that no one in the Labour party can spare the time to present their case for Remain.
-
The Loonie Left are really good at living-up to the stereotype.
There's something, if not comforting, then at least familiar about the ones who can only reel out names, slogans, soundbites and catchphrases instead of argument. You always know where you are with them - nowhere.
-
There's something, if not comforting, then at least familiar about the ones who can only reel out names, slogans, soundbitesand catchphrases instead of argument. You always know were you are with them - nowhere.
I always imagine that they must all have Box-Sets of Citizen Smith that they avidly watch every night - doesn't anyone realise how irrelevant they appear to those of us who inhabit the real world?
-
You can also quickly and easily identify them by their penchant for claiming that they and only they live in 'the real world.'
-
There's something, if not comforting, then at least familiar about the ones who can only reel out names, slogans, soundbitesand catchphrases instead of argument. You always know were you are with them - nowhere.
I have two problems with Corbyn.
The first is that I don't agree with his hard left political positions. I have always been soft left and a pragmatist rather than an ideologue on political issues. So I'm centre right in Labour party terms (rather than Corbyn hard left), but centre left in overall political terms (as opposed to Corbyn's hard, hard left).
But that isn't the only issue. The second is one of leadership - a leader must have the ability and experience to lead if they are to be effective. Corbyn is woefully inexperienced as a leader and really doesn't demonstrate any leadership skills. Now if he was 30 you might perhaps excuse his lack of leadership - but he is 67 and prior to becoming leader his most significant leadership position in all his time in politics is chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands. No position as a minister (however junior), nor a shadow minister, no role as leader of a council etc. And you have to ask why - regardless of his political positions, were he to have previously demonstrated leadership skills, he would have ended up in some more senior roles, somewhere, at sometime. But he didn't and that ably demonstrates first his lack of leadership skills, secondly his chronic lack of leadership experience, which we see to ably and painfully at the moment.
And this isn't a failure of all his like minded political colleagues. Like him or loath him Ken Livingston has held significant leadership positions over many years - he has leadership skills and abilities if even if you don't agree with his political positions.
So to my mind the Labour party currently have a leader who cannot lead, and also has policies I (and the vast majority of the public) don't agree with. The Tories must think Christmas has come early which is a real shame. If Labour had a competent and electable leader, given that the Tories are tearing themselves apart they'd be romping towards victory in 2020 and way ahead in the mid-term polling - yet they are languishing several points behind the Tories in most current polls. For an opposition to have any chance in the next general election they need to be well ahead at this stage in the political cycle.
And back on topic - where on earth is Corbyn in the EU debate - he is completely invisible - he should be out there selling a positive case for the EU, relentlessly campaigning to get Labour voters to vote remain. There was some horrifying polling recently which indicated that almost half of Labour voters don't even know that the official Labour position on the referendum is to vote for remain. FFS. Even his Union chums are getting really twitchy about his lack of leadership on the EU referendum.
Corbyn should do a Sadiq Khan - agree, on this issue to share a platform with other leaders across the political spectrum in support of remain - ideally with Farron, Lucas, Sturgeon and Wood as well as Cameron. That would send an extremely strong message.
-
Dear Loony lefties, ( is that me, must be I like that chap Corbyn )
Yes, as soon as Mr Corbyn reared his crinkled suit, no tie, ban the bomb head we stuck a label on him, hell! the man dislike our Monarchy but I like our Monarchy, so why do I like the man, he is refreshing, he talks of fairness, he does see the bigger picture, he knows capitalism is a busted flush, he knows we have to change our thinking both politically and morally, why is he not speaking more about the Tory smoke and mirror EU referendum, well I think he has, he wants us to stay.
Gonnagle.
-
You can also quickly and easily identify them by their penchant for claiming that they and only they live in 'the real world.'
When a group of political activists realise that their 'world' is not shared by the electorate - it's time they stopped and think, but I guess that the Corbynites are too blinkered to notice.
-
When a group of political activists realise that their 'world' is not shared by the electorate - it's time they stopped and think, but I guess that the Corbynites are too blinkered to notice.
It is the echo chamber effect - if you spend too long in the company only of people who agree with you (however tiny a fraction of the population that might be) you can begin to believe that 'everyone thinks like this'.
-
When a group of political activists realise that their 'world' is not shared by the electorate - it's time they stopped and think, but I guess that the Corbynites are too blinkered to notice.
Surely on the basis that the Tories only got 37% of those that voted that applies to them too?
-
Dear Loony lefties, ( is that me, must be I like that chap Corbyn )
Yes, as soon as Mr Corbyn reared his crinkled suit, no tie, ban the bomb head we stuck a label on him, hell! the man dislike our Monarchy but I like our Monarchy, so why do I like the man, he is refreshing, he talks of fairness, he does see the bigger picture, he knows capitalism is a busted flush, he knows we have to change our thinking both politically and morally, why is he not speaking more about the Tory smoke and mirror EU referendum, well I think he has, he wants us to stay.
Gonnagle.
I dare say you'll be wanting one of these then G:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Citizen-Smith-1-2-DVD/dp/B000067A8W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464953908&sr=8-1&keywords=Citizen+Smith
:)
-
Dear Lapsed,
When a group of political activists realise that their 'world' is not shared by the electorate - it's time they stopped and think, but I guess that the Corbynites are too blinkered to notice.
The word is "yet" but when that electorate is hit in the pocket "again" they might just change their minds, just how many financial crashes does it need before we say, something is deeply wrong here!
I like the Labour parties message, remain and reform.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36439905
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
The word is "yet" but when that electorate is hit in the pocket "again" they might just change their minds, just how many financial crashes does it need before we say, something is deeply wrong here!
I like the Labour parties message, remain and reform.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36439905
Gonnagle.
I don't think that his words:
Mr Corbyn said the Labour message was "loud and clear", that the Conservative Party was a bigger threat to the country than the European Union was, and that whether on workers' rights, the environment, or renewable energy, Britain can achieve more progressive policies working with other countries in the EU than alone.
are exactly going to send the 'don't knows' rushing to the Remain camp.
He's just talking to a small bunch of activists.
-
Dear Lapsed,
POWER TO THE PEOPLE, well actually I quite like that, but all people, not just the people who know how to work the system, funny but I am a Tory in some ways, there are some poor people who know how to work the system, but they are a very tiny minority, lets start with the fat cats, funny again that I agree with most of what Jack Knave chunters on about, the EU is corrupt, but unlike him I think we can get rid of them by reforming the EU, I suppose all this EU nonsense has had one positive effect, we are now more savvy about its going on and we know it needs to change.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Mr Corbyn also talked about bee's and climate change, but hell! Bee's and climate change, not important, sounds like something only a loony leftie would talk about, I bet he is also one of those, save the rain forest types, I wonder if he hugs tree's, right bunch of loonies. >:( >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Mr Corbyn also talked about bee's and climate change, but hell! Bee's and climate change, not important, sounds like something only a loony leftie would talk about, I bet he is also one of those, save the rain forest types, I wonder if he hugs tree's, right bunch of loonies. >:( >:(
Gonnagle.
Of course bees are important, but they aren't really foremost in most peoples minds when it comes to the EU referendum.
-
Of course bees are important, but they aren't really foremost in most peoples minds when it comes to the EU referendum.
He's a pretty crap speaker and his speechwriters don't do well but then William Lane Craig is a very good speaker. doesn't mean the message is wrong or right.
-
He's a pretty crap speaker and his speechwriters don't do well but then William Lane Craig is a very good speaker. doesn't mean the message is wrong or right.
It isn't so much the issue of him being a crap speaker, although if you want to get elected it helps to be able to communicate your views effectively.
No the big issue is that he is a woefully inexperienced and ineffective leader. He simply has never had any leadership experience despite being in active politics for decades - and that speaks volumes. Surely if he was any good as a leader he'd have a least held some leadership position at some point - but he hasn't. What is also very telling is that those people who have had the closest working relationship with him, those that actually know what his leadership skills are rejected him massively - those people of course being his own MPs.
-
'Je suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive'
-
Dear Lapsed,
Ah well! me and you ( is that, you and I ) are in agreement that we stay, we can both hold hands and walk into the sunset, further, further!! since ProfDavey, Jeremyp and Gabriella have wiped the floor with Jakswan and Jack Knave, we can all hold hands and walk into the sunset singing, "Rule Brittania" or is that "It's the World in Union". :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
those people of course being his own MPs.
Those same MP's who Shaker keeps telling us ( and he's not wrong ) are plastic Tories.
Anyway it has been a joy reading all your posts on here regarding the EU, I am wiser for your input, thank you.
Gonnagle.
-
'Je suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive'
I am your leader - look at my wealth of experience - I'm 67, I've been in public life for 42 years since I was elected to Islington council, I've been an MP for 33 years - here is a list of all my major leadership roles:
Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands
Oh - that's it ...
-
I am your leader - look at my wealth of experience - I'm 67, I've been in public life for 42 years since I was elected to Islington council, I've been an MP for 33 years - here is a list of all my major leadership roles:
Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands
Oh - that's it ...
Which sort of misses the point. Leaders are also representatives of those who vote for them.
-
One thing here that makes me skip over posts is the constant concern about whether we will all be richer. If that's all they worry about then I think it is very sad. Of course it is much better not to have personal worries over money and to live in a country where things run quite well overall, but to focus on being richer is one of those single issues which should not make people vote in or out. I have thought right from the start that the top, most important issue is to maintain contact, communication, co-operation to the best of all EU countries' abilities. There is no perfect situation - human nature just doesn't work that way - but improved conditions for all is much more likely to become more possible with remaining in the EU group.
There was something on the radio at lunchtime about young people finding it a bit tricky to register to vote on line because of having to give Nat Ins number. I don't know about that, but hope very much that as many as possible will be on that register in time to vote.
-
Which sort of misses the point. Leaders are also representatives of those who vote for them.
But they also have to have the ability to lead - and a successful leader of a major political party must be able to reach beyond the narrow confines of the members of that party to the wider electorate in order to be electable (in a general election sense).
Also the notion that the 232 people who know his abilities the very best, his parliamentary colleagues overwhelmingly rejected him speaks volumes.
-
Dear Susan,
Amen sister, Amen.
Gonnagle.
-
One thing here that makes me skip over posts is the constant concern about whether we will all be richer. If that's all they worry about then I think it is very sad. Of course it is much better not to have personal worries over money and to live in a country where things run quite well overall, but to focus on being richer is one of those single issues which should not make people vote in or out. I have thought right from the start that the top, most important issue is to maintain contact, communication, co-operation to the best of all EU countries' abilities. There is no perfect situation - human nature just doesn't work that way - but improved conditions for all is much more likely to become more possible with remaining in the EU group.
There was something on the radio at lunchtime about young people finding it a bit tricky to register to vote on line because of having to give Nat Ins number. I don't know about that, but hope very much that as many as possible will be on that register in time to vote.
I think the notion of being 'richer' goes well beyond narrow personal concerns of personal income. When we are talking about the wealth of a country, it's GDP, that is much broader - it is what provides the possibility to fund public services - to take decisions about improving infrastructure, to ensure that pensions can be maintained etc etc. If we are wealthier as a nation we can do more to improve the lives of individuals.
But you are right - this isn't just about economics - it is about peace, it is about stability, it is about freedom, it is about having a mature modern democratic way of deciding things, it is about cooperation, it is about coming together to solve global problems, it is about tolerance, about rejecting petty nationalism and the 'they're different, we don't like them' attitude. It is about being outward looking, forward looking, open and receptive to different cultures and attitudes. It is about being grown up and mature and recognising that we can't always blame everything that goes wrong on someone else (whether that be Johnny Foreigner or the EU), that we have to step up to the plate and start taking responsibility for our own actions and decisions.
It is about all that - which is why (to paraphrase Jakswan) I'd sill be in favour of being in the EU even were there to be some economic cost to being a member compared to leaving. The good news is you can have all that good 'on principle' stuff and you can be better off by staying compared to leaving.
What's not to like - Vote Remain.
-
Ah progress - you appear to be accepting that we will be nearly £2billion a week (at 2016 prices) worse off if we leave that remaining - thats about £900million a week knocked off public spending. Progress at last.
See this is dogma lead reply, I've told you countless times I think predicting GDP to 2030 is a lottery. The economy will continue to grow if we leave, I accept that potentially we might not grow as fast and we might grow faster, how much that gap would be depends on so many factors its impossible to put a figure on it.
Now had the CBI, Treasury come out and said 'you will have a ten year recession' then that would be maybe too much of price to pay, but none of them have.
But it isn't just you that will be paying, it will be everyone. And no I don't think it si a price worth paying at all - not least because I strongly support the EU as an organisation that provides stability, prosperity, peace, freedom and rights - and also has acted to dampen petty nationalism.
No not just me but that is why everyone gets a vote.
Oh and you were doing so well - back to your climate change denier mentality - all the experts say so, but they're all wrong - I know better. Dogmatic, evangelical claptrap. Still waiting for your alternative view from any credible independent economic organisation.
I think an indicator of a dogma position is when they get all hysterical and create straw men, The arguments from the other side appear stupid and anyone who takes a different view to them is silly.
Not any more and the aforementioned current leader is the reason.
Well I think Corbyn was accurate in describing the treasury taking part in “histrionic” hype and “myth-making”. Well done Corbyn knew you never really were a Bremainer! :)
-
And remember kids - the leader of ISIS will like it if we leave the EU.
Honest Dave said so, it's bound to be true.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Ah well! me and you ( is that, you and I ) are in agreement that we stay, we can both hold hands and walk into the sunset, further, further!! since ProfDavey, Jeremyp and Gabriella have wiped the floor with Jakswan and Jack Knave, we can all hold hands and walk into the sunset singing, "Rule Brittania" or is that "It's the World in Union". :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
Gonzo delusion as ever. :)
-
Well said, NS. Let's hope there's enough down-to-earth, common sense around on 23rd June.
-
Gonzo delusion as ever. :)
I'd rather have his delusion than your illusion.
-
I accept that potentially we might not grow as fast and we might grow faster,
Yet again - please provide me with a credible independent economic organisation that thinks that we might grow faster, either in the short term of the longer term (e.g. to 2030) if we leave compared to staying.
You are repeating the same old disingenuous non-sense, somehow implying that slower growth or faster growth are equally credibly predicted likelihoods. They aren't there is effectively unanimity amongst credible independent economic organisations that growth will be slower if we leave than if we stay - sure there is some variation as to the extent of that negative difference if we leave compared to staying, but all of them conclude that the economy will be weaker if we leave compared to staying.
-
One thing here that makes me skip over posts is the constant concern about whether we will all be richer. If that's all they worry about then I think it is very sad. Of course it is much better not to have personal worries over money and to live in a country where things run quite well overall, but to focus on being richer is one of those single issues which should not make people vote in or out. I have thought right from the start that the top, most important issue is to maintain contact, communication, co-operation to the best of all EU countries' abilities. There is no perfect situation - human nature just doesn't work that way - but improved conditions for all is much more likely to become more possible with remaining in the EU group.
There was something on the radio at lunchtime about young people finding it a bit tricky to register to vote on line because of having to give Nat Ins number. I don't know about that, but hope very much that as many as possible will be on that register in time to vote.
Yes but - if the economy does badly, most of us suffer one way or another, and there is great potential for damage to the economy if there is a Brexit vote.
-
I am your leader - look at my wealth of experience - I'm 67, I've been in public life for 42 years since I was elected to Islington council, I've been an MP for 33 years - here is a list of all my major leadership roles:
Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands
Oh - that's it ...
I agree with NS (rare) but he has massive mandate from his own party. Livingston and McDonnell are too abrasive, Corbyn being a nice chap does take the edge of the hard left ideology.
Its sad we don't have a credible opposition, I hope the LibDems can make it back, I know Clegg got mauled because of tuition fees but I think he was a good leader and they took the edge off the Tories.
-
I agree with NS (rare) but he has massive mandate from his own party. Livingston and McDonnell are too abrasive, Corbyn being a nice chap does take the edge of the hard left ideology.
Its sad we don't have a credible opposition, I hope the LibDems can make it back, I know Clegg got mauled because of tuition fees but I think he was a good leader and they took the edge off the Tories.
We have no functioning opposition at the moment, Corbyn appears to be living in another universe. All my Labour friends become quite distressed if I even mention his name.
-
I agree with NS (rare) but he has massive mandate from his own party. Livingston and McDonnell are too abrasive, Corbyn being a nice chap does take the edge of the hard left ideology.
Its sad we don't have a credible opposition, I hope the LibDems can make it back, I know Clegg got mauled because of tuition fees but I think he was a good leader and they took the edge off the Tories.
I agree that he has a massive mandate from the party - albeit he didn't gain 50% in either the membership section (came very close) and was rejected overwhelmingly by his MPs.
But this is the latest in a serious of examples where a party membership seem incapable of picking anyone remotely electable and seem to go for the worse possible choice in terms of acceptability to the wider electorate. So we've had the Tories selecting Hague (over Clarke) and IDS over either Clarke or Portillo.
And there is a major disconnect here - a party leader has to, first and foremost, command the respect of his or her parliamentary party - that is the bread and butter, his or her day job. Secondly to be successful he or she must connect with the wider electorate. So we run the risk (and have seen and are seeing now) a leader who has no respect amongst his MPs, cannot connect behind a narrow block of the electorate and certainly not widely enough to be electable, yet is very popular in the tiny, and self electing group of Labour members.
-
We have no functioning opposition at the moment, Corbyn appears to be living in another universe. All my Labour friends become quite distressed if I even mention his name.
I think we have also seen 'peak Corbyn' in terms of Labour membership levels. Sure there has been a big surge, but bit by bit we are now seeing disillusioned long standing members not renewing (including me) and of course all those who joined last summer will be coming up for renewal - sure some will but I suspect many others won't. Certainly most of those 'new' Corbynista members are very much of the armchair sort, never likely to get involved in the real political activism of leafleting, canvassing, standing in council elections etc etc. They are semi-detached members and I suspect many won't renew this summer and we will begin to see membership levels drop off.
Contrast with the last time Labour saw membership levels soar - through the 90s - that didn't start to fade until a couple of years into a Labour government - not much chance of that happening again, unless there is a change of leader.
-
For me it's not wealth that matters so much as stability.
As for Corbyn, I think his value is in that he offers something different. And he appears to be principles-driven. We know what Corbyn stands for. I've no idea what Cameron stand for at all, not least because all 'his' policies are Osborne's.
-
Yet again - please provide me with a credible independent economic organisation that thinks that we might grow faster, either in the short term of the longer term (e.g. to 2030) if we leave compared to staying.
You are repeating the same old disingenuous non-sense, somehow implying that slower growth or faster growth are equally credibly predicted likelihoods. They aren't there is effectively unanimity amongst credible independent economic organisations that growth will be slower if we leave than if we stay - sure there is some variation as to the extent of that negative difference if we leave compared to staying, but all of them conclude that the economy will be weaker if we leave compared to staying.
Please calm the hysteria.
Why would it matter?
I think Open Europe did one
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/
Also IOD said a similar thing.
As I've written previously I think predicting GDP is a lottery at the best of times, all reports predict we'll be richer than we are now if we leave and that is good enough for me.
-
Yes, I like Corbyn, whereas most Labour people seem like zombies to me.
Anyway, we are panicking about polls showing a Leave majority. Say it ain't so.
-
#1569 Prof D
I seem to have attributed your post to NS. I'll just double check, but apologies.
-
I think Open Europe did one
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/
Since when are 'Open Europe' a credible and independent economic organisation?!?
And even then there 'middle case' scenario also predicts we will be worse off if we leave compared to staying. Indeed their most recent report summarises the likely scenario as follows:
'The growing economic evidence suggests that there would be a small negative economic result from Brexit, probably in the region of 0.5% – 1.5% of GDP in the long run, presuming a reasonable trade agreement is struck between the UK and the EU.'
Hmm so even the report from a non credible and non independent non economic organisation that you have cherry picked agrees with me, that GDP will be lower in the long run if we leave compared to staying.
-
It's beginning to look suspiciously as though the only credible sources are the ones who say what you agree with, while a source that says otherwise becomes non-credible by definition.
-
It's beginning to look suspiciously as though the only credible sources are the ones who say what you agree with, while a source that says otherwise becomes non-credible by definition.
Open Europe is a think tank with a particular remit (promoting right wing uber deregulation free market capitalism) - it isn't an economic organisation, independent or otherwise, credible or otherwise. Think tanks are ten a penny - I'm not talking about the views of think tanks, but of credible independent economic organisations.
You know like the IMF, the World Bank, the Bank of England, the OECD, the IFS, the G7, the Treasury etc etc.
But even though Open Europe isn't an economic organisation but a think tank it still accepts that the economic effects of Brexit are likely to be negative.
-
You seem still to be using 'credible' much as a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.
-
Also IOD said a similar thing.
Really?!? News to me. Link please.
Firstly I'm wast aware that the IOD were an economic organisation - I thought they were a body that represented Directors of companies in the UK. Secondly I'm not aware that they have conducted their own research into the economic effects of Brexit - which isn't surprising given their remit. I do know that they have conducted surveys of their members and their views on Brexit, which have overwhelmingly shown their members to be concerned about the effects of Brexit on their own companies and in favour of remaining.
-
Yes, I like Corbyn, whereas most Labour people seem like zombies to me.
Anyway, we are panicking about polls showing a Leave majority. Say it ain't so.
I'm sure that as an eccentric university professor he would be a great character to have a pint with in the student bar - but as the leader of a major political party he just a disaster. He speaks to no one but a narrow clique of activists, even long-standing Labour voters despair. As leader, he should be presenting a powerful case for Remain, and he can't even be bothered to do that convincingly.
Corbyn has been a disaster for Labour and he threatens to be a disaster for the Country if he can't present some positive arguments for Remain.
-
Are these positive arguments like World War 3 as Dave did? Personally I find much of the argument for either side ridiculously negative and unnuanced.
-
I think the standard of debate has been pretty poor from both side so far, but Corbyn's great line "that the Conservative Party was a bigger threat to the country than the European Union was" ought to take some kind of prize.
You get the impression that he really just doesn't give a damn - which is maybe just what the Scots want? Brexit might be a good excuse for a second independence referendum?
-
It's an opinion, you seem to think he shouldn't express it because it might lose votes. I think it might gain votes from people who would like some honesty.
As for another referendum on independence, from a personal viewpoint, just please no. With the last one, the GE, the Scottish (and other) elections, and now this, i'm fed up and I'm a political geek. Time for campaigning to stop and a bit of governing to happen
-
The 5:30 in/out item on Radio 4's PM programme has just finished. David Milliband and Nick Clegg had a few seconds on the in side, but the rest of the time appeared to be for the out side. This is extremely annoying.
-
It's an opinion, you seem to think he shouldn't express it because it might lose votes. I think it might gain votes from people who would like some honesty.
As for another referendum on independence, from a personal viewpoint, just please no. With the last one, the GE, the Scottish (and other) elections, and now this, i'm fed up and I'm a political geek. Time for campaigning to stop and a bit of governing to happen
I must admit it is all very strange - we seem to have a range of people leading campaigns who I'm not convinced actually believe the line they are selling.
So I'm not convinced that David Cameron would be campaigning to remain if he were a back bencher rather than the PM.
I'm not convinced that Boris would be campaigning for Brexit except for the fact that he sees this as his best route to number 10, likewise Michael Gove.
For all three of them they seem to have gone from hedging their bets to nailed on to one side or the other in months - it simply doesn't seem credible.
And I'm not convinced that Jeremy Corbyn really believes in staying and he might just think that Brexit vote and the inevitable Cameron departure just might get him to number 10.
Then we have Sturgeon, who I genuinely believe is in favour of staying, but might see Brexit as the best way to achieve her greater ambition of independence.
It seems that the actual issue is being treated as a political football for other purposes and political ambition. Perhaps we need to hear more from respected figures with no axe to grind or overt political ambition. Some respected political elder statesmen (and women) perhaps.
-
It's an opinion, you seem to think he shouldn't express it because it might lose votes. I think it might gain votes from people who would like some honesty.
As for another referendum on independence, from a personal viewpoint, just please no. With the last one, the GE, the Scottish (and other) elections, and now this, i'm fed up and I'm a political geek. Time for campaigning to stop and a bit of governing to happen
The general idea was that the referendum was to transcend party politics - and the silly sod comes up with a statement effectively saying the the EU wasn't as bad as the Tory party! - Was that supposed to convince undecided voters to opt for Remain? - or was he just demonstrating to his leftie clique what a radical he is.
-
I don't really see how Nicola fits in that post
She is for Remain and has argued for making a more positive case. That a Leave vote might trigger another independence referendum doesn't put her in a position that you think the others are in.
-
I don't really see how Nicola fits in that post
She is for Remain and has argued for making a more positive case. That a Leave vote might trigger another independence referendum doesn't put her in a position that you think the others are in.
I think I made it clear that I genuinely believe that Sturgeon is in favour of the EU, but she is also passionately in favour of scottish independence - do you really not that she recognises the massive opportunities for her prime goal of independence in a Brexit vote.
Her dream scenario, surely would be a marginal overall Brexit vote but a very strong scottish vote to remain. Perfect for her to use this as a trigger for a referendum, which could easily be won with a backdrop of the UK government shifting considerably rightwards, with Cameron gone and a new cabinet packed out with Brexiters.
Put it this way, she hardly seems to be as passionate in her defence of the EU than she was in favour of independence for scotland.
-
And in the meantime the electorate gets manipulated into playing their games.
-
And in the meantime the electorate gets manipulated into playing their games.
Indeed and the most unedifying part is the continuing rivalry between the posho old chums, continuing from their old school days through Oxford and their uber-elitist club and the positioning as alpha-male top dog in the tories.
I just cannot believe that either 'call me Dave' or 'hey I'm a man of the people Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson' truly believe in their positions - we are all party to a private rivalry the consequences of which will potentially affect the UK for decades.
-
I think I made it clear that I genuinely believe that Sturgeon is in favour of the EU, but she is also passionately in favour of scottish independence - do you really not that she recognises the massive opportunities for her prime goal of independence in a Brexit vote.
Her dream scenario, surely would be a marginal overall Brexit vote but a very strong scottish vote to remain. Perfect for her to use this as a trigger for a referendum, which could easily be won with a backdrop of the UK government shifting considerably rightwards, with Cameron gone and a new cabinet packed out with Brexiters.
Put it this way, she hardly seems to be as passionate in her defence of the EU than she was in favour of independence for scotland.
And how is that the equivalent of being dishonest which was your take on the others in your post?
-
Indeed and the most unedifying part is the continuing rivalry between the posho old chums, continuing from their old school days through Oxford and their uber-elitist club and the positioning as alpha-male top dog in the tories.
I just cannot believe that either 'call me Dave' or 'hey I'm a man of the people Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson' truly believe in their positions - we are all party to a private rivalry the consequences of which will potentially affect the UK for decades.
Yes, none of this is about principle. It's personal ambition, private rivalry and a desire to kick Farage in the knackers for his impudence.
As for which way to vote and who to believe, there are so many unknowns and so much utter bollockry from both sides, we might as well be asking Tony Stockwell to talk to my dear departed auntie Doris for her opinion.
-
And how is that the equivalent of being dishonest which was your take on the others in your post?
Where did I ever say that she was being dishonest - I didn't.
What I said was that their decisions and dedication to the cause in this referendum is tempered by other issues and other political ambitions including personal ones.
Actually the potential prize for Sturgeon on a political and personal ambition is perhaps the greatest of all. Sure Johnson or Gove (or even Corbyn) could end up as PM if things got their away. But that would hardly be epoch making in a historical context. Sturgeon has the chance of becoming the first PM of an independent Scotland - that really would be something in a historical context. She is a passionate believer in an independent Scotland, but she is also ruthlessly ambitious - do you really not think that this possibility hasn't entered her mind.
-
Where did I ever say that she was being dishonest - I didn't.
What I said was that their decisions and dedication to the cause in this referendum is tempered by other issues and other political ambitions including personal ones.
Actually the potential prize for Sturgeon on a political and personal ambition is perhaps the greatest of all. Sure Johnson or Gove (or even Corbyn) could end up as PM if things got their away. But that would hardly be epoch making in a historical context. Sturgeon has the chance of becoming the first PM of an independent Scotland - that really would be something in a historical context. She is a passionate believer in an independent Scotland, but she is also ruthlessly ambitious - do you really not think that this possibility hasn't entered her mind.
You had her in a post where you questioned whether the positions taken by Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Corbyn were their honest positions. In doing that you questioned their honesty and in linking Nicola to that you implicitly questioned her honesty in this matter.
-
And, of course the idea has entered her head, it would for anyone with even a smidgen of political acumen but then since I didn't say it hadn't, that would be you creating a strawman.
-
And, of course the idea has entered her head, it would for anyone with even a smidgen of political acumen but then since I didn't say it hadn't, that would be you creating a strawman.
Nor did I say that she was being dishonest (quite the reverse) so that is an equivalently created strawman.
-
So ner.
-
This is pure rubbish!!!
This is very much not rubbish, and it's right at the core of the lie that the Brexit bunch are peddling.
1/ Norway and Switzerland have to accept the same free movement of labour as EU countries.
2/ If we are lucky we might get a similar arrangement for the UK (if not we will be in very deep shit)
3/ We will still have to accept EU migrants (which will be fortunate because we need so many of them)
Sorry that's it: the best future that a Brexit might bring us would be remarkably similar to the status quo - except we won't have any say in running things.
1) We are not Norway or Switzerland, we should do our own thing outside the single market and its stupid rules. I say 'should' because we have those twats Cameron and Osborne in power at the moment and who knows what will happen there.
2) We don't need luck as we 'shouldn't' be going for a deal as part of the single market. Outside of that is going to be just as good, if not better than being in the EU.
If we are in deep shit then so will the EU be and from there the whole globe.
3) Nar, that's one big pile of bull.
Sorry mate you are wide of the mark!!!
-
DO your exclamation marks alone disprove this. I think not.
If Brexit win - I'll give you 6 months and you'll be begging to be let back in. Trouble is for the rest of us it will be too late.
Anyway the word you should have used is balderdash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Only cos it brings a little variety to your constant use of WRONG & rubbish!!!! - and yet so often that is all it is an exclamation with no argument to back it up. Ne'er mind keep taking the tabloids)
WRONG!!!
Brexit will only prove itself as a long term project. 6 months is just the start - the warm up act.
So your comments are rubbish!!!
-
When a group of political activists realise that their 'world' is not shared by the electorate - it's time they stopped and think, but I guess that the Corbynites are too blinkered to notice.
What he thinks is that if only those plebs could understand his position they would believe it too. And of course he has the debating powers to change the minds of the Brussels cartel as well..... ::)
-
Dear Lapsed,
POWER TO THE PEOPLE, well actually I quite like that, but all people, not just the people who know how to work the system, funny but I am a Tory in some ways, there are some poor people who know how to work the system, but they are a very tiny minority, lets start with the fat cats, funny again that I agree with most of what Jack Knave chunters on about, the EU is corrupt, but unlike him I think we can get rid of them by reforming the EU, I suppose all this EU nonsense has had one positive effect, we are now more savvy about its going on and we know it needs to change.
Gonnagle.
You were almost wise there, Goony, until you describe me as chuntering. >:(
We can't change the EU they have too much power to be changed. Just as the Soviet Union couldn't be changed from within it had to be killed off.
But, yes, all this referendum stuff has awakened a good proportion of the public to the machinations of the EU and if we vote to remain they will be watching it more closely for any nasty deals and impingements on us.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Ah well! me and you ( is that, you and I ) are in agreement that we stay, we can both hold hands and walk into the sunset, further, further!! since ProfDavey, Jeremyp and Gabriella have wiped the floor with Jakswan and Jack Knave, we can all hold hands and walk into the sunset singing, "Rule Brittania" or is that "It's the World in Union". :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
Talk about an echo chamber!!!
This is the problem with Corbyn as well, people of the same mind just chuntering to themselves and then proclaiming victory. Something the EU keeps doing by kicking the can down the road and then claiming the problem solved only to dumbfounded when it rears its ugly head again but twice as worse.
-
Perhaps we need to hear more from respected figures with no axe to grind or overt political ambition. Some respected political elder statesmen (and women) perhaps.
But all Brexiters are mad as a box of frogs ain't they?
-
For me it's not wealth that matters so much as stability.
As for Corbyn, I think his value is in that he offers something different. And he appears to be principles-driven. We know what Corbyn stands for. I've no idea what Cameron stand for at all, not least because all 'his' policies are Osborne's.
Yeah, right....He has been against the EU for years and said it's rotten and that we should leave it. And now......????? Yeah, he really is principled and keeps to his word...
-
Since when are 'Open Europe' a credible and independent economic organisation?!?
And even then there 'middle case' scenario also predicts we will be worse off if we leave compared to staying. Indeed their most recent report summarises the likely scenario as follows:
'The growing economic evidence suggests that there would be a small negative economic result from Brexit, probably in the region of 0.5% – 1.5% of GDP in the long run, presuming a reasonable trade agreement is struck between the UK and the EU.'
Hmm so even the report from a non credible and non independent non economic organisation that you have cherry picked agrees with me, that GDP will be lower in the long run if we leave compared to staying.
As I explained predicting GDP to 2030 is a lottery so I don't place much value in any report, they all have skin in the game and most of these "credible sources" were wrong about the EURO, the effect of us leaving the ERM and didn't predict the 2008 crash.
I think we might be a little worse off or a little better off but I'd prefer a UK government to run the UK.
-
I think the standard of debate has been pretty poor from both side so far, but Corbyn's great line "that the Conservative Party was a bigger threat to the country than the European Union was" ought to take some kind of prize.
You get the impression that he really just doesn't give a damn - which is maybe just what the Scots want? Brexit might be a good excuse for a second independence referendum?
Perhaps he knows he can never get elected so at least the EU will keep the Tories from actually having too much power.
-
Nor did I say that she was being dishonest (quite the reverse) so that is an equivalently created strawman.
Can I suggest that you read what has been written rather than quite so excitedly reply to what you might think has been written?
I first of all asked why Nicola belonged amongst a group of people you were stating as being dishonest, and then pointed out that the way you had done it implied (note this is not the same as 'saying') that she was dishonest by putting her in the same camp as those you did think were being dishonest.
Good of you to admit that you had created a strawman.
-
Yeah, right....He has been against the EU for years and said it's rotten and that we should leave it. And now......????? Yeah, he really is principled and keeps to his word...
Being principled still allows for changing one's mind thanks to new understanding and information. Corbyn says that he now believes both workers' rights and protecting the environment are better served as part of the EU.
-
I must admit it is all very strange - we seem to have a range of people leading campaigns who I'm not convinced actually believe the line they are selling.
So I'm not convinced that David Cameron would be campaigning to remain if he were a back bencher rather than the PM.
I'm not convinced that Boris would be campaigning for Brexit except for the fact that he sees this as his best route to number 10, likewise Michael Gove.
For all three of them they seem to have gone from hedging their bets to nailed on to one side or the other in months - it simply doesn't seem credible.
And I'm not convinced that Jeremy Corbyn really believes in staying and he might just think that Brexit vote and the inevitable Cameron departure just might get him to number 10.
Then we have Sturgeon, who I genuinely believe is in favour of staying, but might see Brexit as the best way to achieve her greater ambition of independence.
It seems that the actual issue is being treated as a political football for other purposes and political ambition. Perhaps we need to hear more from respected figures with no axe to grind or overt political ambition. Some respected political elder statesmen (and women) perhaps.
I agree with you most of them either sound like frauds or are just OTT. Only Farage and co. speak with any honesty.
-
Being principled still allows for changing one's mind thanks to new understanding and information. Corbyn says that he now believes both workers' rights and protecting the environment are better served as part of the EU.
One of his gripes was that the EU was a boys club for the big corporations and bankers. What makes him think they will keep to these workers rights, or the environment? The guy is playing politics which he hated about the Westminster bubble.
-
I have listened to Any Questions all the way through !!
Michael Heseltine and Caroline Lucas won the day and the audience were definitely mostly remainers.
-
Mmmm
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21699969-there-some-dispute-over-mechanics-how-leave-eu-if-it-were-done
-
Mmmm
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21699969-there-some-dispute-over-mechanics-how-leave-eu-if-it-were-done
Interesting if somewhat depressing read. But I fear posted to no avail - you see it's RUBBISH!!!!!
-
Interesting if somewhat depressing read. But I fear posted to no avail - you see it's RUBBISH!!!!!
It's simply "Stating the bleedin' obvious" - which the Brexitors like to pretend isn't so.
-
Dear Jack Knave,
You were almost wise there, Goony, until you describe me as chuntering. >:(
We all chunter on this forum, some chunter very eloquently, some ( not mentioning any names :P ) chunter in riddles, some, I need to have a dictionary handy, me, I am a kind of post and be damned kind of chunterer, you, Mr UKIP, I like your chuntering, why, because I understand where your coming from.
It is not that long ago that the UKIP supporter stuck your head above the parapet, not that long ago that I listened to the UKIP candidates on the telly and thought, yes I know why you are fed up with UK politics, some of the UKIP supporters actually made sense, but you were branded racist, I suppose within UKIP ranks there are some racists, same as the Tories, hell there are probably Labour supporter racists, but the vast majority of UKIP supporters, well I thought, yes they have a genuine gripe, they have been let down by the government, your average UKIP supporter just wanted to be heard.
What happened at the election, I watched UKIP receive quite a lot of votes but to no avail, the stupid voting system in this country stopped you from having a voice in parliament, that's what we should be talking about, but no, we are all chuntering on about the EU, which actually is good, we are all a lot wiser about that shower in Brussels, and we all will be watching them more closely, just like me with our Scottish referendum, anytime Independence is mentioned my hackles rise, I am now watching that shower in Holyrood >:(
Gonnagle.
-
What happened at the election, I watched UKIP receive quite a lot of votes but to no avail, the stupid voting system in this country stopped you from having a voice in parliament, that's what we should be talking about,
Which is also what I've been chuntering about for years Gonners. While ever (Whilst ever?) we have this iniquitous first past the post system we will be landed with unrepresentative government - and even tho a Labour supporter I can see that they are just as wedded to FPTP as the Tories are - and why? Because it gives them an inbuilt majority more often than not - and disenfranchises the smaller parties such as UKIP & the Green Party. This is not how a modern democracy should go about reflecting the views of its electorate.
And it gives the governing party, of whatever flavour, the ability to ride roughshod over genuine concerns over policy relating to whatever you choose from the NHS to the Iraq war and all points in between.
Which also brings me back to the topic in hand the EU - as I have already highlighted above we do govern ourselves albeit in a most undemocratic fashion - as all of the legislation that has affected me directly was originated by UK governments and subsequently passed by those same governments - I do not see the loss of sovereignty that some are so fond of waxing lyrical about.
-
Perhaps he knows he can never get elected so at least the EU will keep the Tories from actually having too much power.
That party is in meltdown.
Power in that party is going to be baronial with one uber baron constantly looking over their shoulder.
Corbyn just has to retire and the opposition to Labour are done particularly if Labour offers electoral reform..
-
Hing oan. Who's party is in meltdown?
I need bullet points because this thread is all over the place.
Who's for in and who's for out?
-
Dear Trent,
A very sterling, intelligent and honest post, wonderful chuntering ;) After we deal with this EU nonsense we can then ask our elected to start fixing this country, sort out the voting system, sort out unemployment, sort out foodbanks, sort out the tax system, fund our NHS properly, build more housing, sort out our infrastructure ( Hoy! Sturgeon, I want a railway from Glasgow to the Airport, right!! ) tell our MEP's our MP's that we a sick to death of hearing about immigrants drowning, sick to death of watching them live in squalor, Europe is a rich continent, lets start sharing that wealth.
Gonnagle.
PS: Farmer, I am in, although I have never felt European, all that foreign food makes me queasy, give me a good old fashioned British curry anyday. ::)
-
Mmmm
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21699969-there-some-dispute-over-mechanics-how-leave-eu-if-it-were-done
Looks at one side and decides they hold the aces.
-
Looks at one side and decides they hold the aces.
It's quite clear. All 27 countries have to agree on a possible post-brexit deal for the UK and even if countries like Germany want to keep free trade going at all costs (as some have suggested) they can't do it because there are countries who are much less sympathetic.
The best we can hope for is a deal along the lines of the one that Norway and Switzerland have - and that means free movement of labour.
-
I have listened to Any Questions all the way through !!
Michael Heseltine and Caroline Lucas won the day and the audience were definitely mostly remainers.
That's so risible I won't even bother being to you rude about it. Lucas is as thick as shit and talks bollocks. Heseltine only has half a brain and has a vested interest in it. As he said he runs a business.
-
It's simply "Stating the bleedin' obvious" - which the Brexitors like to pretend isn't so.
It is all speculation, nothing more.
-
Dear Jack Knave,
We all chunter on this forum, some chunter very eloquently, some ( not mentioning any names :P ) chunter in riddles, some, I need to have a dictionary handy, me, I am a kind of post and be damned kind of chunterer, you, Mr UKIP, I like your chuntering, why, because I understand where your coming from.
It is not that long ago that the UKIP supporter stuck your head above the parapet, not that long ago that I listened to the UKIP candidates on the telly and thought, yes I know why you are fed up with UK politics, some of the UKIP supporters actually made sense, but you were branded racist, I suppose within UKIP ranks there are some racists, same as the Tories, hell there are probably Labour supporter racists, but the vast majority of UKIP supporters, well I thought, yes they have a genuine gripe, they have been let down by the government, your average UKIP supporter just wanted to be heard.
What happened at the election, I watched UKIP receive quite a lot of votes but to no avail, the stupid voting system in this country stopped you from having a voice in parliament, that's what we should be talking about, but no, we are all chuntering on about the EU, which actually is good, we are all a lot wiser about that shower in Brussels, and we all will be watching them more closely, just like me with our Scottish referendum, anytime Independence is mentioned my hackles rise, I am now watching that shower in Holyrood >:(
Gonnagle.
With regards to our voting system, as one Ukipper pointed out, it would only take a relatively small increase in their votes to start giving them a substantial number of seats. The problem with PR is that it gives you the same government all the time; a coalition - that's not democracy just inertia. Perhaps our system needs to be tweaked so that it reflects more the proportion of the votes but I'm against PR.
-
Which is also what I've been chuntering about for years Gonners. While ever (Whilst ever?) we have this iniquitous first past the post system we will be landed with unrepresentative government - and even tho a Labour supporter I can see that they are just as wedded to FPTP as the Tories are - and why? Because it gives them an inbuilt majority more often than not - and disenfranchises the smaller parties such as UKIP & the Green Party. This is not how a modern democracy should go about reflecting the views of its electorate.
And it gives the governing party, of whatever flavour, the ability to ride roughshod over genuine concerns over policy relating to whatever you choose from the NHS to the Iraq war and all points in between.
Which also brings me back to the topic in hand the EU - as I have already highlighted above we do govern ourselves albeit in a most undemocratic fashion - as all of the legislation that has affected me directly was originated by UK governments and subsequently passed by those same governments - I do not see the loss of sovereignty that some are so fond of waxing lyrical about.
And yet many complain about the unelected HoL's that have kerbed the stupid Tory endeavours. Not that I'm saying how it is is ok or anything just that it's funny how these things turn out some times.
-
Hing oan. Who's party is in meltdown?
I need bullet points because this thread is all over the place.
Who's for in and who's for out?
I think he meant the Tories. I find Vlad's posts a little off the radar sometimes.
-
Dear Trent,
A very sterling, intelligent and honest post, wonderful chuntering ;) After we deal with this EU nonsense we can then ask our elected to start fixing this country, sort out the voting system, sort out unemployment, sort out foodbanks, sort out the tax system, fund our NHS properly, build more housing, sort out our infrastructure ( Hoy! Sturgeon, I want a railway from Glasgow to the Airport, right!! ) tell our MEP's our MP's that we a sick to death of hearing about immigrants drowning, sick to death of watching them live in squalor, Europe is a rich continent, lets start sharing that wealth.
Gonnagle.
PS: Farmer, I am in, although I have never felt European, all that foreign food makes me queasy, give me a good old fashioned British curry anyday. ::)
But before you can really do all that you need to sort out the banking system, which intern means dealing with the big multinational companies and so on...and this includes the EU which is part of this cartel of corporatist clique.
-
It's quite clear. All 27 countries have to agree on a possible post-brexit deal for the UK and even if countries like Germany want to keep free trade going at all costs (as some have suggested) they can't do it because there are countries who are much less sympathetic.
The best we can hope for is a deal along the lines of the one that Norway and Switzerland have - and that means free movement of labour.
The countries that could hold this up can be lent on because they receive more than they give. Anyway we can work on the WTO rulings and be ok by buying from the rest of the world.
And as I have said before the EU won't have our membership fee so they will be hurting big time, and if we suffer we'll buy less of their goods!!!
-
It is all speculation, nothing more.
While nothing in life is certain (except death and taxes), the one thing we can be pretty certain of is that on June 24, Michael Gove won't wave his magic wand and reveal a pile of free trade agreements for every country in the world (or probably any).
What is likely to happen in the event of a Brexit vote, is that after a lot hard negotiation we will eventually be offered a deal with the EU similar to Switzerland and Norway, and like Switzerland and Norway, we would have to accept EU migrants. It will be a 'take it or leave it deal' - Germany might have a vested interest in selling us cars, but they are not in any position to over-ride the vote of the other members.
So, we would have to make another decision, whether to accept a deal that looks very much like what we currently have or make a total split with Europe. Obviously that would allow us to make all kinds of bizarre laws without interference from those appalling foreigners, but we wouldn't have free access to the EU market - and that would be a major problem for much of our industry and in particular those foreign companies who have established plants in this country specifically to serve the EU market.
So we actually have three options:
1/ We Remain.
2/ we negotiate a deal similar to Switzerland and Norway which would still give us access to the EU market but would allow EU migration (and probably wouldn't be free, those Brussels Eurocrats would likely demand an 'administration' fee)
3/ We go it alone - which might appeal to some, but it would mean that Britain was not a good manufacturing base for companies serving to the EU market. There would be no new investment and existing companies would downsize or shut-down. Very bad news for the economy and employment.
-
While nothing in life is certain (except death and taxes), the one thing we can be pretty certain of is that on June 24, Michael Gove won't wave his magic wand and reveal a pile of free trade agreements for every country in the world (or probably any).
What is likely to happen in the event of a Brexit vote, is that after a lot hard negotiation we will eventually be offered a deal with the EU similar to Switzerland and Norway, and like Switzerland and Norway, we would have to accept EU migrants. It will be a 'take it or leave it deal' - Germany might have a vested interest in selling us cars, but they are not in any position to over-ride the vote of the other members.
So, we would have to make another decision, whether to accept a deal that looks very much like what we currently have or make a total split with Europe. Obviously that would allow us to make all kinds of bizarre laws without interference from those appalling foreigners, but we wouldn't have free access to the EU market - and that would be a major problem for much of our industry and in particular those foreign companies who have established plants in this country specifically to serve the EU market.
So we actually have three options:
1/ We Remain.
2/ we negotiate a deal similar to Switzerland and Norway which would still give us access to the EU market but would allow EU migration (and probably wouldn't be free, those Brussels Eurocrats would likely demand an 'administration' fee)
3/ We go it alone - which might appeal to some, but it would mean that Britain was not a good manufacturing base for companies serving to the EU market. There would be no new investment and existing companies would downsize or shut-down. Very bad news for the economy and employment.
Spot on.
Hopefully more people than not heed these points and vote status quo.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Yes, I agree with Vlad, spot on, it is interesting that I see a lot of comparisons with our Scottish Referendum although I would imagine that most posters on here can remember when we were not part of the EU.
I find Rhiannon's posts very interesting, being that just like me she can't see who is telling the truth, that was my dilemma over the Scottish referendum but just like the SNP the Exit campaign all seems to be back of a fag packet stuff, that was the clincher for me, the SNP were asking me to step into the void, no real plan of action, and just like the Scottish Referendum I did think it would be a very messy divorce.
It will also be very interesting to watch if, just like the Scottish referendum there is one big final push by the remain campaign, our Nicola will be the one to watch, how closely the SNP will aline with other parties, we do live in very interesting times :o
Gonnagle.
-
I find Rhiannon's posts very interesting, being that just like me she can't see who is telling the truth, that was my dilemma over the Scottish referendum but just like the SNP the Exit campaign all seems to be back of a fag packet stuff, that was the clincher for me, the SNP were asking me to step into the void, no real plan of action, and just like the Scottish Referendum I did think it would be a very messy divorce.
You know what they say about politicians:
You can always tell when they are lying, you can see their lips move (though I suspect that some might have been take courses in ventriloquism)
It will also be very interesting to watch if, just like the Scottish referendum there is one big final push by the remain campaign, our Nicola will be the one to watch, how closely the SNP will aline with other parties, we do live in very interesting times :o
Gonnagle.
I just hope Nicola stays north of the border, I can't see her presence being helpful to the Remain campaign in England.
-
I think John Major's quite worried about the public being misled by Leave and rightly so.
We are the nation that dismantled it's welfare system.
Sold it's public utilities to Europeans.
Destroyed a perfectly serviceable meritocracy and junked British society in favour of a dodgy and unpleasant individualism unified by an ersatz fantsy nationalism and comedy version of Winston Churchill who incidentally quite freely talked in not negative terms of a United States of Europe.
Not complacent but still think people are going to go for status quo.
After all a year ago it looked as if Miliband had a chance and Clegg would be in government rather than his party gone in one dreadful night..
-
While nothing in life is certain (except death and taxes), the one thing we can be pretty certain of is that on June 24, Michael Gove won't wave his magic wand and reveal a pile of free trade agreements for every country in the world (or probably any).
What is likely to happen in the event of a Brexit vote, is that after a lot hard negotiation we will eventually be offered a deal with the EU similar to Switzerland and Norway, and like Switzerland and Norway, we would have to accept EU migrants. It will be a 'take it or leave it deal' - Germany might have a vested interest in selling us cars, but they are not in any position to over-ride the vote of the other members.
So, we would have to make another decision, whether to accept a deal that looks very much like what we currently have or make a total split with Europe. Obviously that would allow us to make all kinds of bizarre laws without interference from those appalling foreigners, but we wouldn't have free access to the EU market - and that would be a major problem for much of our industry and in particular those foreign companies who have established plants in this country specifically to serve the EU market.
So we actually have three options:
1/ We Remain.
2/ we negotiate a deal similar to Switzerland and Norway which would still give us access to the EU market but would allow EU migration (and probably wouldn't be free, those Brussels Eurocrats would likely demand an 'administration' fee)
3/ We go it alone - which might appeal to some, but it would mean that Britain was not a good manufacturing base for companies serving to the EU market. There would be no new investment and existing companies would downsize or shut-down. Very bad news for the economy and employment.
An example of JC's, the Labour Leader, "histrionic myth making".
-
Dear Lapsed,
Yes, I agree with Vlad, spot on, it is interesting that I see a lot of comparisons with our Scottish Referendum although I would imagine that most posters on here can remember when we were not part of the EU.
I find Rhiannon's posts very interesting, being that just like me she can't see who is telling the truth, that was my dilemma over the Scottish referendum but just like the SNP the Exit campaign all seems to be back of a fag packet stuff, that was the clincher for me, the SNP were asking me to step into the void, no real plan of action, and just like the Scottish Referendum I did think it would be a very messy divorce.
It will also be very interesting to watch if, just like the Scottish referendum there is one big final push by the remain campaign, our Nicola will be the one to watch, how closely the SNP will aline with other parties, we do live in very interesting times :o
Gonnagle.
Absolutely. I think though lots of people have mentally inflated being part of the committee but accepting the rules as brutally dominated by a viscious colonial power (which has no evidence) having gone on for centuries ( which has negative evidence ) with a passion ( which has no apparent cause since most people were happy to vote for parties mainly committed to staying in. ).
-
Scotland seriously dodged a bullet given the price of Brent crude these days. Still, Nicola wants another referendum...
-
An example of JC's, the Labour Leader, "histrionic myth making".
Sorry Jakswan,
I'm not going to let you get away with that:
Exactly what part of my argument do you find fault with, and how do you figure that is in any way related to Corbynism?
Corbyn's concern is Socialism (an unworkable theory that tries to redistribute wealth) - my concern is industry (that section of the economy that actually generates the wealth)
-
Jakswan wasn’t saying your post was an example of Corbynism but an example of arguments that Corbyn had argued the Stay side should stop because they are 'histrionic, myth making'. I don't think though that just saying that, as he did, amounts to an argument.
-
Jakswan wasn’t saying your post was an example of Corbynism but an example of arguments that Corbyn had argued the Stay side should stop because they are 'histrionic, myth making'. I don't think though that just saying that, as he did, amounts to an argument.
That's as maybe, but he fails to explain his criticism.
It is not 'histrionic' to point out obvious dangers.
-
That's as maybe, but he fails to explain his criticism.
It is not 'histrionic' to point out obvious dangers.
Yes, that is what the last line of my post said, so I don't get the 'but'.
-
Yes, that is what the last line of my post said, so I don't get the 'but'.
I'll await his post with bated breath (though I think I might go for a walk as it's such a nice day)
-
While nothing in life is certain (except death and taxes), the one thing we can be pretty certain of is that on June 24, Michael Gove won't wave his magic wand and reveal a pile of free trade agreements for every country in the world (or probably any).
Has anyone suggested he would?
What is likely to happen in the event of a Brexit vote, is that after a lot hard negotiation we will eventually be offered a deal with the EU similar to Switzerland and Norway, and like Switzerland and Norway, we would have to accept EU migrants. It will be a 'take it or leave it deal' - Germany might have a vested interest in selling us cars, but they are not in any position to over-ride the vote of the other members.
Most members have an interest in a free trade agreement, you can't possibly know it would be 'take it or leave it'.
So, we would have to make another decision, whether to accept a deal that looks very much like what we currently have or make a total split with Europe.
We still trade with Europe trade deal or not, this is myth making.
Obviously that would allow us to make all kinds of bizarre laws without interference from those appalling foreigners, but we wouldn't have free access to the EU market - and that would be a major problem for much of our industry and in particular those foreign companies who have established plants in this country specifically to serve the EU market.
Histrionic -"appaling forgienrs"
So we actually have three options:
1/ We Remain.
2/ we negotiate a deal similar to Switzerland and Norway which would still give us access to the EU market but would allow EU migration (and probably wouldn't be free, those Brussels Eurocrats would likely demand an 'administration' fee)
3/ We go it alone - which might appeal to some, but it would mean that Britain was not a good manufacturing base for companies serving to the EU market. There would be no new investment and existing companies would downsize or shut-down. Very bad news for the economy and employment.
Such a simplistic view, there are many options, a UK government would be in control accountable to the electorate.
-
Has anyone suggested he would?
Pretty much - yes. Gove and several other prominent Brexitos have suggested that we will just we will just default into some kind free trading era after Brexit, though they all fail to be too specific on the details.
Most members have an interest in a free trade agreement, you can't possibly know it would be 'take it or leave it'.
No - some members have an interest in a free trade, others seem more concerned with the internal market, while a few are very concerned about freedom of movement, and every country must be very much aware that if Britain gets an over-generous deal others might follow! And remember that the vote on any UK deal has to be unanimous - so every country has a veto.
Under those circumstances, it's difficult to see how we could possibly get a better deal than Switzerland an Norway.
We still trade with Europe trade deal or not, this is myth making.
Of course we will trade! - but not without tariffs - and for some industries that will tip the balance, such that the UK is no longer a good place to do business.
Histrionic -"appalling foreigners"
Obviously a Ukipesque parody.
Such a simplistic view, there are many options, a UK government would be in control accountable to the electorate.
There are only going to be a limited number of options on the table - and they all have consequences, we have a lot to lose.
No government is totally in control these days - think 2008. We need partners and we need good trade deals.
-
Odds changing to 11/4 on Stay. It's a small change but the narrowest it's been for a while.
-
Pretty much - yes. Gove and several other prominent Brexitos have suggested that we will just we will just default into some kind free trading era after Brexit, though they all fail to be too specific on the details.No - some members have an interest in a free trade, others seem more concerned with the internal market, while a few are very concerned about freedom of movement, and every country must be very much aware that if Britain gets an over-generous deal others might follow! And remember that the vote on any UK deal has to be unanimous - so every country has a veto.
Where did Gove mention his magic wand and this default you talk about?
Under those circumstances, it's difficult to see how we could possibly get a better deal than Switzerland an Norway.
Or Turkey or Canada or South Korea.
Of course we will trade! - but not without tariffs - and for some industries that will tip the balance, such that the UK is no longer a good place to do business.
You claimed it would be "total split".
Obviously a Ukipesque parody.
Histrionics I call it.
There are only going to be a limited number of options on the table - and they all have consequences, we have a lot to lose.
Very complex coming up with a very short list and insisting those are the only options is histrionic.
No government is totally in control these days - think 2008. We need partners and we need good trade deals.
No one is claiming total control, we will still have partners and trade deals after we leave.
-
Where did Gove mention his magic wand and this default you talk about?
Gove and others, have stated in radio interviews on more than one occasion that we will just trade freely with the world after brexit - bizarrely, the interviewers never took them to task.
Or Turkey or Canada or South Korea.
As I understand it, there is not currently a free trade deal with Canada. Turkey I think is quite a special case, it's not just about commerce, there is a political dimension. It's true that the EU have a trade agreement with South Korea but this does not offer the same open access to the EU market that Britain currently has (and needs)
You claimed it would be "total split".
Histrionics I call it.
Of course it wouldn't be a total split in as much as we will still trade with the EU, but if we don't at least get a deal as good as Norway/Switzerland we will not have the kind of access to the EU market that large exporters need - which will probably mean they will relocate.
Very complex coming up with a very short list and insisting those are the only options is histrionic.
No one is claiming total control, we will still have partners and trade deals after we leave.
The fact is that the Brexit camp just will not face-up to what the consequences of their actions would be. Whenever anyone points out any of the pitfalls they start screaming about scaremongering.
-
Such a simplistic view, there are many options, a UK government would be in control accountable to the electorate.
No. This is only a vote on EU membership. Nobody has said anything about promising electoral reform.
-
Gove and others, have stated in radio interviews on more than one occasion that we will just trade freely with the world after brexit - bizarrely, the interviewers never took them to task.
Link please?
As I understand it, there is not currently a free trade deal with Canada. Turkey I think is quite a special case, it's not just about commerce, there is a political dimension. It's true that the EU have a trade agreement with South Korea but this does not offer the same open access to the EU market that Britain currently has (and needs)
So there are special cases.
Of course it wouldn't be a total split in as much as we will still trade with the EU, but if we don't at least get a deal as good as Norway/Switzerland we will not have the kind of access to the EU market that large exporters need - which will probably mean they will relocate.
So when you said total split it was an example of you being histrionic.
The fact is that the Brexit camp just will not face-up to what the consequences of their actions would be. Whenever anyone points out any of the pitfalls they start screaming about scaremongering.
I'm not screaming, honestly with you accusing me of screaming and Davey accusing Brexiters of being dogmatic I'll give you the same advice as I gave him, look in the mirror.
-
No. This is only a vote on EU membership. Nobody has said anything about promising electoral reform.
The UK government is accountable to the UK electorate,granted it might not be perfect.
-
The UK government is accountable to the UK electorate,granted it might not be perfect.
And the EU parliament and council of ministers are accountable to the EU electorate - what's your point.
To suggest the EU parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to UK voters is the equivalent of claiming that the UK parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to Scottish voters. A non-sense argument.
And, of course, it goes without saying that there are plenty of government ministers (now and in the past) who are accountable to the UK electorate whatsoever, as they are in the HoLs.
-
Or Turkey or Canada or South Korea.
For crying out loud we've been through this time after time.
Turkey's deal is because it wants to join the EU.
There is no deal with Canada (after 8-12 years) and even if the current draft is enacted it doesn't cover services.
The South Korea deal is basically about goods - there is limited trade liberalisation on services.
So we aren't going to get a Turkey-type deal as we are leaving rather than staying. And if you think that either the Canada or South Korea are good in comparison with what we have now then you are completely blind. Just think of all those service exports to the EU that would effectively be languishing with the lowest and least favourable type of deal, equivalent to the WTO default - you know the one that in modelling means the economic is perhaps 7-10% below the situation if we stay.
-
And the EU parliament and council of ministers are accountable to the EU electorate - what's your point.
To suggest the EU parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to UK voters is the equivalent of claiming that the UK parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to Scottish voters. A non-sense argument.
And, of course, it goes without saying that there are plenty of government ministers (now and in the past) who are accountable to the UK electorate whatsoever, as they are in the HoLs.
I've explained to you why I think the EU is undemocratic, I know you disagree but can't even acknowledge the argument as valid, what you would expect from someone who is dogmatic and evangelical. :)
-
For crying out loud we've been through this time after time.
Turkey's deal is because it wants to join the EU.
There is no deal with Canada (after 8-12 years) and even if the current draft is enacted it doesn't cover services.
The South Korea deal is basically about goods - there is limited trade liberalisation on services.
So we aren't going to get a Turkey-type deal as we are leaving rather than staying. And if you think that either the Canada or South Korea are good in comparison with what we have now then you are completely blind. Just think of all those service exports to the EU that would effectively be languishing with the lowest and least favourable type of deal, equivalent to the WTO default - you know the one that in modelling means the economic is perhaps 7-10% below the situation if we stay.
We disagree, LA suggested we can only get a deal like X, Y, I'm just pointing out that deals like A, B, C exist and there remains the possibility of D, E, F.
-
I've explained to you why I think the EU is undemocratic, I know you disagree but can't even acknowledge the argument as valid
No you haven't - you have made an unevidenced assertion, which I have countered with facts, not least the fact that I have a direct influence over a much greater proportion of the members of the EU parliament than I do over members of the westminster parliament.
Also that of the three sections of the UK parliament/government only one is elected and accountable to voters. In the EU one is directly elected, a second is composed of the directly elected governments and even the third, the EU commission (the equivalent of the UK civil service) is much more accountable to directly elected representatives in their appointment than is the case for the civil service.
So there you go, some facts for you to mull over. Perhaps you'd like to actual engage in a proper argument of the issues rather than trotting out tired and lame UKIP-style sound-bites (e.g. the EU is undemocratic) when those statements crumble to dust when actually subjected to scrutiny.
, what you would expect from someone who is dogmatic and evangelical. :)
It isn't big, and it isn't clever to simple repeat criticisms made of you back in a 'no you smell' kind of playground manner. It is a classic diversionary tactic, used by someone who isn't actually able to counter the points being made in a cogent and coherent manner.
-
Also that of the three sections of the UK parliament/government only one is elected and accountable to voters. In the EU one is directly elected, a second is composed of the directly elected governments and even the third, the EU commission (the equivalent of the UK civil service) is much more accountable to directly elected representatives in their appointment than is the case for the civil service.
What seems to be missing are manifestos which lead to mandates to be carried out by an elected government of Europe.
-
No you haven't - you have made an unevidenced assertion, which I have countered with facts, not least the fact that I have a direct influence over a much greater proportion of the members of the EU parliament than I do over members of the westminster parliament.
Also that of the three sections of the UK parliament/government only one is elected and accountable to voters. In the EU one is directly elected, a second is composed of the directly elected governments and even the third, the EU commission (the equivalent of the UK civil service) is much more accountable to directly elected representatives in their appointment than is the case for the civil service.
So there you go, some facts for you to mull over. Perhaps you'd like to actual engage in a proper argument of the issues rather than trotting out tired and lame UKIP-style sound-bites (e.g. the EU is undemocratic) when those statements crumble to dust when actually subjected to scrutiny.
I've explained why I think the EU is undemocratic in some detail, as I recall you failed to address those concerns.
It isn't big, and it isn't clever to simple repeat criticisms made of you back in a 'no you smell' kind of playground manner. It is a classic diversionary tactic, used by someone who isn't actually able to counter the points being made in a cogent and coherent manner.
If you are utterly convinced you are 100% right on an issue it is a sign of dogma. Voltaire: doubt is uncomfortable position but certainty is absurd.
This has been like debating a theist, 100% certain they are right without any ability to tolerate someone who holds a differing view.
We've explored all the arguments I disagree with you lets not go over the same ground over and over again.
I suspect your support for the EU is that you think the EU will mitigate what you see as a damaging Tory government. Which is odd since I see the EU as just as right wing with a Neo-libreal agenda.
-
What seems to be missing are manifestos which lead to mandates to be carried out by an elected government of Europe.
Well given that the primary responsibility for decision making rests with the national governments the manifestos and mandates are associated with general elections in the various member states, so in the UK a UK general election.
And there is also the elections to the European parliament, where the parties publish their manifestos in exactly the same manner as they do for UK elections. So for example here are the Labour and Green party manifestos for the 2014 European elections:
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/European%20Manifesto%202014.pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/LABOUR_PARTY_euro_manifesto.pdf
All the other parties published similar manifestos
-
I've explained why I think the EU is undemocratic in some detail
No you haven't - you have merely asserted that is isn't.
-
No you haven't - you have merely asserted that is isn't.
I stated my view and gave my reasons why, if the EU has a democratic deficit is going to be subjective. I know this doesn't fit with your 'I'm right everyone else is wrong' dogma but people will disagree, something you need to accept Davey.
-
Notice Turkeys Erdogan says women who reject motherhood 'incomplete'. Political Union with that? No thanks.
-
Odds narrowing further to 5\2 on.
-
Sums up a lot of what I currently feel.
http://www.gerryhassan.com/blog/confused-by-the-european-debate-you-should-be/
-
Odds narrowing further to 52 on.
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
Wow, those prices have moved a lot!
-
Link please?
I have no intention of listening through a large number of Today programs to find the exact broadcast, but he expresses much the same sentiments here:
https://next.ft.com/content/d0e88d1a-0624-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce
I draw your attention to the paragraph:
He said Britain would forge its own deal with the EU, but said that a continent-wide free-trade area — embracing a wide range of bilateral deals — would “be the core of our new arrangement”.
What deal is it he is talking about, if he is not going to produce it by waving a magic wand perhaps you would like to explain how this near miraculous event is going to occur?
So when you said total split it was an example of you being histrionic.
It's perfectly reasonable to describe it as a total split as we would no longer have any part in EU institutions or have the same free access to the EU market as EU members. I'm sure that the USA would consider that they had a total split with Britain in 1783 but we still trade with them!
I'm not screaming, honestly with you accusing me of screaming and Davey accusing Brexiters of being dogmatic I'll give you the same advice as I gave him, look in the mirror.
Whatever adjectives anyone might choose to describe your tone- you simply dismiss the arguments out of hand as alarmist rather than answering them:
This link seems to spell things out fairly clearly:
https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/
I draw your attention the the paragraph:
"Trade with Europe could be lower if we left
The bold claim that "all the trade would continue" with the EU is speculative. The only way to know for sure is to leave.
There are good reasons to doubt that things will be as simple as everything continuing as it is. While you don't need to have a free trade agreement to trade with a country (or indeed a bloc of countries), it certainly helps.
There are a number of reasons why trade with the EU might become more costly if Britain leaves. Even if Britain negotiates an agreement without tariffs, increasing differences in regulations or tighter integration within the EU could see a fall in trade relative to staying in.
"
i.e. Trade with the EU is likely to become more costly.
It's interesting to consider the position from a manufactures point of view:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/03/uk-motor-industry-backs-uk-remaining-in-europe-survey-eu-positive-impacy
I draw your attention to the paragraph:
"Toyota exports 90% of the cars it makes in the UK, but Walker warned that export costs would increase if the country leaves the EU due to tariffs, a loss of efficiency, and a lack of harmonisation in regulations across the continent."
This is hard commerce - not politics, if costs go up profits go down. While Toyota have stated that they won't abandon the UK, if it becomes cheaper to manufacture elsewhere they can't afford to ignore that option - they will downsize the UK operation.
And that is just one company, there are plenty of others in the same position.
-
While nothing in life is certain (except death and taxes), the one thing we can be pretty certain of is that on June 24, Michael Gove won't wave his magic wand and reveal a pile of free trade agreements for every country in the world (or probably any).
What is likely to happen in the event of a Brexit vote, is that after a lot hard negotiation we will eventually be offered a deal with the EU similar to Switzerland and Norway, and like Switzerland and Norway, we would have to accept EU migrants. It will be a 'take it or leave it deal' - Germany might have a vested interest in selling us cars, but they are not in any position to over-ride the vote of the other members.
So, we would have to make another decision, whether to accept a deal that looks very much like what we currently have or make a total split with Europe. Obviously that would allow us to make all kinds of bizarre laws without interference from those appalling foreigners, but we wouldn't have free access to the EU market - and that would be a major problem for much of our industry and in particular those foreign companies who have established plants in this country specifically to serve the EU market.
So we actually have three options:
1/ We Remain.
2/ we negotiate a deal similar to Switzerland and Norway which would still give us access to the EU market but would allow EU migration (and probably wouldn't be free, those Brussels Eurocrats would likely demand an 'administration' fee)
3/ We go it alone - which might appeal to some, but it would mean that Britain was not a good manufacturing base for companies serving to the EU market. There would be no new investment and existing companies would downsize or shut-down. Very bad news for the economy and employment.
Your options are correct but your scenarios for those option, particularly the Brexit one, is all wrong as I have explained many times here.
-
Your options are correct but your scenarios for those option, particularly the Brexit one, is all wrong as I have explained many times here.
No Brexitor has explained how not having full and free access to the EU market could fail to have a very detrimental effect on our economy. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, companies who export to the EU are likely to be very badly affected and many will probably relocate or scale back their UK operations.
-
And the EU parliament and council of ministers are accountable to the EU electorate - what's your point.
To suggest the EU parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to UK voters is the equivalent of claiming that the UK parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to Scottish voters. A non-sense argument.
And, of course, it goes without saying that there are plenty of government ministers (now and in the past) who are accountable to the UK electorate whatsoever, as they are in the HoLs.
The EP have no executive powers and amounts to nothing more than an assembly.
-
And another article that makes many good points
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/05/27/dear-friends-this-is-why-i-will-vote-remain-in-the-referendum/
-
No Brexitor has explained how not having full and free access to the EU market could fail to have a very detrimental effect on our economy. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, companies who export to the EU are likely to be very badly affected and many will probably relocate or scale back their UK operations.
There's an assumption in there that is wrong. We will have access to the EU market place and to the rest of the world. So win-win. ;D
-
There's an assumption in there that is wrong. We will have access to the EU market place and to the rest of the world. So win-win. ;D
No doubt we will have 'access' - but open borders, tariff-free? That seems unlikely in the extreme.
P.S. some good points in NS's link
-
The UK government is accountable to the UK electorate,granted it might not be perfect.
The EU is accountable to the people of Europe. Granted, it might not be perfect.
-
I've explained to you why I think the EU is undemocratic
An explanation founded on misunderstanding as I recall.
what you would expect from someone who is dogmatic and evangelical. :)
I'd expect exactly what we are getting from you.
-
I have no intention of listening through a large number of Today programs to find the exact broadcast, but he expresses much the same sentiments here:
https://next.ft.com/content/d0e88d1a-0624-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce
I draw your attention to the paragraph:
He said Britain would forge its own deal with the EU, but said that a continent-wide free-trade area — embracing a wide range of bilateral deals — would “be the core of our new arrangement”.
What deal is it he is talking about, if he is not going to produce it by waving a magic wand perhaps you would like to explain how this near miraculous event is going to occur?
So he didn't say he'd produce trade agreements out of thin air but that they would negotiated.
It's perfectly reasonable to describe it as a total split as we would no longer have any part in EU institutions or have the same free access to the EU market as EU members. I'm sure that the USA would consider that they had a total split with Britain in 1783 but we still trade with them!
You were describing it as total split in the context of trade.
Whatever adjectives anyone might choose to describe your tone- you simply dismiss the arguments out of hand as alarmist rather than answering them:
No I have made many posts on this thread, given you hearing Gove say one thing but understanding he meant something entirely different I'd brush up on your comprehension skills if I were you.
This link seems to spell things out fairly clearly:
https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/
I draw your attention the the paragraph:
"Trade with Europe could be lower if we left
The bold claim that "all the trade would continue" with the EU is speculative. The only way to know for sure is to leave.
Who are quoting there, if you think its me you are a liar.
-
An explanation founded on misunderstanding as I recall.
NO as I recall neither you or Davey responded to that part of the post.
-
NO as I recall neither you or Davey responded to that part of the post.
On the contrary - I have very clearly explained why there is no more reason to consider the EU undemocratic compared to the UK. You on the other hand have provided nothing more than a hand waiving assertion based on a bizarre notion that for the EU to be democratic is must be solely accountable to the UK electorate, rather than (obviously) the EU electorate. Your argument is no more coherent than claiming that the UK government is undemocratic as there are MPs who aren't accountable to the London electorate, or the Scottish electorate etc.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Remember you were saying, as long as she stay north of the border ::)
http://martini.heraldscotland.com/news/14536264.Scotland_thrust_to_centre_of_EU_debate_as_Sturgeon_agrees_to_TV_head_to_head_debate/?ref=rss
I predict that she will give Boris such a kicking that he will be greetin! for his Mammy :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Remember you were saying, as long as she stay north of the border ::)
http://martini.heraldscotland.com/news/14536264.Scotland_thrust_to_centre_of_EU_debate_as_Sturgeon_agrees_to_TV_head_to_head_debate/?ref=rss
I predict that she will give Boris such a kicking that he will be greetin! for his Mammy :P :P
Gonnagle.
I can't imagine how that one will go, but it should certainly be entertaining - Will she be allowed to use head-buts?
-
Dear Lapsed,
Will she be allowed to use head-buts?
Oh yes! Watch out for the true west of Scotland head butts, I am no fan of the SNP but that little woman ;) The little smile followed by the highly intelligent very sarcastic reply, yes it will be very entertaining ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Oh yes! Watch out for the true west of Scotland head butts, I am no fan of the SNP but that little woman ;) The little smile followed by the highly intelligent very sarcastic reply, yes it will be very entertaining ;)
Gonnagle.
No, I'm no fan of the SNP, but if she can cut through all the bluster and buffoonery and pin him down on the issues, she'll get a round of applause from me.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Oh yes! Watch out for the true west of Scotland head butts, I am no fan of the SNP but that little woman ;) The little smile followed by the highly intelligent very sarcastic reply, yes it will be very entertaining ;)
Gonnagle.
Given the animosity towards the SNP amongst many south of the border, I'm a bit worried about this development. Just look at the effect that the tories campaigning at the general election on the idea that electing Miliband in a minority would give the SNP the balance of power.
So I'm concerned that pitting Sturgeon against Johnson will end up backfiring, for however good a debater Sturgeon might be it is far too easy for swathes of the non Scottish electorate to look at her and conclude that she isn't actually bothered about the UK (and by inference them) anyhow and therefore side with Johnson.
I'd much prefer an 'all the leaders' event in which the leaders of all the credible UK parties (therefore not UKIP) are on a single platform all giving the same message that we should remain, albeit their reasons will be nuanced, so for Cameron about the strong economy, for Lucas the environment, for Farron extension of the equality agenda, for Corbyn protection of workers rights and for Wood and Sturgeon support for remote communities.
It would also be a great contrast with the unholy triumvirate of Farage, Gove and Johnson - white, male, middle aged right wing and totally out of touch with ordinary people.
We say a kind of 'leaders' light yesterday with Cameron, Farron, Bennet and Harman but this really isn't the full picture. If the leaders fail to take this opportunity and Brexit win, well they've only got themselves to blame.
-
So I'm concerned that pitting Sturgeon against Johnson will end up backfiring, for however good a debater Sturgeon might be it is far too easy for swathes of the non Scottish electorate to look at her and conclude that she isn't actually bothered about the UK (and by inference them) anyhow and therefore side with Johnson.
That was one of my concerns; it all depends how she handles the debate. If she can focus of some of the core arguments and expose Boris for the fraud that he is, she might have a positive impact. If she lets him get away with stuff and starts rambling about social issues it won't go well.
-
Dear Prof,
Given the animosity towards the SNP amongst many south of the border, I'm a bit worried about this development.
Yes that is a real concern, but I do remember a UKIP supporter being interviewed after a debate she and Farage were involved in, he was very complimentary regarding Sturgeon, if she can sway a UKIP supporter, hopefully she can deflect the Independence question and focus on the EU referendum, it will be a very interesting and entertaining debate.
Gonnagle.
-
Given the animosity towards the SNP amongst many south of the border, I'm a bit worried about this development. Just look at the effect that the tories campaigning at the general election on the idea that electing Miliband in a minority would give the SNP the balance of power.
So I'm concerned that pitting Sturgeon against Johnson will end up backfiring, for however good a debater Sturgeon might be it is far too easy for swathes of the non Scottish electorate to look at her and conclude that she isn't actually bothered about the UK (and by inference them) anyhow and therefore side with Johnson.
I'd much prefer an 'all the leaders' event in which the leaders of all the credible UK parties (therefore not UKIP) are on a single platform all giving the same message that we should remain, albeit their reasons will be nuanced, so for Cameron about the strong economy, for Lucas the environment, for Farron extension of the equality agenda, for Corbyn protection of workers rights and for Wood and Sturgeon support for remote communities.
It would also be a great contrast with the unholy triumvirate of Farage, Gove and Johnson - white, male, middle aged right wing and totally out of touch with ordinary people.
We say a kind of 'leaders' light yesterday with Cameron, Farron, Bennet and Harman but this really isn't the full picture. If the leaders fail to take this opportunity and Brexit win, well they've only got themselves to blame.
Wow a post from Davey I more or less agree with. It does depend how Sturgeon plays it, if she is seen as threatening rUK with Scoxit if Brexit then it could backfire badly.
-
No doubt we will have 'access' - but open borders, tariff-free? That seems unlikely in the extreme.
P.S. some good points in NS's link
If the negotiations are done correctly, say by Farage and co., then we will have no open borders. As for tariffs if they apply them we can too and we can go and trade with the rest of the world for the things that are too expensive from the EU.
But you are missing out one of our trump cards. That our leaving leaves a £15 billion or so hole in their books and if they make trade with them harder for us then our £60 billion trade excess with them will be reduced, so they could be missing say £35 billion from their economy. This for a stagnate one and who's monetary project is now a dead albatross around their necks isn't something they can absorb. Either they make the remaining members pay up for the £15 billion short fall or they cut the hand-outs to the poorer, scrounging members. Which ever way things get tougher for them.
Add to this that many in the EU community agree with us about the undemocratic, unaccountable technocrats, and all the other corruption things about the EU, then there will be calls, and pressure, for radical change in the EU, or country citizens will be demanding their own referendums. Which ever way here as well the EU will be in turmoil and have little spirit to act the top dogs to teach us a lesson. They will more likely try to get our negotiations smoothly through so they can concentrate on getting their own house in order.
Everything you and your fellow pro-EUers say is based on the past strength of the EU of a bygone age where they could wield a mighty hand. They are weaker and weakening by the day and they know it. Yes they will fight like mad dogs to the bitter end but they will fail. And they will fail because their approach is out of date and of 'yesterday'.
-
The EU is accountable to the people of Europe. Granted, it might not be perfect.
Unaccountable doesn't even scratch the surface. The EU is a totalitarian state.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Oh yes! Watch out for the true west of Scotland head butts, I am no fan of the SNP but that little woman ;) The little smile followed by the highly intelligent very sarcastic reply, yes it will be very entertaining ;)
Gonnagle.
I hear she's good at the Glasgow kiss!!! >:(
-
Dear Jack,
I hear she's good at the Glasgow kiss!!! >:(
The Maryhill nod, yes but it will be done with finesse ;) I am looking forward to the debate. :P
Although as a Scot who wants nothing to do with Independence, I will be looking for any reference, the good lady will need to be on her toes, at her best.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Yes that is a real concern, but I do remember a UKIP supporter being interviewed after a debate she and Farage were involved in, he was very complimentary regarding Sturgeon, if she can sway a UKIP supporter, hopefully she can deflect the Independence question and focus on the EU referendum, it will be a very interesting and entertaining debate.
Gonnagle.
Boris is vulnerable, he talks rot then tries to laugh it off with affable buffoonery. If she can deal with that she might get somewhere.
-
Boris is vulnerable, he talks rot then tries to laugh it off with affable buffoonery. If she can deal with that she might get somewhere.
And yet he gets away with it. In a formal debate structure with multiple speakers as will be the case, it's quite difficult to pin people down without looking aggressive. Boris' approval ratings are better than most in this area.
It's much easier for members of the public to score hits because they cannot really be seen as bullies. I'm glad Gonzo is looking forward to it as I'm dreading another the economy will disappear vs immigrants will eat your pet exchange. I have no real confidence on what the vote is likely to be, feels too close to call but I found myself checking out how to get Irish citizenship the other day.
-
Somebody really needs to tackle him on his about face.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html
It is sheer naked political opportunism. Nothing else matters but Boris.
-
If the negotiations are done correctly, say by Farage and co., then we will have no open borders. As for tariffs if they apply them we can too and we can go and trade with the rest of the world for the things that are too expensive from the EU.
Would you seriously allow Farage to be a party to serious negotiations? I wouldn't trust him to organise the proverbial piss-up in a brewery!
But I'm afraid you are missing a very important point Jack. There are a number of companies that deliberately set up manufacturing facilities in this country specifically to serve the EU market. Good sound companies that pay their taxes and employ and train tens of thousands of people in hight-tech jobs. Companies like Toyota and Nissan. And these companies set up their operations with the assumption that they would have free access to the EU market without tariffs or customs delays. Even adding what you might consider a fairly small tariff would affect their profitability - and if a company is not making a profit, it can't continue to exist for long.
But you are missing out one of our trump cards. That our leaving leaves a £15 billion or so hole in their books and if they make trade with them harder for us then our £60 billion trade excess with them will be reduced, so they could be missing say £35 billion from their economy. This for a stagnate one and who's monetary project is now a dead albatross around their necks isn't something they can absorb. Either they make the remaining members pay up for the £15 billion short fall or they cut the hand-outs to the poorer, scrounging members. Which ever way things get tougher for them.
All that assumes that the EU as a whole would act pragmatically. Unfortunately different countries have different interests and agendas and each has a veto - so it might not be so easy.
Add to this that many in the EU community agree with us about the undemocratic, unaccountable technocrats, and all the other corruption things about the EU, then there will be calls, and pressure, for radical change in the EU, or country citizens will be demanding their own referendums. Which ever way here as well the EU will be in turmoil and have little spirit to act the top dogs to teach us a lesson. They will more likely try to get our negotiations smoothly through so they can concentrate on getting their own house in order.
Everything you and your fellow pro-EUers say is based on the past strength of the EU of a bygone age where they could wield a mighty hand. They are weaker and weakening by the day and they know it. Yes they will fight like mad dogs to the bitter end but they will fail. And they will fail because their approach is out of date and of 'yesterday'.
A lot of my work as an engineer used to be involved with getting products approved. This generally involved dealing with BSI (British Standards Institute). We'd spend weeks working through near incomprehensible pages of regulations to ensure that our product complied with safety and EMC requirements - and at times this was very frustrating - but it was necessary
Much of the EU bureaucracy performs much the same kind of role. Yes it generates a lot of tedious rules that people don't like very much - but most of them are absolutely necessary
As for being democratic - probably no less democratic than the BSI.
-
Boris is vulnerable, he talks rot then tries to laugh it off with affable buffoonery. If she can deal with that she might get somewhere.
Surely all he has to do it get a series of quotes from Sturgeon on IndyRef and change UK for EU, although I suppose if subtract the spin and rhetoric Sturgeon doesn't actually say much. :)
-
Somebody really needs to tackle him on his about face.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html
It is sheer naked political opportunism. Nothing else matters but Boris.
It is but I could do the answers for this in my sleep. Expected concessions, PM couldn't deliver, Euro and this show how things going. Lie about the 350 million and Boris is your auntie.
Andrew Marr tried it on Sunday and I thought did well but those who like Boris thought it was a Zen like performance.
When an electorate are in a place where most think all politicians are liars, catching one lying does very little
-
Dear Trent,
“It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.”
Makes you want to spit >:( Tories with their bloody smoke and mirrors, but this nonsense just highlights for me the case of remaining, don't run away, stay in and fix the problem, don't burden us with years of negotiating, we have real problems at home to sort out.
Gonnagle.
-
Surely all he has to do it get a series of quotes from Sturgeon on IndyRef and change UK for EU, although I suppose if subtract the spin and rhetoric Sturgeon doesn't actually say much. :)
Though that just causes him the opposite problem of being inconsistent the other way. He would be better leaving that to a member of the audience.
-
Of course we have to realise that it isn't the EU that is the problem, it is that we are lazy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10052646/Quitting-the-EU-wont-solve-our-problems-says-Boris-Johnson.html
-
Of course we have to realise that it isn't the EU that is the problem, it is that we are lazy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10052646/Quitting-the-EU-wont-solve-our-problems-says-Boris-Johnson.html
Boris believe in only one thing - that he should be PM, and he is willing to say or do virtually anything to achieve that goal.
-
And yet he gets away with it. In a formal debate structure with multiple speakers as will be the case, it's quite difficult to pin people down without looking aggressive. Boris' approval ratings are better than most in this area.
It's much easier for members of the public to score hits because they cannot really be seen as bullies. I'm glad Gonzo is looking forward to it as I'm dreading another the economy will disappear vs immigrants will eat your pet exchange. I have no real confidence on what the vote is likely to be, feels too close to call but I found myself checking out how to get Irish citizenship the other day.
I think the polls are a waste of time but do wonder if there are any shy Brexiters out there warping the analysis. And there is of course the young who say they'll vote to stay but may not actually bother.
-
Would you seriously allow Farage to be a party to serious negotiations? I wouldn't trust him to organise the proverbial piss-up in a brewery!
Of course, the guys a genius and knows the EU inside out.
But I'm afraid you are missing a very important point Jack. There are a number of companies that deliberately set up manufacturing facilities in this country specifically to serve the EU market. Good sound companies that pay their taxes and employ and train tens of thousands of people in hight-tech jobs. Companies like Toyota and Nissan. And these companies set up their operations with the assumption that they would have free access to the EU market without tariffs or customs delays. Even adding what you might consider a fairly small tariff would affect their profitability - and if a company is not making a profit, it can't continue to exist for long.
They said the same thing about not joining the Euro and now look they're still here. As I said if we leave that will weaken the EU and may force them to give us a special deal. And, as I said, there are people in the EU members states who think the same as us that the EU needs to change course radically and I think it will be this internal pressure which will be the telling factor.
All that assumes that the EU as a whole would act pragmatically. Unfortunately different countries have different interests and agendas and each has a veto - so it might not be so easy.
As I said things are changing within the EU as views start to substantially diverge and what you see a critical may become secondary.
A lot of my work as an engineer used to be involved with getting products approved. This generally involved dealing with BSI (British Standards Institute). We'd spend weeks working through near incomprehensible pages of regulations to ensure that our product complied with safety and EMC requirements - and at times this was very frustrating - but it was necessary
Much of the EU bureaucracy performs much the same kind of role. Yes it generates a lot of tedious rules that people don't like very much - but most of them are absolutely necessary
As for being democratic - probably no less democratic than the BSI.
The BSI is not aiming at a federal state; a political union. The BSI also do not set down legal matters but are at best an advisory for best practice. So no legitimate comparison whatsoever.
-
And there is of course the young who say they'll vote to stay but may not actually bother.
Likewise the C2DE social demographic group who like the young are much less likely to vote - but unlike the young support Brexit (in theory but also won't vote).
-
The BSI is not aiming at a federal state; a political union. The BSI also do not set down legal matters but are at best an advisory for best practice. So no legitimate comparison whatsoever.
If you are a company manufacturing products I don't think you really care whether regulations are form the UK or from the EU, you care about the effect they have on your business. And currently manufacturers have a single set of regulations that 'buy' them into the largest economic market on the planet. If we leave we either continue to abide by EU regulations or UK manufacturers will end up with double the regulations - having to meet UK regulations for the UK market and EU regulations to export to the EU market. Businesses are going to love that pointless doubling of red tape - not.
-
Likewise the C2DE social demographic group who like the young are much less likely to vote - but unlike the young support Brexit (in theory but also won't vote).
This is essentially the Labour vote which the Tories want Labour to mobilize but Corbyn keeps speaking for the Stay lot but then kind of trips them up at the same time leaving this segment of the vote a little confused. Lets hope UKIP can mop them up as they did in the GE. ;D
Or even some far left/unions are coming out with some good and strong arguments to leave so lets hope they have the means to reach out to them.
-
Unaccountable doesn't even scratch the surface. The EU is a totalitarian state.
That's a lie.
-
I see the EU are suggesting a deal with North African countries to stop immigrants.I thought it was for freedom of movement?
-
I see the EU are suggesting a deal with North African countries to stop immigrants.I thought it was for freedom of movement?
Africa is not in the EU.
-
I see the EU are suggesting a deal with North African countries to stop immigrants.I thought it was for freedom of movement?
The EU is for freedom of movement for people from EU member states between EU member states. As Jeremy points out there aren't any North African countries in the EU, so I'm struggling to understand your point.
If you are implying there is some kind of double standard here perhaps you'd like to address the following.
I think from your post you want stricter control of migration from people outside the UK - do you still think, however, that there should be complete freedom of movement of UK nationals within the UK, i.e. no restriction of a Brit from Glasgow moving to London and no restriction on them taking up employment there.
If so you are adopting exactly the same approach as the EU - complete freedom of movement of nationals of that area while restricting migration from outside. If is it so great for the UK, why is it apparently a problem within the EU - I don't see it as such, but for some reason you do.
-
Africa is not in the EU.
You are for open borders everywhere.
-
The EU is for freedom of movement for people from EU member states between EU member states. As Jeremy points out there aren't any North African countries in the EU, so I'm struggling to understand your point.
If you are implying there is some kind of double standard here perhaps you'd like to address the following.
I think from your post you want stricter control of migration from people outside the UK - do you still think, however, that there should be complete freedom of movement of UK nationals within the UK, i.e. no restriction of a Brit from Glasgow moving to London and no restriction on them taking up employment there.
I'm for freedom of movement within a country.
If so you are adopting exactly the same approach as the EU - complete freedom of movement of nationals of that area while restricting migration from outside. If is it so great for the UK, why is it apparently a problem within the EU - I don't see it as such, but for some reason you do.
If it so great for limiting immigration from outside of the EU why it a problem limiting immigration from outside of the UK?
-
Of course, the guys a genius and knows the EU inside out.
Farage is just an entertainer, a clown - he delivers his lines well and gives an impressive performance but he has no substance. In last nights debate he ignored many of the questions and just talked over the questioners when they tried bring him back to the question. It was a complete disgrace!
They said the same thing about not joining the Euro and now look they're still here. As I said if we leave that will weaken the EU and may force them to give us a special deal. And, as I said, there are people in the EU members states who think the same as us that the EU needs to change course radically and I think it will be this internal pressure which will be the telling factor.
Companies such as Toyota and Nissan have invested heavily in Britain to build manufacturing plant to serve the EU market. As I said, these are good sound companies, but their business plans would have assumed free access to the EU market - change that and it's all bets off. If it became too expensive to manufacture in Britain - they would have no option but to change their plans, probably shifting production to plants in mainland Europe.
As I said things are changing within the EU as views start to substantially diverge and what you see a critical may become secondary.
The fundamentals of business don't change - companies need to make a profit.
The BSI is not aiming at a federal state; a political union. The BSI also do not set down legal matters but are at best an advisory for best practice. So no legitimate comparison whatsoever.
A great many BSI standards are enshrined in law - as you would quickly discover if you tried selling unapproved electrical equipment.
Most of the 'stupid' EU laws that people complain about are equally reasonable when you look into them.
-
I'm for freedom of movement within a country.
But the UK is more than one country. So you only support freedom of movement in England, or in Scotland but not between those 2 countries do you.
-
But the UK is more than one country. So you only support freedom of movement in England, or in Scotland but not between those 2 countries do you.
Obtuse 101.
-
Odds now back at 3/1 on for Stay
-
Obtuse 101.
Not really - perfectly relevant.
But even if you are talking about a nation state why is it not possible for a nation state to chose to allow freedom of movement across one (or more) of its borders. All sorts of nation states do this, not just those in the EU.
-
This has been true of the UK and Ireland, hasn't it? In fact, Irish people can vote in the UK, in some elections anyway.
-
Slight drifting in the Leave odds to 13/5, presumably on the registration issue and numbers.
-
Points to Michael Gove on saying the right thing about the registration problem, Gerald Howarth on the other hand, is a dangerous buffoon.
-
I'm for freedom of movement within a country.
And of course it isn't the case that you can pass freely through a border entry point into the UK - in order to be able to enter the UK you need to present the relevant documentation to demonstrate that you are allowed to enter.
We aren't in the Schengen area, where there is genuine free movement across borders without passport (or other appropriate document) check. And don't forget that genuine free movement (as per Schengen) and being in the EU aren't synonymous. So there are EU countries that aren't in Schengen, such as UK, Ireland and Bulgaria. And there are non EU countries that are in Schengen or have equivalent open borders - indeed at least 9 countries or territories.
-
That's a lie.
Have a read...
http://www.ukipdaily.com/new-totalitarian-age/
-
Points to Michael Gove on saying the right thing about the registration problem, Gerald Howarth on the other hand, is a dangerous buffoon.
I gather that Leave are trying to take legal action to prevent people registering in the extended period.
So we have a group of people who on the one hand are claiming that voice of the british people should be heard and yet are trying to prevent people from being able to vote.
If there is any legal action it should be against this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-accused-of-disenfranchising-people-trying-to-register-to-vote-with-misleading-website-a7068661.html
Absolutely disgraceful.
-
Farage is just an entertainer, a clown - he delivers his lines well and gives an impressive performance but he has no substance. In last nights debate he ignored many of the questions and just talked over the questioners when they tried bring him back to the question. It was a complete disgrace!
That's just bias rubbish. He was brilliant!!!
Companies such as Toyota and Nissan have invested heavily in Britain to build manufacturing plant to serve the EU market. As I said, these are good sound companies, but their business plans would have assumed free access to the EU market - change that and it's all bets off. If it became too expensive to manufacture in Britain - they would have no option but to change their plans, probably shifting production to plants in mainland Europe.
The EU is a dying market why would they move there? Who would they sell to there, where in some member states they have 25% unemployment with 50% youth unemployment. We have a trade deficit of about £60 billion with the EU but a surplus of about the same with the rest of the world. I think they would want to stay with us and trade with the rest of the world without all those stupid tariffs.
The fundamentals of business don't change - companies need to make a profit.
And they will with the rest of the world.
A great many BSI standards are enshrined in law - as you would quickly discover if you tried selling unapproved electrical equipment.[/
Most of the 'stupid' EU laws that people complain about are equally reasonable when you look into them.
But they themselves are not per se.
Business (SMEs) doesn't agree with you because they say it is too costly to adhere to all the red tape. It is fine for big business as it stops competition i.e. start ups.
-
Not really - perfectly relevant.
But even if you are talking about a nation state why is it not possible for a nation state to chose to allow freedom of movement across one (or more) of its borders. All sorts of nation states do this, not just those in the EU.
This is a stupid argument because it is all about choice and we want to be rid of the EU and its controlling rules. But we wish to stay in the UK. That is what the referendum is all about, choice.
-
NS
could you please give me an idea, say, in percentages, of what the odds indicate? thank you.
****
On the 5:30 slot on PM, the last word was again given to the leavers. Seems to me that's been happpening too often.
-
Not really - perfectly relevant.
But even if you are talking about a nation state why is it not possible for a nation state to chose to allow freedom of movement across one (or more) of its borders. All sorts of nation states do this, not just those in the EU.
It should be upto the nation state to decide how it controls its borders, if there is a bi-lateral agreement I think its fine each state can decide. To take a play out of your play book how is it there those of us think the UK should control who comes into the country are being xenophobic yet when the EU controls who comes into the EU superstate its fine?
-
And of course it isn't the case that you can pass freely through a border entry point into the UK - in order to be able to enter the UK you need to present the relevant documentation to demonstrate that you are allowed to enter.
We aren't in the Schengen area, where there is genuine free movement across borders without passport (or other appropriate document) check. And don't forget that genuine free movement (as per Schengen) and being in the EU aren't synonymous. So there are EU countries that aren't in Schengen, such as UK, Ireland and Bulgaria. And there are non EU countries that are in Schengen or have equivalent open borders - indeed at least 9 countries or territories.
Obtuse 102, you know what I meant.
-
You are for open borders everywhere.
That's not relevant to the question of EU membership at the moment.
As it happens, I think the EU should be more open but if we leave it, I'll never have the opportunity to change its current policy. More to the point, it might suddenly become closed to me and many other Brits like me who sometimes work in continental Europe.
This is a problem that Leavers seem to ignore. i.e. anything we can do to Europe they can do to us but with bells on. So, foe example, yesterday on Today, some moronic Leaver was arguing that the EU prevents us from deporting foreign convicted criminals which means we won't be safe in our beds. He neglected to mention that the same rules also prevent other countries deporting British criminals back to the UK.
-
NS
could you please give me an idea, say, in percentages, of what the odds indicate? thank you.
****
On the 5:30 slot on PM, the last word was again given to the leavers. Seems to me that's been happpening too often.
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
Current Decimal odds are 1.35 Stay / 3.75 leave.
You can convert this to implied probability:-
1/1.35 = 74% chance of remaining
1/3.75 = 27% chance of leaving
According to that market. Now if you are sharp you will think eh? 74 +27 = 101%, betting markets are like this crudely shows value, at the bookies you normally get 125%.
But hey don't listen to me I'm for Brexit so must be silly, stupid, illogical, and unreasonable. :)
-
This has been true of the UK and Ireland, hasn't it?
That will have to stop if the UK leaves the EU if Farage and his best bud Jakswan want to stop those nasty foreigners taking out jobs and living on our dole.
-
Have a read...
http://www.ukipdaily.com/new-totalitarian-age/
I don't need to. The EU isn't a state much less a totalitarian one.
And if you think that anything on UKIP Daily can be trusted, you are a fucking moron.
-
... if there is a bi-lateral agreement I think its fine each state can decide.
So are you claiming that a state is allowed to enter into a bilateral agreement, but not into a multilateral one. That's bizarre. Because that's what the EU basic approach on free movement is - a multilateral agreement that has been supported unanimously by all member states. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?
-
So are you claiming that a state is allowed to enter into a bilateral agreement, but not into a multilateral one. That's bizarre. Because that's what the EU basic approach on free movement is - a multilateral agreement that has been supported unanimously by all member states. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?
No, its not a case of being "allowed", where do you come up with these weird notions. I think having multilateral agreements on borders undermines sovereignty, its an opinion, if you agree vote leave, disagree vote remain.
-
No, its not a case of being "allowed", where do you come up with these weird notions. I think having multilateral agreements on borders undermines sovereignty, its an opinion, if you agree vote leave, disagree vote remain.
But if that decision has been taken by the sovereign government of that state then why is that an issue.
-
But if that decision has been taken by the sovereign government of that state then why is that an issue.
I think from time to time its good to allow the people to vote, if up to you would you allow this vote?
-
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
Current Decimal odds are 1.35 Stay / 3.75 leave.
You can convert this to implied probability:-
1/1.35 = 74% chance of remaining
1/3.75 = 27% chance of leaving
Thank you - if about 74% want to remain, then I can relax!
I presume it was just a typo in the 1..34 a couple of lines above?
-
Thank you - if about 74% want to remain, then I can relax!
I presume it was just a typo in the 1..34 a couple of lines above?
No you can't relax. These are bookies odds and they reflect how people are betting, not the actual odds of the vote going one way or the other.
-
Thank you - if about 74% want to remain, then I can relax!
I presume it was just a typo in the 1..34 a couple of lines above?
As jeremyp has already pointed out, that's not what it means. Rather that if the referendum were to be run 100 times, it is thought that Stay would win 75 times, based on people's expectations. It isn't an exact science but it suggests a vote somewhere around 53/47 in favour of stay as about most likely. Were it expected to be about 56/44, odds would be more like 6/1 on.
If it was thought that the result was going to be 74/26 then there would be no odds offered. As tgat's the equivalent of betting your local pub team to beat Real Madrid.
-
No you can't relax. These are bookies odds and they reflect how people are betting, not the actual odds of the vote going one way or the other.
Oh dear!!
-
As jeremyp has already pointed out, that's not what it means. Rather that if the referendum were to be run 100 times, it is thought that Stay would win 75 times, based on people's expectations. It isn't an exact science but it suggests a vote somewhere around 53/47 in favour of stay as about most likely. Were it expected to be about 56/44, odds would be more like 6/1 on.
If it was thought that the result was going to be 74/26 then there would be no odds offered. As tgat's the equivalent of betting your local pub team to beat Real Madrid.
Ah, thank you. So I can breathe just a little more easily for the moment. ]
-
Ah, thank you. So I can breathe just a little more easily for the moment. ]
Then I must have been unclear. The current market I predicting quite a close vote, as I said about 53/47. A major headline on terrorism close to the poll and that might easily flip.
Just to note that, the market is currently moving in Stay's favour slightly after a time of narrowing considerably for Leave. The registration numbers and the percentage of those who are registering being relatively young is part of it. Not sure if Sarah Wollaston's defection has impact yet. I have to admit I find her moving from one side to the other because of the lies on the Leave side odd. The case is surely sound in one's opinion or not, and given the nonsense spouted by some in the Stay campaign, it's not easy to contrast one side as better able to govern honestly.
-
I wonder if the Chancellor lying on mainstream TV will push people in a certain direction.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkfVAIPXEAA7WYi.jpg
-
I think from time to time its good to allow the people to vote, if up to you would you allow this vote?
We get to vote every 4-5 years in a general election and the government elected makes decisions. That's is the fundamental way our democracy works. Sure you can make a case for a different style of democracy, one in which referendums are commonplace, such as in Switzerland, but that isn't our approach.
So in my lifetime where I've lived there have only been 3 referendums (one I was too young to vote in) and 2 of those have been on the EU - isn't that a tad excessive in a system where we don't really use referendums. So if it important to have a referendum on the EU, twice why nothing on:
A democratically elected House of Lords
Whether we should be a member of NATO
Whether we should retain the monarchy
Whether our nuclear deterrent should be renewed
Whether we should have capital punishment
Whether we should retain membership of the UN
Whether we should be part of the Eurpoean court of human rights system
etc, etc
All these seem similarly important and long ranging - yet we've not had a vote on these. So given that we've had 2 votes on the EU, surely all of those are long overdue - do you agree.
In reality, unless we radically change our system of governance we should only use referendums in the following situation; namely where the government of the day puts forward proposals that radically change our constitution of system of governance, which it wants to enact, but really need direct approval from the electorate.
So by those criteria the votes in Scotland, Wales and London fit, the voting reform kind of does (as one part of the government wanted that change), likewise Sindyref but this one doesn't as the government doesn't want to change anything, they want to remain in the EU. Sure if a government proposed leaving the EU (a proposed change with far reaching consequences) then we'd need a referendum but it is bizarre that a government feels it has to put its plans NOT to change anything to a referendum. But of course this is entirely about placating a rump in the Tory party not about anything fundamentally democratic.
-
I wonder if the Chancellor lying on mainstream TV will push people in a certain direction.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkfVAIPXEAA7WYi.jpg
Well its worked for the Leave campaign so far :P
-
I wonder if the Chancellor lying on mainstream TV will push people in a certain direction.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkfVAIPXEAA7WYi.jpg
Argument by jpeg, how outstanding!
More seriously, given the manipulation of figures by both sides, what is the argument? As I pointed out as regards Sarah Wollaston, I don't see that you move from one side to the other if that was your criterion.
If it was just about the campaigns, i'd fill in a new box on the ballot paper saying Feck off the lot of ye lying swill pumps and tick that.
-
Did you hear Redwood this morning on Today: Even when he was forced to concede that Britain did actually pay £350 per week - he still wouldn't admit that the claim was misleading.
I'd have strapped the bastard in an electric chair and applied 10,000 volts up has backside every time he evaded the question!
-
Did you hear Redwood this morning on Today: Even when he was forced to concede that Britain did actually pay £350 per week - he still wouldn't admit that the claim was misleading.
I'd have strapped the bastard in an electric chair and applied 10,000 volts up has backside every time he evaded the question!
To be fair, you would have to do that with every politician and I doubt whether the National Grid would stand up to it. It appears to be part of their training to avoid questions they don't like by either answering a question which wasn't asked instead or rapidly talking out the interview so that the interviewer cannot return to the question. The Andrew Neil and George Osborne interview last night was a good example.
-
Did you hear Redwood this morning on Today: Even when he was forced to concede that Britain did actually pay £350 per week - he still wouldn't admit that the claim was misleading.
I'd have strapped the bastard in an electric chair and applied 10,000 volts up has backside every time he evaded the question!
Did you mean 'didn't actually' and miss out a million
-
Did you mean 'didn't actually' and miss out a million
Actually our net contribution to the EU is nearer to £350 per week than £350 million!
-
I wonder if the Chancellor lying on mainstream TV will push people in a certain direction.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkfVAIPXEAA7WYi.jpg
Well the Leavers' constant lying all the time doesn't seem to have damaged their polling figures.
-
NS
breathing just a teensy bit easier is because I'm an optimist, I suppose.
Did you hear Alan Johnson in World at One today? I raised a small cheer for him.
-
We get to vote every 4-5 years in a general election and the government elected makes decisions. That's is the fundamental way our democracy works. Sure you can make a case for a different style of democracy, one in which referendums are commonplace, such as in Switzerland, but that isn't our approach.
So in my lifetime where I've lived there have only been 3 referendums (one I was too young to vote in) and 2 of those have been on the EU - isn't that a tad excessive in a system where we don't really use referendums. So if it important to have a referendum on the EU, twice why nothing on:
A democratically elected House of Lords
Whether we should be a member of NATO
Whether we should retain the monarchy
Whether our nuclear deterrent should be renewed
Whether we should have capital punishment
Whether we should retain membership of the UN
Whether we should be part of the Eurpoean court of human rights system
etc, etc
All these seem similarly important and long ranging - yet we've not had a vote on these. So given that we've had 2 votes on the EU, surely all of those are long overdue - do you agree.
In reality, unless we radically change our system of governance we should only use referendums in the following situation; namely where the government of the day puts forward proposals that radically change our constitution of system of governance, which it wants to enact, but really need direct approval from the electorate.
So by those criteria the votes in Scotland, Wales and London fit, the voting reform kind of does (as one part of the government wanted that change), likewise Sindyref but this one doesn't as the government doesn't want to change anything, they want to remain in the EU. Sure if a government proposed leaving the EU (a proposed change with far reaching consequences) then we'd need a referendum but it is bizarre that a government feels it has to put its plans NOT to change anything to a referendum. But of course this is entirely about placating a rump in the Tory party not about anything fundamentally democratic.
I'm not a Tory and would feel democratically short changed if denied my right to vote on this issue.
-
Argument by jpeg, how outstanding!
More seriously, given the manipulation of figures by both sides, what is the argument? As I pointed out as regards Sarah Wollaston, I don't see that you move from one side to the other if that was your criterion.
If it was just about the campaigns, i'd fill in a new box on the ballot paper saying Feck off the lot of ye lying swill pumps and tick that.
I agree the both sides have stretched the truth with their normal amount of spin, evading questions etc. However '£4,300 cost to families if UK leaves' is a lie.
Also agree you shouldn't decide on the basis of who you think has lied least, just that the claims that side makes should be trusted less.
-
NS
breathing just a teensy bit easier is because I'm an optimist, I suppose.
Did you hear Alan Johnson in World at One today? I raised a small cheer for him.
Yes, but question re. Corbyn was pertinent and depressing. After all the reports of how he has inspired a "grassroots revival" he is missing or ignored on this issue - probably the most important on the plate - even if only from the point of view of longer term Labour election prospects (not that that should figure).
-
Dear Udayana,
Which tells me something, Mr Corbyn is not news, he is all over the country talking about it, but nobody thinks he is newsworthy.
Gonnagle.
-
But why? It's not as if the Conservative In or Out sides are saying anything newsworthy. even Major and Blair (it seems to me) have had more coverage than Corbyn.
Actually ... I suppose this is ultimately down to his refusal to share a platform with Cameron.
-
I agree the both sides have stretched the truth with their normal amount of spin, evading questions etc. However '£4,300 cost to families if UK leaves' is a lie.
Also agree you shouldn't decide on the basis of who you think has lied least, just that the claims that side makes should be trusted less.
The 350 million for the NHS was a lie
Boris saying he didn't intend the headlines in paper to be about Hitler was a iie. The portal on the Vote Leave site about click here to Register to Vote which Prof D linked to earlier was a lie and possible electoral fraud.
Trust no one is the message that comes out of this
-
I just got a Leave leaflet, headed 'The Facts', which starts off with a bang, and a lie - cost of EU £350 million; then moves smoothly onto EU migration, stated as a quarter of a million, when I thought the latest stats said 160, 000, and non-EU migration is higher; then talks about Switzerland not being in the EU, but doesn't mention its high immigration figures; then on the back has a nice map, showing Turkey poised to join EU, with also Syria highlighted, just in case you didn't realize that FUZZY-WUZZIES are coming here with their mosques and bombs.
Who writes this stuff? It looks like a kid's A-level project.
-
Oh yes I had forgotten about the 12 million Turkish immigrants lie
-
I'm not a Tory and would feel democratically short changed if denied my right to vote on this issue.
So I presume you also feel democratically short-changed in being denied a vote on all the other issues I mentioned. Or are you special pleading - in other words I want a referendum on my pet topic (actually you've already been given 2, including the one in 2 weeks time) but to hell with a vote on anyone else's pet topic.
The notion of what should and should not be appropriate for a referendum should be clear and shouldn't be at the whim of party political machinations. So I've been clear - there should only be a referendum where a government wishes to make a change with long lasting constitutional or democratic effects where the notion of a mandate in a general election isn't deemed sufficient and direct consent for that change from the electorate should be required.
This referendum doesn't fit that bill because, demonstrably, the government doesn't want to make a change, it wants the status quo, to remain in the EU.
-
The 350 million for the NHS was a lie
Who said that?
Boris saying he didn't intend the headlines in paper to be about Hitler was a iie.
How do you know?
The portal on the Vote Leave site about click here to Register to Vote which Prof D linked to earlier was a lie and possible electoral fraud.
Will check it out.
Trust no one is the message that comes out of this
Agreed.
-
just in case you didn't realize that FUZZY-WUZZIES are coming here with their mosques and bombs.
Misreprentation another from of lying.
-
Looks like the Brexit campaign is beginning to unravel. Within 24 hours 2 former Brexit supporting MPs have jumped ship to remain, one tory the other labour.
-
Who said that?
Who said it was a lie - well the now exBrexit campaigner, MP and GP Sarah Wollaston for one, who was in the Brexit high command until yesterday. Not only has she said it is a lie, she has stated that the Brexit campaign know it to be a lie and frankly don't care about lying to the electorate.
-
So I presume you also feel democratically short-changed in being denied a vote on all the other issues I mentioned. Or are you special pleading - in other words I want a referendum on my pet topic (actually you've already been given 2, including the one in 2 weeks time) but to hell with a vote on anyone else's pet topic.
Its sad to see you sink so low, its not a pet topic, a political party had it in their manifesto and got elected.
The notion of what should and should not be appropriate for a referendum should be clear and shouldn't be at the whim of party political machinations. So I've been clear - there should only be a referendum where a government wishes to make a change with long lasting constitutional or democratic effects where the notion of a mandate in a general election isn't deemed sufficient and direct consent for that change from the electorate should be required.
I see so you'll decide what we should get a vote on?
This referendum doesn't fit that bill because, demonstrably, the government doesn't want to make a change, it wants the status quo, to remain in the EU.
Thankfully you don't decide.
-
Thankfully you don't decide.
And for that let us be truly thankful.
-
Who said it was a lie - well the now exBrexit campaigner, MP and GP Sarah Wollaston for one, who was in the Brexit high command until yesterday. Not only has she said it is a lie, she has stated that the Brexit campaign know it to be a lie and frankly don't care about lying to the electorate.
Who said '350 million for the NHS'?
-
Who said '350 million for the NHS'?
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-21/when-350m-for-the-nhs-isnt-350m-for-the-nhs/
-
Who said '350 million for the NHS'?
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_cost
The second one is a lie, never heard the NHS one, if so another lie. Most poeple I've spoken to don't beleive either side and are voting on principle.
The only differance between either side I've really seen is the Bremainers can't see any arguement for Brexit.
-
Who said '350 million for the NHS'?
It's written in huge letters on the side of the official Brexit campaign battle bus.
-
I agree the both sides have stretched the truth with their normal amount of spin, evading questions etc. However '£4,300 cost to families if UK leaves' is a lie.
Only in the sense that it is a worst case estimate that has been spun as if it were the probable outcome. It's not as if £2,000 cost per family is all sweetness and light.
The £350 million per week emblazoned on the side of the Leavers' Battle Bus is, on the other hand an outright bare faced lie.
Also agree you shouldn't decide on the basis of who you think has lied least, just that the claims that side makes should be trusted less.
That would be the Leavers then.
-
Watching the Vote Leave broadcast, the 350 million and Turkey lies being repeated and a whole dramatisation for the money for for the NHS lie.
Watch it, jakswan and get back about what you think.
And they repeated it immediately.
As for Boris talking about Hitler. He's spent most of his life working for papers, he knew exactly what was going on, and if you use the how do you know argument then that demolishes your own argument by jpeg.
-
The £350 million per week emblazoned on the side of the Leavers' Battle Bus is, on the other hand an outright bare faced lie.
Doubly so when you add in the second half of the statement on the bus - 'let's fund our NHS instead' - a clear statement that if we left the EU the £350 million that they claim is sent to Brussels diverted to fund the NHS'
A big fat bare faced lie. And one that eventually promoted a leading Brexiter to defect to Remain when she was unable to get them to stop using what she and they knew to be a lie.
-
Odds moved a bit to 10/3 on Stay
-
I don't need to. The EU isn't a state much less a totalitarian one.
And if you think that anything on UKIP Daily can be trusted, you are a fucking moron.
Now, now, keep your hair on!
It defines what a totalitarian state is and then compares that to the EU's wet dream of an Ever-Closer-Union federal state and hey presto we have a match. Very much like the old USSR.
-
OK immigrants:
The net immigration from the EU is currently around 180,000 per annum (i.e. three Arsenal home games worth). This is a historic high: in the 80's net immigration from the EU was negative i.e. more people were going from the UK to Europe than the other way around.
So let us say that this historically high figure stays the same for the next ten years. What does that actually mean? Obviously, there will be an extra 1.8 million people here from the EU. The population is now around 65 million people so that is around a 3% increase. That means the difference between out and in is you go to A&E in ten yours time and there are 50 people there if we leave and 52 if we don't leave the EU. The class that your grand children are in has 31 people in it instead of 30.
Is that really so ad? And remember, this is if immigration remains at historically high figures. If our economy has a down turn (very likely if we leave) migration will move in the other direction, except it can't because the EU, in a tit for tat measure will stop our citizens from seeking work elsewhere in its borders.
The immigration argument is a total dead duck.
-
Now, now, keep your hair on!
It defines what a totalitarian state is and then compares that to the EU's wet dream of an Ever-Closer-Union federal state and hey presto we have a match. Very much like the old USSR.
The EU is not a state and it is not totalitarian by any reasonable definition of those two words. Sorry, but you are being lied to.
-
Ah, thank you. So I can breathe just a little more easily for the moment. ]
If we remain it won't be your breathing that will be your main problem!
-
If we remain it won't be your breathing that will be your main problem!
You mean breathing will be a problem if we vote to leave? What is Gove planning to do? Tax the air?
-
Actually our net contribution to the EU is nearer to £350 per week than £350 million!
£350 million is closer to the truth!!!
-
£350 million is closer to the truth!!!
It's still a lie and the lie is still painted on the leavers' Battle Bus.
-
It's still a lie and the lie is still painted on the leavers' Battle Bus.
with the additional lie that it will be spent o the NHS, as repeated in the broadcast tonight.
Again I think Stay has lied but I find it odd that those who support leave on here seem to struggle with the idea that Leave has lied.
-
Well the Leavers' Remainers constant lying all the time doesn't seem to have damaged their polling figures.
That's more like it! Just putting your mistakes right, Jeremy!!! ;D
-
NS
breathing just a teensy bit easier is because I'm an optimist, I suppose.
Did you hear Alan Johnson in World at One today? I raised a small cheer for him.
Arr, these simpletons, as faithful and mindless as a loyal dog...
-
Arr, these simpletons, as faithful and mindless as a loyal dog...
Your inability to make a case based on anything other than assertion or insulation doesn't help your cause.
I suggest to make an effort to have a sensible discussion if you want to achieve anything.
I don't think any the less of the Leave arguments because of your behaviour, but I have no chance to think anything more of them, since you don't make any.
-
with the additional lie that it will be spent o the NHS, as repeated in the broadcast tonight.
Again I think Stay has lied but I find it odd that those who support leave on here seem to struggle with the idea that Leave has lied.
Yeah both sides have lied.
-
OK immigrants:
The net immigration from the EU is currently around 180,000 per annum (i.e. three Arsenal home games worth). This is a historic high: in the 80's net immigration from the EU was negative i.e. more people were going from the UK to Europe than the other way around.
So let us say that this historically high figure stays the same for the next ten years. What does that actually mean? Obviously, there will be an extra 1.8 million people here from the EU. The population is now around 65 million people so that is around a 3% increase. That means the difference between out and in is you go to A&E in ten yours time and there are 50 people there if we leave and 52 if we don't leave the EU. The class that your grand children are in has 31 people in it instead of 30.
Is that really so ad? And remember, this is if immigration remains at historically high figures. If our economy has a down turn (very likely if we leave) migration will move in the other direction, except it can't because the EU, in a tit for tat measure will stop our citizens from seeking work elsewhere in its borders.
The immigration argument is a total dead duck.
Not really I actually think immigration is great for the country overall however its level should under the control of the UK government. The current policy is discriminatory for non-eu poeple
-
Yeah both sides have lied.
So therefore your point about seeing which side has lied earlier to see if you can trust them is invalid.
-
Dear Udayana,
Which tells me something, Mr Corbyn is not news, he is all over the country talking about it, but nobody thinks he is newsworthy.
Gonnagle.
But this is his plan. To go about pretending to be a Remainer but keep a low profile so he can insidiously hint at his faithful followers to vote leave...
-
The EU is not a state and it is not totalitarian by any reasonable definition of those two words. Sorry, but you are being lied to.
You are foolishly using the present tense. It is their plans of a federal state that you should taking note of. You are wrong.
-
It's still a lie and the lie is still painted on the leavers' Battle Bus.
No it is not, it is pretty much it.
-
That's more like it! Just putting your mistakes right, Jeremy!!! ;D
The Remainers don't lie all the time. They don't have a lie plastered on the side of their Battle Bus.
-
Your inability to make a case based on anything other than assertion or insulation doesn't help your cause.
I suggest to make an effort to have a sensible discussion if you want to achieve anything.
I don't think any the less of the Leave arguments because of your behaviour, but I have no chance to think anything more of them, since you don't make any.
What happened to your funny bone? It is wit with a perspicacious observation of the permanently baffled and easily led drones in our society.
-
No it is not, it is pretty much it.
It says on the side of the Leavers' Battle Bus that the UK sends £350 million per week to the EU. This is a demonstrable outright lie. There's no disputing it
-
The Remainers don't lie all the time. They don't have a lie plastered on the side of their Battle Bus.
I suppose it's true they aren't lying all the time, unless they constantly talk in their sleep. Lets put it like this, they lie every time they open their mouths or create some internet dialogue.
-
I'd have to say that as this gets closer I'm getting progressively angrier that the core reason this is happening at all at this time since it seems to me that we are being forced to make this decision to suit the internal politics of the Tory party, where the promise of a referendum was perhaps a rash sop to its own malcontents, where those making this promise might have assumed that there would be another coalition government which would have killed this stone dead: only to find they now have no option but to proceed, which seems like a party before country strategy.
Ironically, no matter what the result, not only will this referendum further fracture the Tory party rather than resolving its internal conflicts, we are faced with arguments and personalities that are uninspiring on every level - it feels to me like an abuse of democracy.
-
What happened to your funny bone? It is wit with a perspicacious observation of the permanently baffled and easily led drones in our society.
One might almost think you were a Poe.
-
I suppose it's true they aren't lying all the time, unless they constantly talk in their sleep. Lets put it like this, they lie every time they open their mouths or create some internet dialogue.
'One of Wilde's, your highness'
-
Boris lying again in the debate.
-
Though the whole thing makes me want to switch off the television and go to an estate agent where I will get more honesty.
-
I'd have to say that as this gets closer I'm getting progressively angrier that the core reason this is happening at all at this time since it seems to me that we are being forced to make this decision to suit the internal politics of the Tory party, where the promise of a referendum was perhaps a rash sop to its own malcontents, where those making this promise might have assumed that there would be another coalition government which would have killed this stone dead: only to find they now have no option but to proceed, which seems like a party before country strategy.
Ironically, no matter what the result, not only will this referendum further fracture the Tory party rather than resolving its internal conflicts, we are faced with arguments and personalities that are uninspiring on every level - it feels to me like an abuse of democracy.
I basically agree. But the ironic part of your post which has been poignant to all this was that the Tories assumed, I would guess, another coalition and so filled their manifesto with all their policy wish list, and are now cornered in trying to implement them.
In some sense like Labour who allowed some unknown to the masses leftie outsider called Corbyn to run for the leadership contest and then to their chagrin won it. Man never learns that they can't control things and the run of fate, especially when it comes to big projects like the EU; which needs destroying as it is a monster. St George needs to slay that dragon again.
And the fallout of this referendum, whether to stay or leave, will be with us for years to come as the publics awareness of the EU has now been piqued.
-
St George needs to slay that dragon again.
I'm not sure St George would act in the best interests of Scotland.
-
It says on the side of the Leavers' Battle Bus that the UK sends £350 million per week to the EU. This is a demonstrable outright lie. There's no disputing it
No you're wrong. Our rebate will stop if we vote to remain so you can include that and what comes back to us is earmarked by the EU for EU projects here which are not always to our needs and wants and desires so a good proportion of that can be includes too.
-
I basically agree. But the ironic part of your post which has been poignant to all this was that the Tories assumed, I would guess, another coalition and so filled their manifesto with all their policy wish list, and are now cornered in trying to implement them.
In some sense like Labour who allowed some unknown to the masses leftie outsider called Corbyn to run for the leadership contest and then to their chagrin won it. Man never learns that they can't control things and the run of fate, especially when it comes to big projects like the EU; which needs destroying as it is a monster. St George needs to slay that dragon again.
And the fallout of this referendum, whether to stay or leave, will be with us for years to come as the publics awareness of the EU has now been piqued.
Hurrah, this is more like it, and I absolutely agree about what things can be controlled but that applies just as much to a UK as an EU. We need greater subsidiarity, something that the EU has as a principle though it is often ignored and something the UK doesn't have.
Strangely though when I posted something similar in the Wrong End of the Telescope thread you specifically disagreed with, iirc
-
I'm not sure St George would act in the best interests of Scotland.
Sometimes people don't always realise what is good for them. You can thanks us afterwards, ok. ;)
-
Sometimes people don't always realise what is good for them. You can thanks us afterwards, ok. ;)
And again your position.is contradictory you think you know better but write that 'man can't control things'.
-
Hurrah, this is more like it, and I absolutely agree about what things can be controlled but that applies just as much to a UK as an EU. We need greater subsidiarity, something that the EU has as a principle though it is often ignored and something the UK doesn't have.
Strangely though when I posted something similar in the Wrong End of the Telescope thread you specifically disagreed with, iirc
Don't think that was me as I don't remember ever posting on that thread. And I agree that even Westminster needs to be drained of some of its powers etc. Democracy works best with smaller numbers and therefore more 'locally'.
-
Sometimes people don't always realise what is good for them. You can thanks us afterwards, ok. ;)
If it is 'Leave', then after a decent interval I'll leave you a thank you card at the border crossing at Gretna.
-
Don't think that was me as I don't remember ever posting on that thread. And I agree that even Westminster needs to be drained of some of its powers etc. Democracy works best with smaller numbers and therefore more 'locally'.
See link, I think you might have misread my post, or even I might be misreading yours but you seem to be implying that grand plans can be made.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11217.25
-
If it is 'Leave', then after a decent interval I'll leave you a thank you card at the border crossing at Gretna.
Another reason to vote leave then. :)
-
Should the Government have extended the time to register to vote following the crash of the website on Tuesday?
-
I think Brexit has about a week left.
-
Should the Government have extended the time to register to vote following the crash of the website on Tuesday?
No....The thing about restoring democracy to Britain from the EU is that we can control who votes.
-
No you're wrong. Our rebate will stop if we vote to remain
That's another lie.
so you can include that and what comes back to us is earmarked by the EU for EU projects here which are not always to our needs and wants and desires so a good proportion of that can be includes too.
So you are saying fuck you to the farming industry.
-
The last caller* in the phone-in (on FiveLive) following QT last night was a woman who had a single issue, pet topic for leaving. She also said that her children and their friends are for remaining ... so there's another who is not looking into the future, the future for young people well after her demise. Did anyone else hear her? If so, what did you think of her slightly giggly attitude?
*I think it's a BBC conspiracy - make the last speaker on all referendum programmes a leaver. *frown*
-
Should the Government have extended the time to register to vote following the crash of the website on Tuesday?
The government are pretty good at screwing-up IT projects, so I suppose a short extension is the least they could do.
-
I wonder why people get it so wrong
http://tinyurl.com/hfypn4e
-
The government are pretty good at screwing-up IT projects, so I suppose a short extension is the least they could do.
Well (a) this isn't an IT project, (b) the website is supported by a private sector supplier but apart from that your prejudice is fully supported.
-
And again your position.is contradictory you think you know better but write that 'man can't control things'.
So what do we do just sit still and do nothing? It was in reference to the Tories thinking that they wouldn't have to implement their exuberant wish list due to the forthcoming coalition....but we still have to try. The smaller and down to earth the schemes the better so things like the EU is out of the question hence my 'you'll thank us later...'.
-
If it is 'Leave', then after a decent interval I'll leave you a thank you card at the border crossing at Gretna.
And then what are you lot going to do, join the EU? Is that what you call independence, becoming serfs to Brussels as Ireland is?
-
See link, I think you might have misread my post, or even I might be misreading yours but you seem to be implying that grand plans can be made.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11217.25
What I said was that I never posted on that thread so I never did disagree with you on the UK matter you mentioned a few posts above on this thread. The reason large projects can't work is because by their very complexity they introduce too many unknown factors; a kind of chaos situation where feedback loops create too much uncertainty. Things can flip too quickly in these situations for us to react to them in time - sometimes referred to as the perfect storm. Keeping it simple and local is far better but with some commodities this may prove to be inefficient and slow, but that's the price one pays for things being manageable.
-
What I said was that I never posted on that thread so I never did disagree with you on the UK matter you mentioned a few posts above on this thread. The reason large projects can't work is because by their very complexity they introduce too many unknown factors; a kind of chaos situation where feedback loops create too much uncertainty. Things can flip too quickly in these situations for us to react to them in time - sometimes referred to as the perfect storm. Keeping it simple and local is far better but with some commodities this may prove to be inefficient and slow, but that's the price one pays for things being manageable.
which is why I posted you posting on the thread.
-
That's another lie.
No it is not. If we vote to remain the EU will take that as a full approval of the British people for Brussels to start to implement their Federal dream at all systems go. If any of our guys resist things they will just say well your mandate says that you should agree will the full implementation of the United States of Europe.
So you are saying fuck you to the farming industry.
But it is not really farming it's ownership of land. Some of the conditions require farmers to destroy natural habitat where rare species live. The CAP is corrupted and rotten.
-
which is why I posted you posting on the thread.
It didn't go to me on the thread it went to the OP. I scrolled down a bit but nothing...How about a post number?
-
It didn't go to me on the thread it went to the OP. I scrolled down a bit but nothing...How about a post number?
last post
-
It didn't go to me on the thread it went to the OP. I scrolled down a bit but nothing...How about a post number?
also trying it again it goes to first post on the second of two pages
-
last post
Ok.
What I said above still applies. You need plans but they need to be manageable for our human capacities. The Sorcerers Apprentice sums this up well. It is easier to have the dreams and hopes and ambitions for mega utopian futures than to actually live them out. As my little quote under my name once said, "Man's gotta know his limitations."
It is also fairly easy to visualize and conceptualize the final product of these super-dreams, the end set-up, but the journey there isn't so easy to plan out and there is often a hiatus between the initial steps and this end destination, which is often filled with vague hopes of "It'll be ok.", "We'll manage." and wishy-washy, out of focus blue prints which can't account for how things will change with time. Also, the initial pet project becomes a 'religious' mantra that can't be changed at any cost and peoples' pride also interfere with necessary rational adjustments. Also, as I said above large systems have feedback problems which create chaotic situations - I'm sure this has a technical name that expresses this chaos theory idea(?). And so on with the problems...
-
also trying it again it goes to first post on the second of two pages
I have the set-up of 50 posts per page, not 25.
-
Ok.
What I said above still applies. You need plans but they need to be manageable for our human capacities. The Sorcerers Apprentice sums this up well. It is easier to have the dreams and hopes and ambitions for mega utopian futures than to actually live them out. As my little quote under my name once said, "Man's gotta know his limitations."
It is also fairly easy to visualize and conceptualize the final product of these super-dreams, the end set-up, but the journey there isn't so easy to plan out and there is often a hiatus between the initial steps and this end destination, which is often filled with vague hopes of "It'll be ok.", "We'll manage." and wishy-washy, out of focus blue prints which can't account for how things will change with time. Also, the initial pet project becomes a 'religious' mantra that can't be changed at any cost and peoples' pride also interfere with necessary rational adjustments. Also, as I said above large systems have feedback problems which create chaotic situations - I'm sure this has a technical name that expresses this chaos theory idea(?). And so on with the problems...
and talking about certainties as regard UK out exactly falls for that but you ignore it. Reducing hugely complex to slightly less complex does nothing to validate your assertions t
Or that you have any idea of a big picture (a description of hugely complex). You support people making hugely complex decisions and yet you assert they have no justification for doing so. You seem very confused, or I am just very confused by your position.
-
I have the set-up of 50 posts per page, not 25.
Which then means you didn't page down to the bottom of the page and claimed you hadn't posted mmmm. You don't think things out
-
I wonder why people get it so wrong
http://tinyurl.com/hfypn4e
That is hardly surprising when you consider the amount of misinformation (or lying as it used to be called) that the Brexit bunch have been allowed to get away with.
-
That is hardly surprising when you consider the amount of misinformation (or lying as it used to be called) that the Brexit bunch have been allowed to get away with.
As opposed to Corbyn "myth-making and prophecies of doom" and Sturgeon "scaremongering”.
I can accept there have been lies told by both sides.
-
Odds narrowing again back to 11\4 on Stay
-
Looking good for Brexit, Dyson, John Mann, for leave, odds changing, polls swinging.
-
Interesting article
http://time.com/4364697/brexit-frank-luntz-poll/?xid=tcoshare
-
No it is not. If we vote to remain the EU will take that as a full approval of the British people for Brussels to start to implement their Federal dream at all systems go
That's a lie.
If any of our guys resist things they will just say well your mandate says that you should agree will the full implementation of the United States of Europe.
That's a lie.
But it is not really farming it's ownership of land. Some of the conditions require farmers to destroy natural habitat where rare species live. The CAP is corrupted and rotten.
If there isn't a CAP or UK equivalent, farming in this country would be largely uneconomic. Most farmers would go out of business. Is that what you want?
-
Looking good for Brexit, Dyson, John Mann, for leave, odds changing, polls swinging.
I'm sure Captain Smith was pretty optimistic about his arrival time in New York, too.
-
As opposed to Corbyn "myth-making and prophecies of doom" and Sturgeon "scaremongering”.
I can accept there have been lies told by both sides.
The fact of the matter is that Brexit is backed by virtually all the right-wing media - and they are just churning out propaganda with little regard to accuracy. Remain, in my opinion. have been guilty of lack of context when quoting predictions - that doesn't make them wrong, but does leave them open to critisism.
Corbyn on the other hand is just a tosser who doesn't live on this planet.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that some people will certainly do well out of Brexit - mainly speculators. Take a good look at the Brexiteers and consider their motives.
-
Well (a) this isn't an IT project, (b) the website is supported by a private sector supplier but apart from that your prejudice is fully supported.
I think most people would consider that a website linked to a government database should be considered to be a government IT project even if a private company is involved- my only point is that UK governments tend to be really crap at doing this kind of thing.
-
I think most people would consider that a website linked to a government database should be considered to be a government IT project even if a private company is involved- my only point is that UK governments tend to be really crap at doing this kind of thing.
Ad Populum arguments seen really popular today. And then it's just followed by assertion.
-
I think most people would consider that a website linked to a government database should be considered to be a government IT project even if a private company is involved- my only point is that UK governments tend to be really crap at doing this kind of thing.
It's a government web site. It's on a gov.uk address, it would have been driven by a government department and overseen by the Government Digital Service. It will be running on infrastructure maintained by somebody on behalf of the government. The software would have been written by a contractor to government specifications and requirements.
It is a government IT project.
-
It's a government web site. It's on a gov.uk address, it would have been driven by a government department and overseen by the Government Digital Service. It will be running on infrastructure maintained by somebody on behalf of the government. The software would have been written by a contractor to government specifications and requirements.
It is a government IT project.
Actually, given that, yep, you and indeed LA are correct. I was looking at the website as not necessarily being a specific project once it waxs BAU but that's really accounting rather than realistic.
-
and talking about certainties as regard UK out exactly falls for that but you ignore it. Reducing hugely complex to slightly less complex does nothing to validate your assertions t
Or that you have any idea of a big picture (a description of hugely complex). You support people making hugely complex decisions and yet you assert they have no justification for doing so. You seem very confused, or I am just very confused by your position.
You're going to have to write better English than that and explain who these people I support because it isn't fully clear what you're getting at.
-
Which then means you didn't page down to the bottom of the page and claimed you hadn't posted mmmm. You don't think things out
As I said I scrolled down a bit, but I was expecting the link to go straight to my post, if there was one, and so thought there was a fault that's why I didn't bother going to the end.
-
That is hardly surprising when you consider the amount of misinformation (or lying as it used to be called) that the Brexit Remainer bunch have been allowed to get away with.
2/10 you must try harder and avoid these basic mistakes, LA.
-
You're going to have to write better English than that and explain who these people I support because it isn't fully clear what you're getting at.
Yep, you're right that needs to be unpacked a bit but I don't have time just now, will redo when got time.
-
That's a lie.
----
That's a lie.
So all you have got is empty assertions!
If there isn't a CAP or UK equivalent, farming in this country would be largely uneconomic. Most farmers would go out of business. Is that what you want?
That is not what I said. Just because you have a system doesn't mean it is good. The Saudis chop criminals' heads off, that's a system. We put them in jail, that's a system. You can't say they are both good because they are a system. One is bad, the other good. So we should leave the EU, drop the crappy CAP and develop our own way of helping our farmers.
-
So all you have got is empty assertions!
No. You told two absolutely blatant lies (in the post I was responding to).
That is not what I said. Just because you have a system doesn't mean it is good.
No, it's the logical consequence of what you said.
If we leave the EU, either we stop subsidising farming or we continue with something that looks very much like the CAP. If we do the former, many farmers will go bankrupt because the farming industry in this country (as in much of Western Europe) is not competitive.
The Saudis chop criminals' heads off, that's a system. We put them in jail, that's a system. You can't say they are both good because they are a system.
The EU was a totalitarian state earlier, now it's a theocratic regime. Make your mind up.
One is bad, the other good. So we should leave the EU, drop the crappy CAP and develop our own way of helping our farmers.
I'm not claiming the CAP is a good idea but you need to be aware that one of the consequences of stopping it (or not replacing it with something similar) is the collapse of the farming industry.
-
Odds narrowing further to 5\2 on
-
Summary of what the current possible models on Leave vote, note this does preclude as yet unknown
http://linkis.com/www.squareonelaw.com/woMP6
-
Odds narrowing further to 5\2 on
Betfair market have the implied odds
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
69% Stay
32% Leave
As discussed on Sunday Politics it is now essential for Remain to get the Labour vote out, I don't think the hard left are in favour and with John Mann coming out for leave you get a mixed message.
-
Betfair market have the implied odds
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
69% Stay
32% Leave
As discussed on Sunday Politics it is now essential for Remain to get the Labour vote out, I don't think the hard left are in favour and with John Mann coming out for leave you get a mixed message.
Though I doubt that Mr Corbyn can be bothered.
-
Betfair market have the implied odds
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
69% Stay
32% Leave
As discussed on Sunday Politics it is now essential for Remain to get the Labour vote out, I don't think the hard left are in favour and with John Mann coming out for leave you get a mixed message.
thank you for that cheering news! I wonder if you think that you might now move to the remain side? :)
-
Dear Brainless, ( not me saying it but Vlads bestest pal )
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-eu-referendum-brexit-david-cameron-a7059201.html
“It is much too difficult and detailed to be left to voters who know no economics and tend to say things like, ‘Well I was going to vote Leave but I can’t stand Boris Johnson’s hair so I’m going to vote Remain.’ Or, ‘I was going to vote Remain but Cameron needs punishing so I’m going to vote Leave.’ I have literally heard vox pop statements very similar to both those.
Well Prof, you are right, I am clueless, but I will still be voting remain, in it to fix it.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gonnagle
What we have in the UK of E is untold numbers of people who frankly only see two or three weeks into the future because they know that for whatever reason life will seem extremely tedious and so an opportunity for a bit of mayhem might appeal with the added benefit that in the chaos it might just be that, this time it will be their turn to float to the top of the pan just like they perceive other, not apparently able, people have done in the past.
And that's the only way I can square a usually supine and politically disconnected, timid and disinterested nation with an enthusiasm to do something revolutionary and fucking stupid.
-
thank you for that cheering news! I wonder if you think that you might now move to the remain side? :)
You find the odds moving to leave cheering? It is you who should move!
-
You find the odds moving to leave cheering? It is you who should move!
I give up!!! I thought you said 67% for remaining.
-
I give up!!! I thought you said 67% for remaining.
It isn't 67% of people. It's estimated as a 67% chance. As previously covered that's probably thinking that the vote will be about 53\47 BUT the movement is towards Out.
-
Thank you, NS.
-
Further shifting to 2/1 on Stay
-
Anyone who is actually interested in the facts (as opposed to the dogma) really ought to listen to these fellows:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07gv98b#play
They really cut through the all the shiit.
-
I hope everyone is listening to More or Less' at midday for 15 minutes on Radio 4 every day this week.
Sorry, LA, I didn't see your post until after I'd posted this.
-
I hope everyone is listening to More or Less' at midday for 15 minutes on Radio 4 every day this week.
Sorry, LA, I didn't see your post until after I'd posted this.
I'm glad you agree Susan, it's one of the best sources of impartial information I have come across.
-
Leave increasingly in the lead, say polls: http://goo.gl/IGkkGO
-
*steam coming out of ears* emoticon here (the one we used to have on BBC message board)
Yet again, the number of minutes given to the leave lot (on the chris Mason, in/out, 5:30 slot on PM programme radio4)
was far more than for the remain side.
-
No. You told two absolutely blatant lies (in the post I was responding to).
No, it's the logical consequence of what you said.
If we leave the EU, either we stop subsidising farming or we continue with something that looks very much like the CAP. If we do the former, many farmers will go bankrupt because the farming industry in this country (as in much of Western Europe) is not competitive.
The EU was a totalitarian state earlier, now it's a theocratic regime. Make your mind up.
I'm not claiming the CAP is a good idea but you need to be aware that one of the consequences of stopping it (or not replacing it with something similar) is the collapse of the farming industry.
You are now just twisting things or have a total lack of understanding of the what is actually going on.
-
Betfair market have the implied odds
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
69% Stay
32% Leave
As discussed on Sunday Politics it is now essential for Remain to get the Labour vote out, I don't think the hard left are in favour and with John Mann coming out for leave you get a mixed message.
I think a lot of Labour voters are shy Outers. Some are just angry at Labour for not listing to them and being pompous metropolitan elites.
-
Though I doubt that Mr Corbyn can be bothered.
If that is so why is he siding with the pro lot in his party? I wouldn't be surprised if he hints very heavily to the Labour voters to vote leave.
-
*steam coming out of ears* emoticon here (the one we used to have on BBC message board)
Yet again, the number of minutes given to the leave lot (on the chris Mason, in/out, 5:30 slot on PM programme radio4)
was far more than for the remain side.
Odds still moving on Betfair
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
-
As opposed to the justice secretary lying?
-
I think a lot of Labour voters are shy Outers. Some are just angry at Labour for not listing to them and being pompous metropolitan elites.
That would be why they are flocking to Gove and Boris Johnson who are as far away from being a pompous metropolitan elite as my left bollock is from my right............not to mention that other great ''Son of Nutty Slack''..., Mr Nigel Farage.
-
7\4 on, Stay. Time to get really worried, Susan Doris
-
It is certainly very difficult to remain an incurable optimist at the moment!
Do the leavers really believe that the world and his wife will come flocking here to consult the opinions of Boris and Gove, Farrage and the rest? I just fervently hope there is a silent majority out there who will be voting remain.....
-
Huge move to Leave now at 11/8 on Stay, 11/8 against leave. Pretty well evens given the momentum. Enormous amounts of money going on the market for a political bet.
-
Huge move to Leave now at 11/8 on Stay, 11/8 against leave. Pretty well evens given the momentum. Enormous amounts of money going on the market for a political bet.
The amount that gamblers are staking will be peanuts compared with the huge amounts that the speculators will be staking on the markets. In the event of a Brexit vote fortunes will be made - and the losers will be us!
-
Huge move to Leave now at 11/8 on Stay, 11/8 against leave. Pretty well evens given the momentum. Enormous amounts of money going on the market for a political bet.
Implied odds Betfair 57% chance of staying, come a long way!
-
I was interviewed by Ipsos Mori for their latest poll yesterday.
I was the one that said that snivel* Farridge is a tit. Not sure that option will show up when the poll is reported though.
* thank you, autocorrect.
-
I was interviewed by Ipsos Mori for their latest poll yesterday.
I was the one that said that snivel* Farridge is a tit. Not sure that option will show up when the poll is reported though.
* thank you, autocorrect.
I'm surprised you could find such mild language to describe him Rhiannon.
-
I'm surprised you could find such mild language to describe him Rhiannon.
I didn't want to shock the nice lady asking the questions. No idea where she was from exactly but her accent was Eastern European.
-
I didn't want to shock the nice lady asking the questions. No idea where she was from exactly but her accent was Eastern European.
So she would possibly have had some colourful language of her own to describe the git.
-
The trouble is, that Leave will not be able to control the racism and xenophobia which are being unleashed. Immigrants are being widely blamed for shortages of housing, poor NHS service, and so on. These will probably continue under a right-wing Boris/Gove government - what will the racists do then?
-
The problem as I see it is, that for reasons that are not entirely clear, the debate has to be conducted in sound bites - which means that complex arguments can't be properly explained or tested - so it's reduced to who shouts the loudest.
-
The problem as I see it is, that for reasons that are not entirely clear, the debate has to be conducted in sound bites - which means that complex arguments can't be properly explained or tested - so it's reduced to who shouts the loudest.
Isn't it more that some of the public are so conditioned to hearing sound bites that they cannot now digest information that is presented in anything other than nanoseconds?
-
Isn't it more that some of the public are so conditioned to hearing sound bites that they cannot now digest information that is presented in anything other than nanoseconds?
Maybe, you are right - but if that is the way we are to make major decisions it doesn't bode well for the future of this country.
-
Maybe, you are right - but if that is the way we are to make major decisions it doesn't bode well for the future of this country.
I completely agree. Totally depressing.
-
What we need is a major national corporation to be given the purpose and access to resources for:
(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society;
...
They could then provide portals to information and facilities for in-depth discussion of various topics and issues including economics and politics (or even culture and religion) - by using and developing emerging communications technology and services.
Never mind ... I think twitter has won.
-
You are now just twisting things or have a total lack of understanding of the what is actually going on.
I'm telling you morons the truth.
You don't like the CAP but it is all that is keeping most of our farmers from going bankrupt.
You idiots have not thought out the real consequences of a Leave result at all.
If the vote is for Leave, many people are totally fucked, but that's OK, at least the country will be run by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who may be fuckwits, but they are English fuckwits.
-
I was interviewed by Ipsos Mori for their latest poll yesterday.
I was the one that said that snivel* Farridge is a tit. Not sure that option will show up when the poll is reported though.
* thank you, autocorrect.
He is a tit but not the only one. Neil Hamilton who was recently on Question Time is a big tit, I can't believe anyone would seriously support a man who believes not only that paid maternity leave should not be allowed but child benefit should be scrapped.
-
That would be why they are flocking to Gove and Boris Johnson who are as far away from being a pompous metropolitan elite as my left bollock is from my right............not to mention that other great ''Son of Nutty Slack''..., Mr Nigel Farage.
They aren't necessarily moving to the Leave vote they have been there for some time; hence the million Labour votes UKIP got in the GE. There are some Left and far Left and Unions who want to leave with some great reasons. If only they had a more widespread platform in the media...
-
I'm telling you morons the truth.
You don't like the CAP but it is all that is keeping most of our farmers from going bankrupt.
You idiots have not thought out the real consequences of a Leave result at all.
If the vote is for Leave, many people are totally fucked, but that's OK, at least the country will be run by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who may be fuckwits, but they are English fuckwits.
Project fear with rude bits....niiiice!
-
I'm telling you morons the truth.
You don't like the CAP but it is all that is keeping most of our farmers from going bankrupt.
You idiots have not thought out the real consequences of a Leave result at all.
If the vote is for Leave, many people are totally fucked, but that's OK, at least the country will be run by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who may be fuckwits, but they are English fuckwits.
Jeremy's right about the CAP. I had to do some research on this for something or other using the farming press as my sources. Without it hill farmers especially would operate at a loss and there would be no hill farming except for niche markets (Nstional Trust for example).
-
Project fear with rude bits....niiiice!
Indeed. "You morons," "you idiots" and "fuckwits" does not exactly a sound and secure case suggest.
Especially when a search for "hominem' by the foregoing posters brings up several results. So it goes.
-
Living in a farming area what I know farmers do struggle with and would wish to see an end of is the red tape.
-
There we are then, that's clear
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/06/listen-the-bbc-finally-asked-the-vote-leave-campaign-about-their-spending-plans-and-it-was-very-revealing/
-
Interesting stats here on the migration claims of both Migrationwatch and Vote Leave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36517971
-
Living in a farming area what I know farmers do struggle with and would wish to see an end of is the red tape.
Whenever their is government subsidy or other payment there will be red tape - for the simple reason that the government is accountable to its tax payers for spending their money. So if someone else is getting it (whether a farmer, a nursery offering free child care, a government funded research grant) etc the government will require the recipient to jump through significant hoops to justify that spending.
And it is exactly the same with the UK government as with the EU - indeed I use the latter 2 examples as they are areas of my own experience. Actually on the last I've had money from both EU and UK government-funded research grants. Both are associated with very significant red tape - is the EU worse, nope - actually in my experience the red tape surrounding UK funded research is greater than that surrounding EU funding.
-
I don't understand the Labour position 'we want to stay in a reformed EU' surely then vote Brexit since the EU will likely then renegotiate.
If they don't renegotiate then the EU won't reform and vote leave is the right move anyway.
-
Living in a farming area what I know farmers do struggle with and would wish to see an end of is the red tape.
I think it needs reform you get paid if own land.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17225652
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpexuu_yannick-naud-sur-bbc-panorama-bbc1-scotland-money-farmers-les-abus-de-la-pac-en-ecosse_news
-
I don't understand the Labour position 'we want to stay in a reformed EU' surely then vote Brexit since the EU will likely then renegotiate.
If they don't renegotiate then the EU won't reform and vote leave is the right move anyway.
If you vote Brexit we leave, that's the deal.
You now seem to be slinking into the vote Brexit get remain non-sense. A bit like the myth that prior to INdyref that voting for independence would result in Scotland remaining in the UK but with greater devolved powers.
It is disingenuous.
-
If you vote Brexit we leave, that's the deal.
No its not as simple as that, I think we should leave, I'd be quite happy to remain in a reformed EU
You now seem to be slinking into the vote Brexit get remain non-sense. A bit like the myth that prior to INdyref that voting for independence would result in Scotland remaining in the UK but with greater devolved powers.
Yes its quite possible that during negotiations for Scotland leaving the Union DevoMax would have been offered. As I recall Salmond wanted it on the ballot paper. Its not nonsense.
It is disingenuous.
No its logical, Labour say they want to stay in a reformed EU, if we vote leave the EU will either renegotiate, which will involve reform, or it won't, if it won't then it will never reform.
-
No its not as simple as that, I think we should leave, I'd be quite happy to remain in a reformed EU
The best (actually really the only) way to remain is to vote for remain.
Yes its quite possible that during negotiations for Scotland leaving the Union DevoMax would have been offered. As I recall Salmond wanted it on the ballot paper. Its not nonsense.
So do you really think that the SNP would have simply accepted devomax had the INdyRef resulted in a Yes vote - or those people who voted for independence. Nope, of course not - had Scotland voted for independence, that's what they have got, independence, not Devomax. And the same is true in this vote - if you want to Brexit, vote Brexit and that's what you'll get (not that anyone has a clue what that looks like). If you don't want to leave the EU you must vote remain. It is mischief making on the part of Brexiters to suggest that the best way of remaining is to vote to leave - it is merely a tactic to 'trick' those who don't really want to leave to vote brexit.
No its logical, Labour say they want to stay in a reformed EU, if we vote leave the EU will either renegotiate, which will involve reform, or it won't, if it won't then it will never reform.
The EU is continually reforming - but the one sure fire way to have absolutely no influence on those reforms, is to vote to leave - you only have a say in the club rules if you are a member of the club. And whether or not we are in the EU it will have a massive influence on the UK - look at those countries that the Brexiters alway cite as examples of european countries that 'do OK' outside the EU - notably Norway, Switzerland and Iceland - every one influenced massively by the rules and regulations of the EU, but none have a say.
If you want the EU to reform you have to remain in it - otherwise you have no influence whatsoever.
-
The best (actually really the only) way to remain is to vote for remain.
If you want to remain sure, if you want to remain in a reformed EU then vote leave is your best bet.
So do you really think that the SNP would have simply accepted devomax had the INdyRef resulted in a Yes vote - or those people who voted for independence. Nope, of course not - had Scotland voted for independence, that's what they have got, independence, not Devomax. And the same is true in this vote - if you want to Brexit, vote Brexit and that's what you'll get (not that anyone has a clue what that looks like). If you don't want to leave the EU you must vote remain. It is mischief making on the part of Brexiters to suggest that the best way of remaining is to vote to leave - it is merely a tactic to 'trick' those who don't really want to leave to vote brexit.
Dear me so black and white with you, I suppose that is what you get from someone who is dogmatic and completely unable to see that anyone else has a valid opinion.
For example you could have been a Scot who was not sure which way to vote in the IndyRef, and thought that the UK offered great security with its armed forces but wanted to make the Scottish Parliament more accountable, the SNP are blumin awesome at shifting the blame after all. So why not vote leave on IndyRef and if you got DevoMax been quite happy with it.
The EU is continually reforming - but the one sure fire way to have absolutely no influence on those reforms, is to vote to leave - you only have a say in the club rules if you are a member of the club. And whether or not we are in the EU it will have a massive influence on the UK - look at those countries that the Brexiters alway cite as examples of european countries that 'do OK' outside the EU - notably Norway, Switzerland and Iceland - every one influenced massively by the rules and regulations of the EU, but none have a say.
If you want to reform the EU then your best bet is give the government the strongest hand possible and mandate to leave if it doesn't negotiate.
If you want the EU to reform you have to remain in it - otherwise you have no influence whatsoever.
If it will it will reform the way to know that is to vote leave.
-
If you want to remain sure, if you want to remain in a reformed EU then vote leave is your best bet.
No it isn't as if we vote to leave, that's what will happen, we will leave. If you want to remain, whether in the current state, the post negotiated reformed state or in any future reformed state, self evidently you have to vote remain, because otherwise we won't be in the EU.
It isn't that hard - the choices are exactly what they say on the tin - or rather on the ballot paper.
Vote remain - we remain
Vote leave - we leave
Struggling to understand why you are failing to get such a simple concept - or maybe this is just disingenuous mischief-making to try to tick people who want to remain to vote leave on the basis that we will remain. That is disingenuous non-sense.
-
For example you could have been a Scot who was not sure which way to vote in the IndyRef, and thought that the UK offered great security with its armed forces but wanted to make the Scottish Parliament more accountable, the SNP are blumin awesome at shifting the blame after all. So why not vote leave on IndyRef and if you got DevoMax been quite happy with it.
If you were that person and Scotland had voted for independence that's what would have happened, Scotland would have become independent.
All I can say is that someone who voted for independence when they actually wanted Scotland to stay in the UK must be very, very stupid.
Likewise someone who wants to stay in the EU voting to leave - daft as a brush.
-
No it isn't as if we vote to leave, that's what will happen, we will leave. If you want to remain, whether in the current state, the post negotiated reformed state or in any future reformed state, self evidently you have to vote remain, because otherwise we won't be in the EU.
It isn't that hard - the choices are exactly what they say on the tin - or rather on the ballot paper.
Vote remain - we remain
Vote leave - we leave
Not as simple as that I'm afraid.
See most people are not dogma driven and evangelical about this, I think Corbyn, your former parties leader, said he was 75% for in, I'm 75% for leave.
If you are around the 40-60% area and would stay in a reformed EU, then vote leave, if we don't get reforms then your not losing.
How do you know know the EU would not renegotiate? Guessing?
Struggling to understand why you are failing to get such a simple concept - or maybe this is just disingenuous mischief-making to try to tick people who want to remain to vote leave on the basis that we will remain. That is disingenuous non-sense.
No your clearly not listening, I would advocate people who want to leave should vote leave, people who to remain should vote remain and those that want to remain in a reformed EU should vote leave.
You might disagree which is fine, I know your intolerant of other views but your hysterical name calling really undermines your position.
-
No your clearly not listening, I would advocate people who want to leave should vote leave, people who to remain should vote remain and those that want to remain in a reformed EU should vote leave.
You really aren't thinking clearly - the choice is binary, we are either in the EU or out.
You are implying some kind of bizarre Schrodinger's Brexit vote - one that simultaneously results in us leaving the EU and staying in the EU. That isn't possible.
If (on balance) you want to stay in the EU you should vote remain - if on balance you want to leave the EU then you should vote leave - simple as that.
-
If you were that person and Scotland had voted for independence that's what would have happened, Scotland would have become independent.
Black and white from Dogma Davey :), I disagree no need to get upset other people have different views. I think Scottish Independence would have caused issues for rUK and Scotland, DevoMax would have solved a lot of them. I'm not saying it would have definitely happened just suggesting it could have.
All I can say is that someone who voted for independence when they actually wanted Scotland to stay in the UK must be very, very stupid.
Again with the binary view, someone might have wanted Scotland to be more independent and the risk of total Independence was worth taking.
Likewise someone who wants to stay in the EU voting to leave - daft as a brush.
Yes but we're not talking about them, we are talking about someone who wants to stay in a reformed EU, if it doesn't reform they want to leave.
-
Black and white from Dogma Davey :), I disagree no need to get upset other people have different views. I think Scottish Independence would have caused issues for rUK and Scotland, DevoMax would have solved a lot of them. I'm not saying it would have definitely happened just suggesting it could have.
Simple question for you Jaksan (to cut through your muddled thinking).
If we vote leave do we leave or do we stay? We can't do both.
-
Simple question for you Jaksan (to cut through your muddled thinking).
If we vote leave do we leave or do we stay? We can't do both.
We might leave.
Lets me ask you a question, when countries have voted against EU treaties in the past, what happened?
-
Lets me ask you a question, when countries have voted against EU treaties in the past, what happened?
Straw man.
We aren't voting against a treaty, which requires ratification from all EU member states. We are voting to stay or leave the EU. The two situations aren't equivalent.
Cameron went and negotiated a deal with the EU - he could have held a referendum on whether or not to accept that deal. He didn't - he called a referendum on whether we stay or leave.
-
We might leave.
Lets me ask you a question, when countries have voted against EU treaties in the past, what happened?
Usually the EU has found a way around the negative vote. However this vote is not an EU matter - but one for the UK only.
If we voted to leave, voices against EU membership in the other EU countries would gain strength. If we left, the EU could fall apart. To reform the EU we need to stay in and work with similarly minded groups in the other countries. That will not happen if we vote to leave.
-
Straw man.
We aren't voting against a treaty, which requires ratification from all EU member states. We are voting to stay or leave the EU. The two situations aren't equivalent.
Cameron went and negotiated a deal with the EU - he could have held a referendum on whether or not to accept that deal. He didn't - he called a referendum on whether we stay or leave.
Its comparable, evasion noted.
-
If leave win and there is an attempt at renegotiating, the Conservative Party will self immolate.
-
Its comparable, evasion noted.
No it isn't, not at all.
Where there was a referendum on a treaty that dictated whether a particular member state ratified or refused to ratify that treaty. If a member state refused to ratify the only option for the EU was to amend that treaty and then request ratification again.
That isn't the case here - if the UK votes for Brexit then there is no obligation on the rest of the EU to renegotiate. They can simply accept the decision of the UK and start the process of negotiating exit arrangements.
This is a vote about staying or leaving, not one about renegotiation of EU membership arrangements.
-
If leave win and there is an attempt at renegotiating, the Conservative Party will self immolate.
Indeed - all this 'vote leave, get remain' is purely a tactic by leave to fool people into thinking that voting leave is consequence free - it isn't - if we vote leave we leave.
-
Isn't this getting a bit weird now?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36537180
-
Weird indeed :D.
-
Isn't this getting a bit weird now?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36537180
Lovely response from Farage:
Branding other people having the temerity to disagree with him as 'just disgusting... disgraceful'. Rather revealing of the Brexit mindset - utterly unable to accept that other people might not agree with their dogma that the EU is somehow the work of the devil.
If Farage is allowed to organise a flotilla in favour of his position (as indeed is entirely his right) then why shouldn't someone else be allowed a counter flotilla.
-
Of course they can if they want.
Still weird.
-
Of course they can if they want.
Farage doesn't seem to think so.
-
It's politically naive of him to think that if he pulls a cringeworthy stunt that's up there with the Edstone that the other side won't be free to match it.
It'd have been more fun if they'd all been dressed as pirates.
-
It's politically naive of him to think that if he pulls a cringeworthy stunt thsts up there with the Edstone that the other side won't match him for it.
It'd have been more fun if they'd all been dressed as pirates.
Farage pretending he stands up for fishermen.
This is the guy who cares so much about the UK fishing industry that he is a member of the EU fisheries committee in his capacity as an MEP ...
Cares so much that of 42 meetings of the EU fisheries committee during his time as a member he has turned up ...
once!!!
-
If leave win and there is an attempt at renegotiating, the Conservative Party will self immolate.
Another reason to vote leave then! :)
-
Farage pretending he stands up for fishermen.
This is the guy who cares so much about the UK fishing industry that he is a member of the EU fisheries committee in his capacity as an MEP ...
Cares so much that of 42 meetings of the EU fisheries committee during his time as a member he has turned up ...
once!!!
Ok, Remain can be pirates. Brexit can perform HMS Pinafore.
Much better than televised debates, especially if they are also packing comedy cannon. I'd watch.
-
Another reason to vote leave then! :)
Frankly I think that will happen whatever the outcome. The only outcome that would perhaps avoid this would be a very strong remain vote, but I can't see that happening.
If there is a narrow remain vote the Brexit tory wing will turn on Cameron and Osborne with a vengeance.
-
Ok, Remain can be pirates. Brexit can perform HMS Pinafore.
Much better than televised debates, especially if they are also packing comedy cannon. I'd watch.
Sounds like 'it's a knockout' - always liked the european ones (Jeux sans frontier), held during the evening in some quaint Belgium market town. Should bring it back - albeit with a different presenter!
-
No it isn't, not at all.
Where there was a referendum on a treaty that dictated whether a particular member state ratified or refused to ratify that treaty. If a member state refused to ratify the only option for the EU was to amend that treaty and then request ratification again.
That isn't the case here - if the UK votes for Brexit then there is no obligation on the rest of the EU to renegotiate. They can simply accept the decision of the UK and start the process of negotiating exit arrangements.
This is a vote about staying or leaving, not one about renegotiation of EU membership arrangements.
If member state voted to leave a period of negotiation starts, there is nothing stopping the EU offering a better deal and nothing stopping the UK accepting it. Its almost unthinkable that the EU would not offer a better deal.
As I stated if you want to be in a reformed EU vote leave.
-
Usually the EU has found a way around the negative vote. However this vote is not an EU matter - but one for the UK only.
If we voted to leave, voices against EU membership in the other EU countries would gain strength. If we left, the EU could fall apart. To reform the EU we need to stay in and work with similarly minded groups in the other countries. That will not happen if we vote to leave.
Yes quite agree the EU could fall apart which is why they would offer a better deal.
-
If member state voted to leave a period of negotiation starts, there is nothing stopping the EU offering a better deal and nothing stopping the UK accepting it. Its almost unthinkable that the EU would not offer a better deal.
As I stated if you want to be in a reformed EU vote leave.
That's not what we are voting on - or hadn't you realised. We are voting to stay or leave - if we vote to leave we will leave.
You sound like someone trying to convince yourself - having a few doubts are you Jakswan as leave winning is beginning to look like a real possibility.
Suggest you vote remain unless you are 100% sure you want to leave, because that's what's going to happen if the UK votes for leave, we will leave.
-
Lovely response from Farage:
Branding other people having the temerity to disagree with him as 'just disgusting... disgraceful'. Rather revealing of the Brexit mindset - utterly unable to accept that other people might not agree with their dogma that the EU is somehow the work of the devil.
If Farage is allowed to organise a flotilla in favour of his position (as indeed is entirely his right) then why shouldn't someone else be allowed a counter flotilla.
Says Dogma Davey who can't even concede the other side have an argument and then proceeds to label anyone who holds a different view the same as Farage.
-
Frankly I think that will happen whatever the outcome. The only outcome that would perhaps avoid this would be a very strong remain vote, but I can't see that happening.
If there is a narrow remain vote the Brexit tory wing will turn on Cameron and Osborne with a vengeance.
Agree that Cameron and Osborne are dead men walking, think the Tory party will survive if we remain.
-
Sounds like 'it's a knockout' - always liked the european ones (Jeux sans frontier), held during the evening in some quaint Belgium market town. Should bring it back - albeit with a different presenter!
A change of presenter would be the way to go, yes...
-
If member state voted to leave a period of negotiation starts
The negotiations are on the mechanism for leaving and the relationship between the EU and the UK once we have left. It isn't on negotiation a new settlement to remain.
And think about it this way - if the EU suddenly started throwing concessions left, right and centre to any country that threatened to leave then their would be chaos. Every country would simply threaten to leave to get its own way. It won't happen.
-
That's not what we are voting on - or hadn't you realised. We are voting to stay or leave - if we vote to leave we will leave.
You sound like someone trying to convince yourself - having a few doubts are you Jakswan as leave winning is beginning to look like a real possibility.
Suggest you vote remain unless you are 100% sure you want to leave, because that's what's going to happen if the UK votes for leave, we will leave.
I've told you Dogma Davey I'm not 100%, I'm not 100% on anything, I'm about 75%. If someone is 100% on something they are clearly dogmatic evangelical types.
I'm very comfortable out, 75%, as I explained earlier, your new best buddy Cameron 'clearly the UK can survive outside of the EU', I'm with John Mann.
I suspect the EU will try to keep us in, as a matter of interest if we get a leave vote will you be campaigning for a new deal, or, just blindly insisting that it isn't possible? Be warned you might have to stand by your answer!
-
The negotiations are on the mechanism for leaving and the relationship between the EU and the UK once we have left. It isn't on negotiation a new settlement to remain.
And think about it this way - if the EU suddenly started throwing concessions left, right and centre to any country that threatened to leave then their would be chaos. Every country would simply threaten to leave to get its own way. It won't happen.
Yet on treaties that are voted against they do exactly that and wait... listen... no chaos.
-
Agree that Cameron and Osborne are dead men walking, think the Tory party will survive if we remain.
In itself more than enough reason to vote Leave if ever there was one.
-
Yet on treaties that are voted against they do exactly that and wait... listen... no chaos.
Because they have to - because they are just that treaties that require ratification by all member states - if one fails to ratify they have carry on working until they get unanimous agreement.
This is different in one respect, similar in another.
The difference being that there is no requirement for the EU to do anything to stop a member state leaving so there won't be a revised deal to stay.
It is similar in that any post-Brexit deal on relationship between the UK and the remaining EU will require agreement from all remaining member states, so if one doesn't like it (e.g. Romania on migration) then there will be no deal until the EU has compromised (with Romania) enough to allow them to sign up.
-
I've told you Dogma Davey I'm not 100%, I'm not 100% on anything, I'm about 75%. If someone is 100% on something they are clearly dogmatic evangelical types.
I'm very comfortable out, 75%, as I explained earlier, your new best buddy Cameron 'clearly the UK can survive outside of the EU', I'm with John Mann.
I suspect the EU will try to keep us in, as a matter of interest if we get a leave vote will you be campaigning for a new deal, or, just blindly insisting that it isn't possible? Be warned you might have to stand by your answer!
You suddenly sound very much like someone who'd like to vote leave, but for the actual outcome to be remain - whether because remain win, or due to your fantasy view that voting leave will actually mean remain.
Sounds as if you are playing a very dangerous game Jakswan - I suggest that unless you would be 100% happy outside the EU (whatever the actual post-Brexit situation turns out to be, which of course no-one can tell you) then perhaps you'd be better voting remain.
You don't want to end up with buyer's remorse would you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyer%27s_remorse
-
Dearie Me,
Five good reasons to vote leave.
Joey Essex is for leave.
Nigel Farage is for leave.
Boris Johnson is for leave.
Jakswan is for leave.
Jack Knave is for leave.
Pillars I tell you!! pillars of reason and intelligence, this is why I will be voting................. last one to leave the EU turn the lights off :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dearie Me,
Five good reasons to vote leave.
Joey Essex is for leave.
Nigel Farage is for leave.
Boris Johnson is for leave.
Jakswan is for leave.
Jack Knave is for leave.
Pillars I tell you!! pillars of reason and intelligence, this is why I will be voting................. last one to leave the EU turn the lights off :o :o
Gonnagle.
Agree on all counts except Jakswan.
Apart from this particular issue he's always seemed pretty sane to me.
But then he does seem to be talking himself into believing that it is OK for him to vote leave because we will remain anyway.
-
Because they have to - because they are just that treaties that require ratification by all member states - if one fails to ratify they have carry on working until they get unanimous agreement.
This is different in one respect, similar in another.
The difference being that there is no requirement for the EU to do anything to stop a member state leaving so there won't be a revised deal to stay.
It is similar in that any post-Brexit deal on relationship between the UK and the remaining EU will require agreement from all remaining member states, so if one doesn't like it (e.g. Romania on migration) then there will be no deal until the EU has compromised (with Romania) enough to allow them to sign up.
Well if this is true then the EU can't be reformed, if you want to stay in reformed EU you just as well vote leave.
You foot is bleeding, have you just shot it again? :)
-
You suddenly sound very much like someone who'd like to vote leave, but for the actual outcome to be remain - whether because remain win, or due to your fantasy view that voting leave will actually mean remain.
No let me be very clear I'm voting leave, I think I've played a part in changing some peoples minds as well.
Sounds as if you are playing a very dangerous game Jakswan - I suggest that unless you would be 100% happy outside the EU (whatever the actual post-Brexit situation turns out to be, which of course no-one can tell you) then perhaps you'd be better voting remain.
No thanks!
You don't want to end up with buyer's remorse would you:
Neither do you my friend, a former Labour member voting for neo-liberalism, could very well regret the outcome of remain.
-
Dearie Me,
Five good reasons to vote leave.
Joey Essex is for leave.
Nigel Farage is for leave.
Boris Johnson is for leave.
Jakswan is for leave.
Jack Knave is for leave.
Pillars I tell you!! pillars of reason and intelligence, this is why I will be voting................. last one to leave the EU turn the lights off :o :o
Gonnagle.
Thanks Gonzo, who's normal contribution to a thread is inane drivel is at least consistent.
On your list should be:-
Ronnie Campbell - Blyth Valley
Frank Field - Birkenhead
Roger Godsiff - Birmingham Hall Green
Kate Hoey - Vauxhall
Kelvin Hopkins - Luton North
Gisela Stuart - Birmingham Edgbaston
Graham Stringer - Blackley and Broughton
John Mann - Bassetlaw
Dennis Skinner - Bolsover
John Cryer - Leyton and Wanstead
All Labour politicians or a former leader of SNP as I recall.
You'd know this if you had done some research and kept an open mind, dear me, Gonzo - research and open mind what am I thinking.
-
Agree on all counts except Jakswan.
Apart from this particular issue he's always seemed pretty sane to me.
Why thank you likewise to you. Although I don't think you are insane for wanting to remain, I think you a different opinion, which is absolutely fine. Labelling people who you disagree with as insane is normally Gonzo's MO and really undermines your reputation.
But then he does seem to be talking himself into believing that it is OK for him to vote leave because we will remain anyway.
No, this is bordering on misrepresentation you can't still not understand this is not my position.
Please stop being dishonest it will convince Gonzo but everyone else will see through it.
-
Isn't this getting a bit weird now?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36537180
http://tinyurl.com/zm655lm
-
I never entirely agree with Alex but he's always worth reading
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/england-gone-mad/
-
I never entirely agree with Alex but he's always worth reading
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/england-gone-mad/
Very interesting. I think the idea that the world's gone to the dogs is quite powerful - I saw a guy on TV complaining that Tesco's has Polish food in it! Also, probably lots of people dislike both Westminster and Brussels, remote elites, and so on, and hallo, I can say fuck off to them both.
The fact that Leave is headed by a right-wing elite is delicious in its irony.
-
The fact that Leave is headed by a right-wing elite is delicious in its irony.
Yes Cameron and Osborne are so not that, oh wait. :)
-
Yes Cameron and Osborne are so not that, oh wait. :)
I thought that that was the irony.
-
Very interesting. I think the idea that the world's gone to the dogs is quite powerful - I saw a guy on TV complaining that Tesco's has Polish food in it! Also, probably lots of people dislike both Westminster and Brussels, remote elites, and so on, and hallo, I can say fuck off to them both.
The fact that Leave is headed by a right-wing elite is delicious in its irony.
Of course Leave are going to be headed by a right wing elite. Frankly the only people banging on about the EU and Brexit over the years have been those on the hard right and a very few on the hard left (but they aren't going to be the ones in power and doing the negotiations).
Brexit is John Redwood and his ilk's wet dream. An opportunity to roll back workers rights, environmental protection, public expenditure, public services etc and create an uber-free market capitalist utopia (as far as they are concerned) - one where those that have get more, and those that have not have their basic protections removed.
-
No let me be very clear I'm voting leave
I can almost feel your hand twitching in the polling booth as you wrestle with your buyers remorse cognitive dissonance, and then put a cross in the first box.
I think I've played a part in changing some peoples minds as well.
Really? Where? Certainly, not on here.
No thanks!
See above.
Neither do you my friend, a former Labour member voting for neo-liberalism, could very well regret the outcome of remain.
I doubt it very much - I will vote remain without hesitation as I believe in the principles of the EU and I believe in the practical benefits that it has brought Europe as a whole, the UK in particular all the way down to me (professionally and personally) and my family. Long may the people of the UK continue to benefit from everything that membership of the EU brings.
-
Of course Leave are going to be heading by a right wing elite. Frankly the only people banging on about the EU and Brexit over the years have been those on the hard right and a very few on the hard left (but they aren't going to be the ones in power and doing the negotiations).
Brexit is John Redwood and his ilk's wet dream. An opportunity to roll back workers rights, environmental protection, public expenditure, public services etc and create an uber-free market capitalist utopia (as far as they are concerned) - one where those that have get more, and those that have not have their basic protections removed.
Yes, that's why I used the word 'irony', that a pretty right-wing Tory government has been outflanked by an even more right-wing Tory faction, which may provide a new government. I suppose racism and xenophobia have done the hard yards for Leave, and this has sucked in working class voters apparently, who don't like fuzzy-wuzzies.
Another irony is that austerity has made people fed up, and voting Leave allows them to express that, but it may lead to even more.
-
Well if this is true then the EU can't be reformed
I thought one of the main arguments from the Brexit camp is ... 'we joined the common market, not the current EU'. Which is true in the sense that the EU has evolved and reformed itself continually over the past 40 years. And it will continue to do so. Again this is another Schrodinger's cat argument - namely that the EU is at once completely unrecognisable from the organisation we joined while simultaneously being unable to change. Classic Brexit non-sense.
-
/well said, Prof D.
-
I can almost feel your hand twitching in the polling booth as you wrestle with your buyers remorse cognitive dissonance, and then put a cross in the first box.
Dogma Davey still even know not able to accept other people have different opinions. :)
Really? Where? Certainly, not on here.
Friends, family, work colleagues, I've never met anyone like you though. Most people are like Corbyn, a % convinced.
I doubt it very much - I will vote remain without hesitation as I believe in the principles of the EU and I believe in the practical benefits that it has brought Europe as a whole, the UK in particular all the way down to me (professionally and personally) and my family. Long may the people of the UK continue to benefit from everything that membership of the EU brings.
I doubt it very much - I will vote remain without hesitation as I believe in the principles of the EU and I believe in the practical benefits that it has brought Europe as a whole, the UK in particular all the way down to me (professionally and personally) and my family. Long may the people of the UK continue to benefit from everything that membership of the EU brings.
Voting for neo-liberalism, TTIP the first step on that road.
-
I thought one of the main arguments from the Brexit camp is ... 'we joined the common market, not the current EU'.
Which is not an argument I have forward.
Which is true in the sense that the EU has evolved and reformed itself continually over the past 40 years. And it will continue to do so. Again this is another Schrodinger's cat argument - namely that the EU is at once completely unrecognisable from the organisation we joined while simultaneously being unable to change. Classic Brexit non-sense.
So its willing to change but not willing to negotiate.
-
Project fear with rude bits....niiiice!
Address the point I made about the CAP if you don't want be called a moron.
-
Indeed. "You morons," "you idiots" and "fuckwits" does not exactly a sound and secure case suggest.
Especially when a search for "hominem' by the foregoing posters brings up several results. So it goes.
He's an idiot. Read back through this thread and you'll see that I and my fellow remainers have raised a lot of good points but Jack just ignores them and spouts off about project fear or the immigrant invasion or his fantasy world in which Britain Little England gets everything it wants.
-
Yes, that's why I used the word 'irony', that a pretty right-wing Tory government has been outflanked by an even more right-wing Tory faction, which may provide a new government. I suppose racism and xenophobia have done the hard yards for Leave, and this has sucked in working class voters apparently, who don't like fuzzy-wuzzies.
The irony is that hand wringing lefties refusing to properly engage with a debate on immigration (as they label anyone who has concerns is a racist) has left the door open for the hard right to rise.
Another irony is that austerity has made people fed up, and voting Leave allows them to express that, but it may lead to even more.
I think what makes people fed up is politicians not answering the questions. How exactly will the new hard left labour tackle the UK debt? Platitudes and soundbites will not win votes.
Watch Daily Politics today first 20 mins or so, one tory one labour politician not answering questions, no wonder people are pissed off.
-
No its not as simple as that, I think we should leave, I'd be quite happy to remain in a reformed EU
Vote Remain than and campaign to reform the EU. If we vote leave and use the result to hold a gun to the EU's head so as to get our way, we will rightly be perceived as a bunch of cunts by the rest of Europe.
-
The irony is that hand wringing lefties refusing to properly engage with a debate on immigration (as they label anyone who has concerns is a racist) has left the door open for the hard right to rise.
I think what makes people fed up is politicians not answering the questions. How exactly will the new hard left labour tackle the UK debt? Platitudes and soundbites will not win votes.
Watch Daily Politics today first 20 mins or so, one tory one labour politician not answering questions, no wonder people are pissed off.
Well, I think Labour are completely incoherent, and have been since Blair and Brown left.
However, handing power over to the right wing of the Tories seems bizarre to me; well, I assume that a victory for Leave will have this result. With Boris and Gove at the helm, and in an atmosphere of mounting xenophobia, help. I am actually scared.
-
Yes, that's why I used the word 'irony', that a pretty right-wing Tory government has been outflanked by an even more right-wing Tory faction, which may provide a new government. I suppose racism and xenophobia have done the hard yards for Leave, and this has sucked in working class voters apparently, who don't like fuzzy-wuzzies.
Another irony is that austerity has made people fed up, and voting Leave allows them to express that, but it may lead to even more.
The real irony is that the Brexiteers are being greatly assisted by the 'couldn't care less' attitude of Corbyn and co.
-
The real irony is that the Brexiteers are being greatly assisted by the 'couldn't care less' attitude of Corbyn and co.
I really don't think that is so - 4 weeks or so ago I was in Chester and Tom Watson was there campaigning to stay in. That the press choose not to cover the Labour party on this matter is more to the point.
-
Well, I think Labour are completely incoherent, and have been since Blair and Brown left.
However, handing power over to the right wing of the Tories seems bizarre to me; well, I assume that a victory for Leave will have this result. With Boris and Gove at the helm, and in an atmosphere of mounting xenophobia, help. I am actually scared.
If the Leavers win and David Cameron gets deposed, I think the Tory Party will collapse. I heard on the news a weaker two ago that some of the pro EU Torys in Parliament will side with the pro EU people from other parties and effectively block any attempt to start the process of leaving which they can do because, excepting party lines, Remain has a big majority in the HoC.
Another possibility is that Boris is only pro Leave because he thinks that is the easiest way to get Cameron's job. Once he's got Cameron's job, he will go to the other EU countries and ask for a better deal and when we get one, he'll decide we should stay in. The Tory Party will still collapse.
As PD says, I think this is big trouble for the Tories no matter which way it goes unless Remain gets a big majority, which we won't.
-
. . .
However, handing power over to the right wing of the Tories seems bizarre to me; well, I assume that a victory for Leave will have this result. With Boris and Gove at the helm, and in an atmosphere of mounting xenophobia, help. I am actually scared.
That's what happens when you choose the wrong Miliband.
-
If the Leavers win and David Cameron gets deposed, I think the Tory Party will collapse. I heard on the news a weaker two ago that some of the pro EU Torys in Parliament will side with the pro EU people from other parties and effectively block any attempt to start the process of leaving which they can do because, excepting party lines, Remain has a big majority in the HoC.
Another possibility is that Boris is only pro Leave because he thinks that is the easiest way to get Cameron's job. Once he's got Cameron's job, he will go to the other EU countries and ask for a better deal and when we get one, he'll decide we should stay in. The Tory Party will still collapse.
As PD says, I think this is big trouble for the Tories no matter which way it goes unless Remain gets a big majority, which we won't.
The only thing that is certain about a Brexit scenario is that there will be a significant period of uncertainty. After the initial crash, the pound and markets will be all over the place - it will be an awful environment for business (though great for speculators).
And if they attempt to go for Gove's fantasy of free trade with everyone in the world, the chaos will go on for a very long time.
-
I really don't think that is so - 4 weeks or so ago I was in Chester and Tom Watson was there campaigning to stay in. That the press choose not to cover the Labour party on this matter is more to the point.
I've been totally underwhelmed by everything I have heard. Corbyn restated that he was Eurosceptic and Tom Watsons's comments about future negotiation to reform freedom of movement rules is just confuse the issues - it's such obvious crap.
-
The real irony is that the Brexiteers are being greatly assisted by the 'couldn't care less' attitude of Corbyn and co.
The media like a big sexy disaster and while they consider him to be the latter,1 out of three is bad as far as they are concerned. For the media Brexit represents greater disaster potential and so they are for it almost to a man.
-
I've been totally underwhelmed by everything I have heard. Corbyn restated that he was Eurosceptic and Tom Watsons's comments about future negotiation to reform freedom of movement rules is just confuse the issues - it's such obvious crap.
But surely the comment on Corbyn means you want no nuance or consideration. He didn't say he was a Euro sceptic as it commonly means in that he wanted out. He just didn't say that if you leave the EU your children will be eaten by Mongol hordes.
-
Ahoy there............ Sir Bob sinks Titanic brexitbore.
Nigel thinks he's the ruler of the queen's Nayvee.
-
Usually the EU has found a way around the negative vote. However this vote is not an EU matter - but one for the UK only.
If we voted to leave, voices against EU membership in the other EU countries would gain strength. If we left, the EU could fall apart. To reform the EU we need to stay in and work with similarly minded groups in the other countries. That will not happen if we vote to leave.
If that was going to happen it would have happened by now but as many know the EU lot won't consider any minute change.
Cameron went to the EU with the threat of leaving them and all that will mean to their survival and yet they were stupid enough to give no leeway, not a nanometre, to avoid it - such hubris and arrogance and irresponsibility.
The only way to kick'em where it hurts is to leave.
-
But surely the comment on Corbyn means you want no nuance or consideration. He didn't say he was a Euro sceptic as it commonly means in that he wanted out. He just didn't say that if you leave the EU your children will be eaten by Mongol hordes.
It's a wonder that somebody hasn't already claimed that, but there's still a week to go after all.
-
If leave win and there is an attempt at renegotiating, the Conservative Party will self immolate.
I think that will be true even if it is a slim Remain vote. Only a massive Remain vote will help Cam-Ossy to stay in power. The Remain lot are finding that the economic argument isn't doing the trick and I'm guessing we are going to see a shift to some other theme in the last week.
Wow. As we approach the vote I'm getting goose bumps because this could be a mega change all round. No one knows. The polls are unreliable and the debates going on at the street level are detached from the farce that is going on with the two official teams. These two don't seem to have done their homework, stuck as they are in the Westminster bubble.
-
I've been totally underwhelmed by everything I have heard. Corbyn restated that he was Eurosceptic and Tom Watsons's comments about future negotiation to reform freedom of movement rules is just confuse the issues - it's such obvious crap.
Hi L.A. To my mind, the freedom of movement for workers rule is flawed. It is fine most of the time for most countries (I suppose) but what about when a particular country becomes an over-popular destination? I don't know much about economics, but it would mean that the migrant population competes with the indigenous people for jobs and in many cases render them unemployed. Great for the economy, but what about someone in Britain who wants to work on a fruit farm just to pay his way, but can't compete with Slovakian immigrants who are more adapted to living off the land. Great for the farmer who employs the foreign workers, but not so great for the people who can't work the land they were born into because of immigrants from a few thousand miles away.
Since there appears to be no chance of any cap on migration being allowed by the EU in future, I don't see how it can be right to stay in the EU, given that Britain is becoming a very popular destination for foreign workers.
-
If leave win and there is an attempt at renegotiating, the Conservative Party will self immolate.
Another reason to vote leave then! :)
Spot on!!!
-
If the Leavers win and David Cameron gets deposed, I think the Tory Party will collapse. I heard on the news a weaker two ago that some of the pro EU Torys in Parliament will side with the pro EU people from other parties and effectively block any attempt to start the process of leaving which they can do because, excepting party lines, Remain has a big majority in the HoC.
Another possibility is that Boris is only pro Leave because he thinks that is the easiest way to get Cameron's job. Once he's got Cameron's job, he will go to the other EU countries and ask for a better deal and when we get one, he'll decide we should stay in. The Tory Party will still collapse.
As PD says, I think this is big trouble for the Tories no matter which way it goes unless Remain gets a big majority, which we won't.
I agree.
It's bizarre to see the Leave campaign presenting what is almost an election manifesto. The day after the referendum we'll still have the same government and then there will be an election if Cameron resigns. And neither Gove nor Johnson could be the party leader - in fact I think the party would opt for someone not too closely associated with either side.
-
Another reason to vote leave then! :)
Spot on!!!
You do both get that this is if renegotiating happens after a Leave vote. So you are both wanting any leave vote to be ignored and then be happy with any fall out from that?
-
Yes quite agree the EU could fall apart which is why they would offer a better deal.
Not until the last minute. But what we could do during those 2 years is link up with the anti-EUers in the member states and get them to force significant change in the EU.
-
Well, I think Labour are completely incoherent, and have been since Blair and Brown left.
However, handing power over to the right wing of the Tories seems bizarre to me; well, I assume that a victory for Leave will have this result. With Boris and Gove at the helm, and in an atmosphere of mounting xenophobia, help. I am actually scared.
Hang on your voting for remain because you don't like the Tories? Gove and Johnson are not the right of the Tory party, they are pretty liberal, e.g. both supported same sex marriage.
Johnson and Gove are concerned with the levels of immigration, as are many centre Labour MPs nothing xenophbic about it, its people like you who instantly come out with this bile that actually fuel the hard right. Now that is irony.
-
I agree.
It's bizarre to see the Leave campaign presenting what is almost an election manifesto. The day after the referendum we'll still have the same government and then there will be an election if Cameron resigns. And neither Gove nor Johnson could be the party leader - in fact I think the party would opt for someone not too closely associated with either side.
But what is the manifesto? More money for NHS, NHS to be privatised. More immigration, less immigration. No TTIP, harsher TTIP. All of them are part of the slate.
-
Vote Remain than and campaign to reform the EU. If we vote leave and use the result to hold a gun to the EU's head so as to get our way, we will rightly be perceived as a bunch of cunts by the rest of Europe.
No I'd prefer to deal the best cards I can to the British Government in order they can negotiate the best deal possible. If they don't negotiate they won't reform and I don't want to stay in the EU.
-
Another possibility is that Boris is only pro Leave because he thinks that is the easiest way to get Cameron's job. Once he's got Cameron's job, he will go to the other EU countries and ask for a better deal and when we get one, he'll decide we should stay in. The Tory Party will still collapse.
Davey says this is not going to happen, I look forward to you two debating this issue.
-
But surely the comment on Corbyn means you want no nuance or consideration. He didn't say he was a Euro sceptic as it commonly means in that he wanted out. He just didn't say that if you leave the EU your children will be eaten by Mongol hordes.
Correct, actually even though I disagree with Corbyn on most things, he is much more balanced when presenting the arguments. I don't think either campaign has covered itself in glory but Cameron and Osborne fluffed it big time, hopefully they continue to come up with more punishment budgets.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-statistics-regulator-loses-patience-with-leave-campaign-over-350m-a-week-eu-cost-a7051756.html
-
Dearie Me,
Five good reasons to vote leave.
Joey Essex is for leave.
Nigel Farage is for leave.
Boris Johnson is for leave.
Jakswan is for leave.
Jack Knave is for leave.
Pillars I tell you!! pillars of reason and intelligence, this is why I will be voting................. last one to leave the EU turn the lights off :o :o
Gonnagle.
And by voting to stay you are with Goldman Sachs, big corporations, bankers, Cameron and Osborne, Blair... your friends, I presume?
-
Correct, actually even though I disagree with Corbyn on most things, he is much more balanced when presenting the arguments. I don't think either campaign has covered itself in glory but Cameron and Osborne fluffed it big time, hopefully they continue to come up with more punishment budgets.
Just arrived pith that leave me Cameron and Osborne look borderline Sane from your viewpoint then
-
Yes, that's why I used the word 'irony', that a pretty right-wing Tory government has been outflanked by an even more right-wing Tory faction, which may provide a new government. I suppose racism and xenophobia have done the hard yards for Leave, and this has sucked in working class voters apparently, who don't like fuzzy-wuzzies.
Another irony is that austerity has made people fed up, and voting Leave allows them to express that, but it may lead to even more.
So should we have a GE after the referendum if it is leave?
-
Address the point I made about the CAP if you don't want be called a moron.
I did address it it's just that you didn't like the answer.
-
And by voting to stay you are with Goldman Sachs, big corporations, bankers, Cameron and Osborne, Blair... your friends, I presume?
And by voting to stay you are with Goldman Sachs, big corporations, bankers, Cameron and Osborne, Blair... your friends, I presume?
Rupert Murdoch, and George Galloway, and Putin your friends then?
-
Dearie Me,
Five good reasons to vote leave.
Joey Essex is for leave.
Nigel Farage is for leave.
Boris Johnson is for leave.
Jakswan is for leave.
Jack Knave is for leave.
Pillars I tell you!! pillars of reason and intelligence, this is why I will be voting................. last one to leave the EU turn the lights off :o :o
Gonnagle.
Gonners, my reasons for leaving:
From Jack Knave:
But the long term plan of the EU is not for those protections it is total rule from Brussels, just as Moscow had total rule over the Soviet Union. The Ever-Closer-Union is for all the power to be centralised in Brussels and who can tell if and when a Stalin type figure will come along in the future and rule like the last Stalin. We are not voting to get the UK out of the EU we are voting to free the European people. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow but for some future generation who will not thank us if we allow them to be born into slavehood.
From ekim:
The trouble with bureaucracies is that they grow and grow feeding on ever more regulations with an increasing cost to taxpayers and a burgeoning and complex legal system beyond the scope of ordinary people to challenge. I would say that the threat is not so much to world peace (if ever such a concept comes about), but it can lead to internal civil unrest, especially if it is perceived that there is no way to change the regulations other than by force.
From myself:
The European Union was formed by the Bilderberg Group. Many do not know this or anything about this group. Only relatively, in recent years, have reports of their meetings been made public. These meetings are held annually by a mix of a select few from politics, finance (ie rich and powerful bankers) business, the media, the CIA and MI6. No minutes are taken, no reporters are allowed in, there is no opening press conference, no closing statement, and participants are asked not to quote each other. The EU MEPs cannot initiate legislation, propose legislation or even the repeal of legislation, all of which comes from the unelected European commission.
All amounting to:
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” ~ Vladimir Lenin
-
But surely the comment on Corbyn means you want no nuance or consideration. He didn't say he was a Euro sceptic as it commonly means in that he wanted out. He just didn't say that if you leave the EU your children will be eaten by Mongol hordes.
His tone was so non-committal, that if I was undecided and I'd actually got any regard for him - I probably wouldn't bother voting.
-
European weather to be stopped from entering the UK by the Navy after Brexit.
-
. . .
Johnson and Gove are concerned with the levels of immigration, as are many centre Labour MPs nothing xenophbic about it, its people like you who instantly come out with this bile that actually fuel the hard right. Now that is irony.
No, Johnson passionately believes that he ought to be the next PM and he thinks Brexit is his best chance.
Gove on the other hand is pursuing a personal vendetta because he blames the EU for the loss of his family's fishing business
-
Gonners, my reasons for leaving:
From Jack Knave:
But the long term plan of the EU is not for those protections it is total rule from Brussels, just as Moscow had total rule over the Soviet Union. The Ever-Closer-Union is for all the power to be centralised in Brussels and who can tell if and when a Stalin type figure will come along in the future and rule like the last Stalin. We are not voting to get the UK out of the EU we are voting to free the European people. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow but for some future generation who will not thank us if we allow them to be born into slavehood.
From ekim:
The trouble with bureaucracies is that they grow and grow feeding on ever more regulations with an increasing cost to taxpayers and a burgeoning and complex legal system beyond the scope of ordinary people to challenge. I would say that the threat is not so much to world peace (if ever such a concept comes about), but it can lead to internal civil unrest, especially if it is perceived that there is no way to change the regulations other than by force.
From myself:
The European Union was formed by the Bilderberg Group. Many do not know this or anything about this group. Only relatively, in recent years, have reports of their meetings been made public. These meetings are held annually by a mix of a select few from politics, finance (ie rich and powerful bankers) business, the media, the CIA and MI6. No minutes are taken, no reporters are allowed in, there is no opening press conference, no closing statement, and participants are asked not to quote each other. The EU MEPs cannot initiate legislation, propose legislation or even the repeal of legislation, all of which comes from the unelected European commission.
All amounting to:
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” ~ Vladimir Lenin
I don't buy that we are living at all under the yolk of Brussels and unfortunately Brexit liers now blame migrants instead of crap government.
For the low down on revolutionary action the last page of Orwell's ''Animal Farm'' is a reminder of who will end up in charge of the UK Brexit or not.
-
Hang on your voting for remain because you don't like the Tories? Gove and Johnson are not the right of the Tory party, they are pretty liberal, e.g. both supported same sex marriage.
Whilst some of the other 'liberal' Tories opposed it. Using same-sex marriage as a marker misses the point. You can be right-wing and left wing and support it - and be right/left-wing and oppose it.
Johnson and Gove are concerned with the levels of immigration, as are many centre Labour MPs nothing xenophbic about it, ...
Surely, if they were concerned with the levels of immigration, they'd give correct figures, realise that people will seek to enter the UK regardless of whether we leave or remain, perhaps even end up with higher levels of illegal immigration as agreements with EU countries on cross-border security fall apart, and end up with thousands of currently ex-pat Brits in Europe being forced to return to the UK as preferemtial treatment associated with EU membership is phased out.
-
Dear SweetPea,
Thankyou for your post, my reason for remaining, I am a Christian.
Our Lord suffers no borders, Our Lords laughs at mans plans, Our Lord knows that being a Christian is not the easy path, Our Lord knows that we stand outside prejudice, Our Lord knows that we are all sinners, Our Lord stands above politics, Our Lord knows our place is only to help the down trodden, that is what it means when we take up the Cross, we serve, servants of Christ, we do not serve politicians.
For me as a Christian there is only one vote, remain, we remain to serve, not the politicians but Christ, Christians offer the hand of friendship, Christians turn no one away, no matter creed, colour, religion or sexual orientation, we serve God, how do we serve God, we serve man.
Gonnagle.
-
Surely, if they were concerned with the levels of immigration, they'd give correct figures, realise that people will seek to enter the UK regardless of whether we leave or remain, perhaps even end up with higher levels of illegal immigration as agreements with EU countries on cross-border security fall apart, and end up with thousands of currently ex-pat Brits in Europe being forced to return to the UK as preferemtial treatment associated with EU membership is phased out.
But the fact is that we will never be able to reduce immigration unless we have control of our own laws on it.
-
But the fact is that we will never be able to reduce immigration unless we have control of our own laws on it.
I think it is more fundamental than that Spud, we'll never be able to reduce migration as long as we need migrants - and for a number of reasons we need migrants. One important reason being that our economy is (currently) running quite well which means job vacancies.
So I suppose Brexit are right in a way, if they crash the economy migration will plummet.
-
Odds shifted back in favour of Stay, currently 15/8 on
-
We may not be in full control of migration to us from the EU but half of migration is from outside the Eu which we have control over if we do choose. That we dont choose to do so is a political decision taken by our 'sovereign'goverments for economic reasons.
-
But the fact is that we will never be able to reduce immigration unless we have control of our own laws on it.
We already have complete control over non EU immigration. How's that working out for you, reduced to a trickle, hardly anyone coming here from India, or Nigeria, or China, or Mexico. Nope, with complete control non EU immigration remains higher that the non controlled EU migration. And most importantly the trends in both EU and non EU immigration mirror each other.
Conclusion - the 'controlled' non EU migration is no more controlled than the 'non controlled' EU migration.
Why - because the key driver isn't whether or not we have nominal controls - nope it is economic - if there are job vacancies that can't be filled by UK people, either because they won't take them or because they don't have the skills we will fill those vacancies from overseas and any 'controlled' immigration policy will always allow this or otherwise the government will be telling potato famers that their unpicked crops will have to rot and their livelihood destroyed. The government will be telling you that you elderly mother in law won't have any carer coming to visit her on her essential care package - the government will be telling you that you cannot see a GP for months because they haven't been able to fill the vacancies when their two senior partners retired.
-
Davey remind us what you said about UK -China trade deal?
Iceland has trade deal with China.
-
Davey remind us what you said about UK -China trade deal?
Iceland has trade deal with China.
is that one like the China Switzerland trade 'deal'. You know the one where Switzerland allows tarrif free trade access for China into their market immediately, but they only get access to the Chinese market (hopefully) in 15 years time.
Some deal. But that's what happens when negotiations are massively unequal. The little guy ends up grappling whatever crumbs they can get from the big guys table.
-
is that one like the China Switzerland trade 'deal'. You know the one where Switzerland allows tarrif free trade access for China into their market immediately, but they only get access to the Chinese market (hopefully) in 15 years time.
Some deal. But that's what happens when negotiations are massively unequal. The little guy ends up grappling whatever crumbs they can get from the big guys table.
Don't think so:-
https://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/trade/free-trade-agreement-between-iceland-and-china/
I seem to recall you claiming we could do a deal with China independent of the EU?
-
Conclusion - the 'controlled' non EU migration is no more controlled than the 'non controlled' EU migration.
Which is demonstrably untrue.
-
The European Union was formed by the Bilderberg Group. Many do not know this or anything about this group. Only relatively, in recent years, have reports of their meetings been made public. These meetings are held annually by a mix of a select few from politics, finance (ie rich and powerful bankers) business, the media, the CIA and MI6. No minutes are taken, no reporters are allowed in, there is no opening press conference, no closing statement, and participants are asked not to quote each other. The EU MEPs cannot initiate legislation, propose legislation or even the repeal of legislation, all of which comes from the unelected European commission.
I must confess that I had never heard of the Bilderberg group. But Sweet Pea's concern aroused my interest, after all, she has put us right about crop circles, electromagnetic pulses from CERN causing earthquakes and the heinous fraud of the so-called "moon landings". Her ability to detect high-level conspiracy and to give us appropriate warning of the dangers and damage facing us is without parallel on this forum.
So looked up Bilderberg Group on Wikipedia and was horrified with what I saw:
The group's original goal of promoting Atlanticism, of strengthening US-European relations and preventing another world war has grown; the Bilderberg Group's theme is to "bolster a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe" according to Andrew Kakabadse.[3] In 2001, Denis Healey, a Bilderberg group founder and a steering committee member for 30 years, said, "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."
I think that it is their practice to begin each meeting by sacrificing a virgin (though where they manage to find them isn't known).
-
All right-thinking would-be virgin sacrificers have moved onto root veg these days, HH. Much less mess and you can make soup with the leftovers.
-
Odds shifted back in favour of Stay, currently 15/8 on
Betfair has it 1.66, implied probability of leaving now at 40%!
-
Betfair has it 1.66, implied probability of leaving now at 40%!
Moved from 1.56 when I looked this morning.
-
Analysis from Graham Sharpe.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-betting-bookmakers-say-leave-odds-will-be-favourite-by-the-weekend-2016-6
-
Moved from 1.56 when I looked this morning.
Moved since I last checked 1.68 now.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911
-
Moved from 1.56 when I looked this morning.
And moved on to 1.7
-
The Bilderberg Group have long been subject to all sorts of consiracy theories - if you want an interesting take on it try Jon Ronson's book Them and his documentary series The Secret Rulers of the Worlds
-
Which is demonstrably untrue.
Wrong it is demonstrably true.
So lets look over the past 3 year or so. Specifically using the start point when Croatia joined the EU in 2013 - sensible as this means that the overall countries and population of the EU (and therefore potential migrants) is stable.
This is also useful as it coincides rather well with the government push to reduce migration to the tens of thousands. Now if EU migration is uncontrolled, but non EU migration is controlled (in practice) then you'd expect that the government would have curtailed net non EU migration (which is can control) but would have been unable to do anything about EU migration. So that non EU migration would have stabilised or even fallen (under government control) while EU migration would have continued to rise.
Problem is that changes in the two (EU and non EU) net migration pretty well perfectly mirror each other.
So at that point in mid 2013:
Net migration: Non EU - 138k
Net migration: EU - 131k
By 2015 (latest figures) there had been a big increase, but interestingly the increase is actually greater for the (apparently) controlled non EU migration than for the (apparently) uncontrolled EU migration.
So by the end of 2015 non EU net migration had risen by 38% compared to that 2013 figure, EU migration had risen by only 31% in the same timeframe.
So much for controlled vs non controlled.
Sorry, once again to puncture your ill informed dogmatic balloon with actual data and actual evidence. But hey Brexiters aren't really interested in facts and reality.
-
Wrong it is demonstrably true.
So lets look over the past 3 year or so. Specifically using the start point when Croatia joined the EU in 2013 - sensible as this means that the overall countries and population of the EU (and therefore potential migrants) is stable.
This is also useful as it coincides rather well with the government push to reduce migration to the tens of thousands. Now if EU migration is uncontrolled, but non EU migration is controlled (in practice) then you'd expect that the government would have curtailed net non EU migration (which is can control) but would have been unable to do anything about EU migration. So that non EU migration would have stabilised or even fallen (under government control) while EU migration would have continued to rise.
Problem is that changes in the two (EU and non EU) net migration pretty well perfectly mirror each other.
So at that point in mid 2013:
Net migration: Non EU - 138k
Net migration: EU - 131k
By 2015 (latest figures) there had been a big increase, but interestingly the increase is actually greater for the (apparently) controlled non EU migration than for the (apparently) uncontrolled EU migration.
So by the end of 2015 non EU net migration had risen by 38% compared to that 2013 figure, EU migration had risen by only 31% in the same timeframe.
So much for controlled vs non controlled.
Sorry, once again to puncture your ill informed dogmatic balloon with actual data and actual evidence. But hey Brexiters aren't really interested in facts and reality.
Before we move on to that could you answer two questions which you have not answered.
I seem to recall you claiming we could do a deal with China independent of the EU?
I suspect the EU will try to keep us in, as a matter of interest if we get a leave vote will you be campaigning for a new deal, or, just blindly insisting that it isn't possible?
-
I seem to recall you claiming we could do a deal with China independent of the EU?
We can and we do:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/24/britains-deals-with-china-billions-what-do-they-mean
As do many other EU countries. I gather that Germany has been particularly aggressive in penetrating the Indian market and developing a whole range of trade deals.
-
We can and we do:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/24/britains-deals-with-china-billions-what-do-they-mean
As do many other EU countries. I gather that Germany has been particularly aggressive in penetrating the Indian market and developing a whole range of trade deals.
That is one question attempted but doesn't really address it, I'll rephrase that one hopefully making more difficult for you to obfuscate.
1. I seem to recall you claiming we could do a free trade deal with China independent of the EU?
2. I suspect the EU will try to keep us in, as a matter of interest if we get a leave vote will you be campaigning for a new deal, or, just blindly insisting that it isn't possible?
-
http://newsthump.com/2016/06/16/river-thames-dies-of-embarrassment/
Wankered has become a verb.
-
That is one question attempted but doesn't really address it, I'll rephrase that one hopefully making more difficult for you to obfuscate.
1. I seem to recall you claiming we could do a free trade deal with China independent of the EU?
2. I suspect the EU will try to keep us in, as a matter of interest if we get a leave vote will you be campaigning for a new deal, or, just blindly insisting that it isn't possible?
Sorry Jakswan - it is you who is engaging in classic obfuscation.
You asked me a very specific question - whether the UK could sign trade deals with China independent of the EU. I answered it factually and clearly, and with evidence. You don't like the answer (because it doesn't fit with your dogma) and therefore you ignore my answer but ask a completely different question.
If we vote to leave I fully expect that we will leave, but I hope that we will negotiate a position outside of the EU that is as close to being in it as possible. So effectively being in the EEA.
That said, in my opinion, the most likely way to get concessions from the EU is to vote to remain. That we nearly left would have frightened the life out of the EU and it will look to do what it can to encourage others not to leave. And to do so rather than give a great deal to a country that has voted to leave the EU will 'reward' us for staying.
Interestingly that kind of mood music is already coming out from the EU - effectively that the changes we wanted to remain in the EU will be pushed through as rapidly as possible if we vote remain.
-
That is one question attempted but doesn't really address it, I'll rephrase that one hopefully making more difficult for you to obfuscate.
1. I seem to recall you claiming we could do a free trade deal with China independent of the EU?
2. I suspect the EU will try to keep us in, as a matter of interest if we get a leave vote will you be campaigning for a new deal, or, just blindly insisting that it isn't possible?
By the way your evasion tactics are noted.
You will remember that I provided the relevant data on EU vs non EU net migration that demonstrated that our 'supposed' controlled migration from non EU countries has risen by the same (if not more) than net migration from the 'supposed' uncontrolled EU countries.
So were we to have adopted exactly the same migration 'controls' for EU migrants as for non EU migrants it wouldn't make one jot of difference to the net migration figures. Which is what we see in other countries, such as Australia and Canada (which the Breixiters use as the gold standards) which have net immigration levels way higher than our.
-
Sorry Jakswan - it is you who is engaging in classic obfuscation.
You asked me a very specific question - whether the UK could sign trade deals with China independent of the EU. I answered it factually and clearly, and with evidence. You don't like the answer (because it doesn't fit with your dogma) and therefore you ignore my answer but ask a completely different question.
If we vote to leave I fully expect that we will leave, but I hope that we will negotiate a position outside of the EU that is as close to being in it as possible. So effectively being in the EEA.
That said, in my opinion, the most likely way to get concessions from the EU is to vote to remain. That we nearly left would have frightened the life out of the EU and it will look to do what it can to encourage others not to leave. And to do so rather than give a great deal to a country that has voted to leave the EU will 'reward' us for staying.
Interestingly that kind of mood music is already coming out from the EU - effectively that the changes we wanted to remain in the EU will be pushed through as rapidly as possible if we vote remain.
I'm asking you two questions, I thought the free trade deal was implied but you decided it wasn't.
1. I seem to recall you claiming we could do a free trade deal with China independent of the EU? Not yet answered this.
2. I suspect the EU will try to keep us in, as a matter of interest if we get a leave vote will you be campaigning for a new deal, or, just blindly insisting that it isn't possible? So you won't be campaigning for a new deal but insisting we leave, interesting.
-
By the way your evasion tactics are noted.
You will remember that I provided the relevant data on EU vs non EU net migration that demonstrated that our 'supposed' controlled migration from non EU countries has risen by the same (if not more) than net migration from the 'supposed' uncontrolled EU countries.
So were we to have adopted exactly the same migration 'controls' for EU migrants as for non EU migrants it wouldn't make one jot of difference to the net migration figures. Which is what we see in other countries, such as Australia and Canada (which the Breixiters use as the gold standards) which have net immigration levels way higher than our.
You asserted that 'the 'controlled' non EU migration is no more controlled than the 'non controlled' EU migration'. Why are the migrants in Calais doing? If the controls are the same they will show their passport and enter.
The issue with migration is about control not about numbers.
-
You asserted that 'the 'controlled' non EU migration is no more controlled than the 'non controlled' EU migration'. Why are the migrants in Calais doing? If the controls are the same they will show their passport and enter.
The issue with migration is about control not about numbers.
No it is absolutely about numbers.
Just ask those going on and on about 'all those migrants' - do you really think they'd go, 'job' done if EU migrants were subject to the same 'control' as non EU migrants but net migration didn't change one iota. Of course not.
What drives migration is economics - so if you actually look at the statistics net migration goes up and down with the performance of the economy (and therefore the supply of jobs that can't be filled by people from the UK) - as I've ably demonstrated but you still haven't addressed both EU migration and non EU migration go up and down in the same pattern and certainly over the past few years where there hasn't been a change in the EU member states, in an identical proportional level.
-
1. I seem to recall you claiming we could do a free trade deal with China independent of the EU? Not yet answered this.
For crying out loud - yes I did - in reply 2023 - to reiterate:
'We can and we do:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/24/britains-deals-with-china-billions-what-do-they-mean
As do many other EU countries. I gather that Germany has been particularly aggressive in penetrating the Indian market and developing a whole range of trade deals.'
-
Don't think so:-
https://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/trade/free-trade-agreement-between-iceland-and-china/
You do understand that Iceland has something rather unique that is critically important to China.
The UK on the other hand has nothing of that nature that is uniquely important to China.
The EU does on the basis of the size of the economic block.
-
The Bilderberg Group have long been subject to all sorts of consiracy theories - if you want an interesting take on it try Jon Ronson's book Them and his documentary series The Secret Rulers of the Worlds
I think that if the Bilderberg Group were as powerful as some would like to believe, we might have seen the unexpected demise of a number of prominent Brexit figures (though I suppose the real devotee might consider Farage's plane crash a near miss)
-
I think that if the Bilderberg Group were as powerful as some would like to believe, we might have seen the unexpected demise of a number of prominent Brexit figures (though I suppose the real devotee might consider Farage's plane crash a near miss)
No matter what happens it was the Bilderberg Group/Illuminati/Stonecutters wanted it
-
Market moved back to 15/8 on Stay. I fear this is being pushed by violence
-
26911.
This is the number of words that some Brexiters have suggested make up an EU document on the sale of cabbages. It also, I believe, appeared in a UKIP documenty a year or so before the General Election.
It is interesting how similar it is to a figure that dates to the early 1950s, regarding the cost of cabbages during the 2nd World War in the US of A.
I listened to some of this morning's 'More or Less' on Radio 4 and this mythical figure was discussed and dissected.
Apparently, the figure was nearer 2700 words and the topic was the fixing of the cost of cabbage seed; a process that was repealed shortly after the end of WW2. It was, apparently, 'resurrected' as a way of arguing against the Korean War and multiplied by a factor of 10!!
The question was why should this 'resurrected' figure have begun to be applied to the EU and its legislation?
-
Good blog from Alex Massey at the Spectator.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/england-gone-mad/
-
Many people suspending their campaign, after the shooting of Labour MP Jo Cox.
-
We already have complete control over non EU immigration. How's that working out for you, reduced to a trickle, hardly anyone coming here from India, or Nigeria, or China, or Mexico. Nope, with complete control non EU immigration remains higher that the non controlled EU migration. And most importantly the trends in both EU and non EU immigration mirror each other.
Conclusion - the 'controlled' non EU migration is no more controlled than the 'non controlled' EU migration.
Why - because the key driver isn't whether or not we have nominal controls - nope it is economic - if there are job vacancies that can't be filled by UK people, either because they won't take them or because they don't have the skills we will fill those vacancies from overseas and any 'controlled' immigration policy will always allow this or otherwise the government will be telling potato famers that their unpicked crops will have to rot and their livelihood destroyed. The government will be telling you that you elderly mother in law won't have any carer coming to visit her on her essential care package - the government will be telling you that you cannot see a GP for months because they haven't been able to fill the vacancies when their two senior partners retired.
Thanks for the explanation... all quite logical. But if that is the case, why did government pledge, not so long ago, to reduce immigration to under 100,000? Did these job vacancies appear just as Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU? Im pretty sure that prior to that there was no indication that we were desperate for potato diggers, carers and doctors etc
-
Wrong it is demonstrably true.
So lets look over the past 3 year or so. Specifically using the start point when Croatia joined the EU in 2013 - sensible as this means that the overall countries and population of the EU (and therefore potential migrants) is stable.
This is also useful as it coincides rather well with the government push to reduce migration to the tens of thousands. Now if EU migration is uncontrolled, but non EU migration is controlled (in practice) then you'd expect that the government would have curtailed net non EU migration (which is can control) but would have been unable to do anything about EU migration. So that non EU migration would have stabilised or even fallen (under government control) while EU migration would have continued to rise.
Problem is that changes in the two (EU and non EU) net migration pretty well perfectly mirror each other.
So at that point in mid 2013:
Net migration: Non EU - 138k
Net migration: EU - 131k
By 2015 (latest figures) there had been a big increase, but interestingly the increase is actually greater for the (apparently) controlled non EU migration than for the (apparently) uncontrolled EU migration.
So by the end of 2015 non EU net migration had risen by 38% compared to that 2013 figure, EU migration had risen by only 31% in the same timeframe.
So much for controlled vs non controlled.
Sorry, once again to puncture your ill informed dogmatic balloon with actual data and actual evidence. But hey Brexiters aren't really interested in facts and reality.
What is the source of these figures, please? How reliable are they, especially the figure for EU migration? How do we know there aren't more, and what checks are done on people coming into the country that give us the figure (as opposed to visa checks for non-eu folks)?
-
What is the source of these figures, please? How reliable are they, especially the figure for EU migration? How do we know there aren't more, and what checks are done on people coming into the country that give us the figure (as opposed to visa checks for non-eu folks)?
Office for National Statistics - in other words the official figures.
No-one can enter the UK without a passport check.
-
For crying out loud - yes I did - in reply 2023 - to reiterate:
'We can and we do:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/24/britains-deals-with-china-billions-what-do-they-mean
As do many other EU countries. I gather that Germany has been particularly aggressive in penetrating the Indian market and developing a whole range of trade deals.'
That is not a free trade deal.
-
That is not a free trade deal.
So its the wrong kind of trade deal is it. What kind of trade deal fits the bill then Jakswan. This is very clearly a trade deal entered into on a bilateral basis between the UK and China - independently of the EU.
Your question has been answered - tough that you don't like the answer, but that's not my problem.
-
No it is absolutely about numbers.
It really isn't Australia filters who enters the country for those it deems it needs. If we need plumbers then we leave plumbers in, we don't have an open door for low skilled workers from one part of the world and slam the door in the face for those from other parts of the world, everyone should be given equal opportunity.
-
So its the wrong kind of trade deal is it. What kind of trade deal fits the bill then Jakswan. This is very clearly a trade deal entered into on a bilateral basis between the UK and China - independently of the EU.
Your question has been answered - tough that you don't like the answer, but that's not my problem.
The UK is unable to negotiate a trade deal where tariffs are set or relaxed, a free trade deal. Which is why Iceland has a free trade deal with China and we, as part of the EU doesn't.
Have you a link for the Swiss - China deal you mentioned earlier.
-
If the Leavers win and David Cameron gets deposed, I think the Tory Party will collapse. I heard on the news a weaker two ago that some of the pro EU Torys in Parliament will side with the pro EU people from other parties and effectively block any attempt to start the process of leaving which they can do because, excepting party lines, Remain has a big majority in the HoC.
Another possibility is that Boris is only pro Leave because he thinks that is the easiest way to get Cameron's job. Once he's got Cameron's job, he will go to the other EU countries and ask for a better deal and when we get one, he'll decide we should stay in. The Tory Party will still collapse.
As PD says, I think this is big trouble for the Tories no matter which way it goes unless Remain gets a big majority, which we won't.
As I said before we should have a GE fairly soon after the referendum and before 2020. It needs 66% majority in the HoC, and if there is chaos with the Tory party (with all the bitterness that has been spat during the referendum), then there may be a chance it is achieved.
-
You do both get that this is if renegotiating happens after a Leave vote. So you are both wanting any leave vote to be ignored and then be happy with any fall out from that?
We were talking about the collapse of the Tory party.
-
Rupert Murdoch, and George Galloway, and Putin your friends then?
This Putin thing is just stupid because he is not part of the Leave campaign and team or has any stake in Britain or anything else either.
Galloway - Well he is a bit of a loose canon but can come up with some sharp observations and his stance on the EU is of course a far left one.
Murdoch - In his case we'll take all the help we can get. At least this time his press-boys are telling the truth.
-
Dear SweetPea,
Thankyou for your post, my reason for remaining, I am a Christian.
Our Lord suffers no borders, Our Lords laughs at mans plans, Our Lord knows that being a Christian is not the easy path, Our Lord knows that we stand outside prejudice, Our Lord knows that we are all sinners, Our Lord stands above politics, Our Lord knows our place is only to help the down trodden, that is what it means when we take up the Cross, we serve, servants of Christ, we do not serve politicians.
For me as a Christian there is only one vote, remain, we remain to serve, not the politicians but Christ, Christians offer the hand of friendship, Christians turn no one away, no matter creed, colour, religion or sexual orientation, we serve God, how do we serve God, we serve man.
Gonnagle.
That's a wonderful post Gonners, and thank you.... if ever there was a man of God, it is you.
Immigration doesn't faze me particularly apart from the fact that no doubt some terrorists will be donning our shores.
It's the bigger picture, that I've tried to show, that concerns me.
-
Dear SweetPea,
Thankyou for your post, my reason for remaining, I am a Christian.
Our Lord suffers no borders, Our Lords laughs at mans plans, Our Lord knows that being a Christian is not the easy path, Our Lord knows that we stand outside prejudice, Our Lord knows that we are all sinners, Our Lord stands above politics, Our Lord knows our place is only to help the down trodden, that is what it means when we take up the Cross, we serve, servants of Christ, we do not serve politicians.
For me as a Christian there is only one vote, remain, we remain to serve, not the politicians but Christ, Christians offer the hand of friendship, Christians turn no one away, no matter creed, colour, religion or sexual orientation, we serve God, how do we serve God, we serve man.
Gonnagle.
"Our Lords laughs at mans plans"
Then why are you voting for one of the biggest ever plans of mankind then?
"Our Lord stands above politics"
Then why are you voting for one of the biggest political projects ever?
What has the EU got to do with Christ and your faith? They are more like 666.
Your statement is a load of bollocks and you definitely have your brains well and truly stuffed up your podex.
-
Having a referendum is in fact.....a complete crock.....we are in the EU by treaty. Whatever other treaty have we been allowed a referendum on? That's right, no treaty ......for example we will not have a referendum on whether to remain or leave Nato.
If we leave what does that say to others about the UK and treaties and deals?....and that amid all the Brexit nonsense about the ease of making deals.
The fuck up is all David's. I believe the Labour position was to have a referendum on any new powers,
-
I must confess that I had never heard of the Bilderberg group. But Sweet Pea's concern aroused my interest, after all, she has put us right about crop circles, electromagnetic pulses from CERN causing earthquakes and the heinous fraud of the so-called "moon landings". Her ability to detect high-level conspiracy and to give us appropriate warning of the dangers and damage facing us is without parallel on this forum.
Harrowby, if you checkout the moon landings thread, I'm not there. But presumably you think other posters are conspiracy theorists?
So, does it not seem strange to you that you have never heard of the Bilderberg Group, after all they are responsible for the creation and running of the EU? Do you not wonder why you never hear about any of their activities on the news or through other media? Why are such a powerful group of people not more transparent with their plans for the people they govern.... why are no minutes taken at their meetings and thus nothing is recorded or can be verified.... why do MEPs have next to no powers. Stop for a moment and think on these things.
Nearly Sane mentioned Jon Ronson but his stuff is very sensational. I'd say a much better read would be 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group' by Daniel Estulin who studied the EU for 14 years. Far more fact based and well researched.
-
They're so secret there's a full list of participants on their website.
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants.html
-
We were talking about the collapse of the Tory party.
after ignoring a Leave vote. Do keep up!
-
Dear Jacqueline,
What's up Dear, did my little post frighten you, a simple little post from one Christian to another, never mind darlin! go out and buy yourself a new pair of shoe's with matching handbag to cheer yourself up :-*
Podex! how very charming of you :-*
Gonnagle.
-
I see that Lidl currently have an offer on petrol generators. Do they know something that we don't?
I am wondering whether it might be a good investment to purchase one before next Thursday.
-
Harrowby, if you checkout the moon landings thread, I'm not there. But presumably you think other posters are conspiracy theorists?
So, does it not seem strange to you that you have never heard of the Bilderberg Group, after all they are responsible for the creation and running of the EU? Do you not wonder why you never hear about any of their activities on the news or through other media? Why are such a powerful group of people not more transparent with their plans for the people they govern.... why are no minutes taken at their meetings and thus nothing is recorded or can be verified.... why do MEPs have next to no powers. Stop for a moment and think on these things.
Nearly Sane mentioned Jon Ronson but his stuff is very sensational. I'd say a much better read would be 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group' by Daniel Estulin who studied the EU for 14 years. Far more fact based and well researched.
SweetPea, The statue of the pagan goddess Europa riding on the back of a beast, which Zeus transformed himself into to seduce her) outside the EU headquarters is strange. I don't quite know why they have it, or whether the myth means anything in particular, but would be interested in your opinion on this:
"The Lisbon Treaty, which came into full effect on December 1st, basically ended the national sovereignty for most European nations. Most of the important decisions for the citizens of Europe will now be made by a small group of European elitists – many of them totally unelected. But for the global elite, the consolidation of the EU is just one step towards a larger goal. You see, the ultimate desire of these elitists is to merge regional alliances such as the EU into a world government."
https://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/europe-rides-the-beast/
The article seems a bit paranoid, but one does wonder why the woman on a beast is used as a symbol in the various statues, coins and pictures shown in the link, when it has such negative connotations in Revelation.
-
SweetPea, The statue of the pagan goddess Europa riding on the back of a beast, which Zeus transformed himself into to seduce her) outside the EU headquarters is strange. I don't quite know why they have it, or whether the myth means anything in particular, but would be interested in your opinion on this:
"The Lisbon Treaty, which came into full effect on December 1st, basically ended the national sovereignty for most European nations. Most of the important decisions for the citizens of Europe will now be made by a small group of European elitists – many of them totally unelected. But for the global elite, the consolidation of the EU is just one step towards a larger goal. You see, the ultimate desire of these elitists is to merge regional alliances such as the EU into a world government."
https://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/europe-rides-the-beast/
The article seems a bit paranoid, but one does wonder why the woman on a beast is used as a symbol in the various statues, coins and pictures shown in the link, when it has such negative connotations in Revelation.
People take notice of that crazy book at their peril, imo.
-
People take notice of that crazy book at their peril, imo.
FIFY
Any idea why the EU have a woman on a beast as a symbol?
-
FIFY
Any idea why the EU have a woman on a beast as a symbol?
Nothing to do with Revelation that is for sure. That silly book is open to so many crazy interpretations.
-
So its the wrong kind of trade deal is it. What kind of trade deal fits the bill then Jakswan. This is very clearly a trade deal entered into on a bilateral basis between the UK and China - independently of the EU.
Your question has been answered - tough that you don't like the answer, but that's not my problem.
Oh Davey, you are so talking bollocks!!!
There are no deals there it is just companies dealing with companies using the WTO rulings.
-
Having a referendum is in fact.....a complete crock.....we are in the EU by treaty. Whatever other treaty have we been allowed a referendum on? That's right, no treaty ......for example we will not have a referendum on whether to remain or leave Nato.
If we leave what does that say to others about the UK and treaties and deals?....and that amid all the Brexit nonsense about the ease of making deals.
The fuck up is all David's. I believe the Labour position was to have a referendum on any new powers,
NATO is not a political union telling us how to run our affairs and imposing free movement of people on us.
-
after ignoring a Leave vote. Do keep up!
You're getting your knickers in a twist again, NS. It was pretty much any result except for a massive stay one.
-
Dear Jacqueline,
What's up Dear, did my little post frighten you, a simple little post from one Christian to another, never mind darlin! go out and buy yourself a new pair of shoe's with matching handbag to cheer yourself up :-*
Podex! how very charming of you :-*
Gonnagle.
Looks more like my post got to you.
You didn't answer it either because you know you're getting into bed with the devil.
-
You're getting your knickers in a twist again, NS. It was pretty much any result except for a massive stay one.
Jakswan raised the possibility of renegotiating after a Leave vote, that's the point and what was being discussed. The point is that a renegotiation will never happen if there is a Leave vote because the govt would fall if it attempted it. What would happen to Tory party in other circumstances isn't relevant to that discussion.
-
Jakswan raised the possibility of renegotiating after a Leave vote, that's the point and what was being discussed. The point is that a renegotiation will never happen if there is a Leave vote because the govt would fall if it attempted it. What would happen to Tory party in other circumstances isn't relevant to that discussion.
You just made the statement with no reason why. I'd agree there would be a change in leader, and all the scuffles that would entail, but for the government to collapse that is still only a probability and an unknown. So what is your reasoning here?
-
NATO is not a political union telling us how to run our affairs and imposing free movement of people on us.
We signed up to that in treaty. Don't try to turn this country into some kind of victim, that is just a projection....and consider this...if the balloon goes up and we creep towards greater likelihood of that......we will have to go with Nato and give the lives of our sons and daughters.
-
You just made the statement with no reason why. I'd agree there would be a change in leader, and all the scuffles that would entail, but for the government to collapse that is still only a probability and an unknown. So what is your reasoning here?
There has already been enough strife in Tory party to cause it problems no matter what the vote is, as you stated. If Leave were to win and the govt then refused to honour that but instead to renegotiate the membership, many Tories would vote against it, some even in favour of Remain. A number would move to UKIP possibly destroying any majority. The only way the Govt could get a vote in the Commons would be with the support of the opposition parties. They will only get it from Labour. If that were to happen I would suspect you would have challenges to both Cameron and Corbyn which would be successful.
The entirety of the parliament would be spent with guerilla tactics on any renegotiation. The EU would see that it wasn't dealing with any form of United front and have no reason to help. The lack of any change would turn more and more Tories into rebels or UKIP MPs.
That's not even taking account of how people we feel if a Vote Leave is ignored. Any bye elections the Tories will lose and those still in seats will feel more pressure to rebel.
And all of the above is far from a doomsday scenario.
-
We signed up to that in treaty. Don't try to turn this country into some kind of victim, that is just a projection....and consider this...if the balloon goes up and we creep towards greater likelihood of that......we will have to go with Nato and give the lives of our sons and daughters.
It is not whether it is a treaty or not but the content of that treaty that is in question. Come on Vlad you're more intelligent than that to come out with this stupid nonsense.
If its content; NATO's, was not to the British peoples' liking then there would be protests to get us out. Do you see any protest? However, the EU treaties we do see protests against their implications.
-
It is not whether it is a treaty or not but the content of that treaty that is in question. Come on Vlad you're more intelligent than that to come out with this stupid nonsense.
If its content; NATO's, was not to the British peoples' liking then there would be protests to get us out. Do you see any protest? However, the EU treaties we do see protests against their implications.
The protest about the EU is over immigration. A Brexit government which is globalist Conservative will not give you the satisfaction you seek and yes. Nato is not every bodies cup of tea.
Whatever has been delegated to the EU is by treaty which we freely entered into. Your portrayal of Britain as a victim does not chime with all British...although I do detect a hint of Brexiteers after some kind of reckoning with those who oppose them.
Thomas Mair had a vote and he had a referendum which looks like it was going his way. I think we are entitled to ask when and if Brexiteers will ever, as a movement ever be satisfied.
-
There has already been enough strife in Tory party to cause it problems no matter what the vote is, as you stated. If Leave were to win and the govt then refused to honour that but instead to renegotiate the membership, many Tories would vote against it, some even in favour of Remain. A number would move to UKIP possibly destroying any majority. The only way the Govt could get a vote in the Commons would be with the support of the opposition parties. They will only get it from Labour. If that were to happen I would suspect you would have challenges to both Cameron and Corbyn which would be successful.
The entirety of the parliament would be spent with guerilla tactics on any renegotiation. The EU would see that it wasn't dealing with any form of United front and have no reason to help. The lack of any change would turn more and more Tories into rebels or UKIP MPs.
That's not even taking account of how people we feel if a Vote Leave is ignored. Any bye elections the Tories will lose and those still in seats will feel more pressure to rebel.
And all of the above is far from a doomsday scenario.
Sorry, with all the firing on all cylinders here I misconceived the meaning of your original post on the word 'renegotiation'. My mind was on trade deals and what not, and not on refiguring our EU membership. You are right, any attempt to not to fulfil the wishes of a leave vote would set the cats among the pigeons, not only in parliament but in the streets.
-
There has already been enough strife in Tory party to cause it problems no matter what the vote is, as you stated. If Leave were to win and the govt then refused to honour that but instead to renegotiate the membership, many Tories would vote against it, some even in favour of Remain. A number would move to UKIP possibly destroying any majority. The only way the Govt could get a vote in the Commons would be with the support of the opposition parties. They will only get it from Labour. If that were to happen I would suspect you would have challenges to both Cameron and Corbyn which would be successful.
The entirety of the parliament would be spent with guerilla tactics on any renegotiation. The EU would see that it wasn't dealing with any form of United front and have no reason to help. The lack of any change would turn more and more Tories into rebels or UKIP MPs.
That's not even taking account of how people we feel if a Vote Leave is ignored. Any bye elections the Tories will lose and those still in seats will feel more pressure to rebel.
And all of the above is far from a doomsday scenario.
I agree, I don't think that approach would work and it would be deeply dishonest.
I think Cameron would be forced out fairly quickly, but if Boris got in, he might very well back-track and push for a Norway/Switzerland option. I think he is probably pragmatic enough to grab a small success rather than risk a large disaster.
-
The protest about the EU is over immigration. A Brexit government which is globalist Conservative will not give you the satisfaction you seek and yes. Nato is not every bodies cup of tea.
Whatever has been delegated to the EU is by treaty which we freely entered into. Your portrayal of Britain as a victim does not chime with all British...although I do detect a hint of Brexiteers after some kind of reckoning with those who oppose them.
Thomas Mair had a vote and he had a referendum which looks like it was going his way. I think we are entitled to ask when and if Brexiteers will ever, as a movement ever be satisfied.
Immigration is just something that the people can see and easily latch on to. The real issue is democracy and self rule.
This is a long term issue which will out live the short term Tory government matter you raise.
Well yes some, but not many, don't like NATO but most do.
Don't understand your victim reference. We did not freely enter into the treaties. When were the people given a referendum on Maastricht and Lisbon?
There is no such thing as the Brexiteers, people want to leave for a whole host of reasons and are not a coherent group.
-
I agree, I don't think that approach would work and it would be deeply dishonest.
I think Cameron would be forced out fairly quickly, but if Boris got in, he might very well back-track and push for a Norway/Switzerland option. I think he is probably pragmatic enough to grab a small success rather than risk a large disaster.
He would only get the leadership if he promised to support leave in that situation. Were he to go back on that there would be even more strife.
-
Sorry, with all the firing on all cylinders here I misconceived the meaning of your original post on the word 'renegotiation'. My mind was on trade deals and what not, and not on refiguring our EU membership. You are right, any attempt to not to fulfil the wishes of a leave vote would set the cats among the pigeons, not only in parliament but in the streets.
No problem, often easy to get these things wrong
-
He would only get the leadership if he promised to support leave in that situation. Were he to go back on that there would be even more strife.
He's a politician! . . . and anyway, he'd probably have crossed his fingers.
By that point the blades of the fan would be well and truly coated in the brown-stuff, so most of his party would just be looking for a way out.
-
He's a politician! . . . and anyway, he'd probably have crossed his fingers.
By that point the blades of the fan would be well and truly coated in the brown-stuff, so most of his party would just be looking for a way out.
And the way out would be his. Going against a referendum vote would mean they would lose their seats. He would be toast.
-
And the way out would be his. Going against a referendum vote would mean they would lose their seats. He would be toast.
Even the most optimistic Brexiteer concedes that there will be an economic down-turn in the event of an out vote. If that happens a large number of them will be seriously worred about what they have done. It might take a bit of spin, but if the 'golden boy' could offer a solution, I think the majority would buy it.
-
Even the most optimistic Brexiteer concedes that there will be an economic down-turn in the event of an out vote. If that happens a large number of them will be seriously worred about what they have done. It might take a bit of spin, but if the 'golden boy' could offer a solution, I think the majority would buy it.
The sort of change in the economy and then from there a change in the voters, specifically when there has been a democratic vote takes too long. There isn't enough time to do this sort of switch.
-
Immigration is just something that the people can see and easily latch on to. The real issue is democracy and self rule.
Immigration? Have Gove and Johnson, Globalists, committed to ending it? Will Rupert Murdoch be refused entry?
Democracy. Arron Banks wanted to stop an extension for voters registration.
The Guardian has reported intimidation of those displaying Remain stickers.
Thomas Mair is no one off since the police have now taken to warning MP's about their security.
You are right about Brexit being a rainbow coalition of people ranging from those who hope Europe will come back on their knees and grant Britain a divorce and 'Red Hot economic sex' to those who just look two or three weeks ahead and see a nice bit of mayhem through to those who just want to give the establishment a bloody nose ( By lining up with Gove, Johnson and the establishment press ).
Again I ask you....... what will happen to those who will lose their jobs, homes, experience family, break up because of Brexit.
How long will the NHS have to wait for it's 100 million a week?
What does payment over successive parliaments mean?
Why cannot the Leave campaign commit to zero immigration or even give a figure?
And finally don't forget how the last popular uprising in this country went....The petrol protest? Fucking mayhem followed by a collapse when it was realised as a big Phyrric victory.
If UKIP had had any guts....If the Tories had had any Guts they should have declared In and either decisively in or out respectively and we could have voted on that, in the time honoured way in an election where there would have to have been manifestos not fucking fantasy countries. But no because it is the same weasly politics of trying to pull off a diddle.
-
The sort of change in the economy and then from there a change in the voters, specifically when there has been a democratic vote takes too long. There isn't enough time to do this sort of switch.
There would be a crisis, an emergency budget, everyone except the hard-line Brexiteers would be worried verging on panic.
-
There would be a crisis, an emergency budget, everyone except the hard-line Brexiteers would be worried verging on panic.
NS is right. Democracy in action.
-
NS is right. Democracy in action.
I think it would be more a case of sorting out the mess that the democratic decision caused.
-
There would be a crisis, an emergency budget, everyone except the hard-line Brexiteers would be worried verging on panic.
Many of the hard liners are Tories. Going against a referendum vote will cause it's own crisis and yet another emergency. If you go down the route of denying democracy, there will be a breakdown in social cohesion.
-
I think it would be more a case of sorting out the mess that the democratic decision caused.
Mmm posts like that give credibility to some of Jack Knave's ideas on the EU.
-
Has Vlad really used Jo Cox's murder as an argument for stay?
-
Many of the hard liners are Tories. Going against a referendum vote will cause it's own crisis and yet another emergency. If you go down the route of denying democracy, there will be a breakdown in social cohesion.
It wouldn't be going against the referendum - Britain would still leave the EU. Certainly some hard liners would be opposed to a Norway solution but I''d guess that a lot would be happy to have a straw to grasp.
-
It wouldn't be going against the referendum - Britain would still leave the EU. Certainly some hard liners would be opposed to a Norway solution but I''d guess that a lot would be happy to have a straw to grasp.
No renegotiating means staying. It isn't Norway. It means exactly staying in the EU, that's why it won't work
-
No renegotiating means staying. It isn't Norway. It means exactly staying in the EU, that's why it won't work
It's the first time I have heard that POV. In the early days many in the Brexit camp were praising the virtues of a Norway-type deal.
-
It's the first time I have heard that POV. In the early days many in the Brexit camp were praising the virtues of a Norway-type deal.
which is not a renegotiating. Renegotiating is renegotiating our membership. That's what the Re is there for.
-
SweetPea, The statue of the pagan goddess Europa riding on the back of a beast, which Zeus transformed himself into to seduce her) outside the EU headquarters is strange. I don't quite know why they have it, or whether the myth means anything in particular, but would be interested in your opinion on this:
"The Lisbon Treaty, which came into full effect on December 1st, basically ended the national sovereignty for most European nations. Most of the important decisions for the citizens of Europe will now be made by a small group of European elitists – many of them totally unelected. But for the global elite, the consolidation of the EU is just one step towards a larger goal. You see, the ultimate desire of these elitists is to merge regional alliances such as the EU into a world government."
https://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/europe-rides-the-beast/
The article seems a bit paranoid, but one does wonder why the woman on a beast is used as a symbol in the various statues, coins and pictures shown in the link, when it has such negative connotations in Revelation.
Yes, Spud, symbolism is very significant as a form of representation, and the statue of the woman riding the beast outside the EU headquarters is quite telling. They are revealing themselves to the world in a way that is hidden in plain sight, and which could well read as having a connection to Revelation.
It's interesting because many will not recognise what they are looking at, but, for those that do, the message is clear.
-
Yes, Spud, symbolism is very significant as a form of representation, and the statue of the woman riding the beast outside the EU headquarters is quite telling. They are revealing themselves to the world in a way that is hidden in plain sight, and which could well read as having a connection to Revelation.
It's interesting because many will not recognise what they are looking at, but, for those that do, the message is clear.
So tell us all about it.
-
Here's having a go....
The world system as we know it, biblically speaking, is Babylon... and the EU is part of that system. The statue symbolises just that.
So then, God says, "....come out of her, my people..." meaning come out of the corrupt world system (that some refer to as the matrix).... and free yourselves.
-
Here's having a go....
The world system as we know it, biblically speaking, is Babylon... and the EU is part of that system. The statue symbolises just that.
So then, God says, "....come out of her, my people..." meaning come out of the corrupt world system (that some refer to as the matrix).... and free yourselves.
This relates to a statue of Europa in what way?
-
This relates to a statue of Europa in what way?
Or, indeed, real life.
-
Here's having a go....
The world system as we know it, biblically speaking, is Babylon... and the EU is part of that system. The statue symbolises just that.
So then, God says, "....come out of her, my people..." meaning come out of the corrupt world system (that some refer to as the matrix).... and free yourselves.
But The EU is not the world system.
As a parallel The EU is less of a single Europe than the Roman Empire. St Paul makes defence for not overturning that system by exhorting the current social system to stay put and also with exhortations to obey the Rule.
When the fall of Rome does come it is seen by Augustine as a disaster as Rome is taken over by a backward looking Rabble.
However Christianity does affect great change from within and when push comes to shove the church is the thing which remains from a Christianised Rome.
I would be interested to see a Christian theological justification for Brexit but think there is precedence for remain in mainstream Christianity.
In terms of those leading us out of Europe Gove and Johnson. They are globalists.
-
Here's having a go....
The world system as we know it, biblically speaking, is Babylon... and the EU is part of that system. The statue symbolises just that.
So then, God says, "....come out of her, my people..." meaning come out of the corrupt world system (that some refer to as the matrix).... and free yourselves.
'Babylon' is an urban word that means corrupt establishment, generally the police force.
However you say 'Babylon' is a word for the 'world system'
So the statue symbolises the people riding out of the world system, whatever that is, and away from the law?
Nah. The statue is Europa, one posh lady of impeccable lineage and the Phoenician mother of the King of Crete. She was, according to mythology, abducted by Zeus on a white bull.
Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read more into it. It is quite an appropriate symbol for the EU and very attractive.
-
which is not a renegotiating. Renegotiating is renegotiating our membership. That's what the Re is there for.
I'm not sure what you are talking about NS.
The referendum will give us two choices: IN or OUT. If the electorate is stupid enough to vote for OUT, it will the duty of the government (whoever that might be at that point) to sort out the mess that will inevitably follow.
Of course hard-line Brexiteers do not want any kind of agreement with the EU - but there will be nothing on the ballot slip to that effect. If less reckless government choose to negotiate a Norway type deal that would be quite reasonable and perfectly democratic.
-
I'm not sure what you are talking about NS.
The referendum will give us two choices: IN or OUT. If the electorate is stupid enough to vote for OUT, it will the duty of the government (whoever that might be at that point) to sort out the mess that will inevitably follow.
Of course hard-line Brexiteers do not want any kind of agreement with the EU - but there will be nothing on the ballot slip to that effect. If less reckless government choose to negotiate a Norway type deal that would be quite reasonable and perfectly democratic.
Yep Cameron should have set forward the range of options on the ballot paper since he stupidly chose a referendum in the first place.
Another example of Drombey power getting something dumbed down.
-
I'm not sure what you are talking about NS.
The referendum will give us two choices: IN or OUT. If the electorate is stupid enough to vote for OUT, it will the duty of the government (whoever that might be at that point) to sort out the mess that will inevitably follow.
Of course hard-line Brexiteers do not want any kind of agreement with the EU - but there will be nothing on the ballot slip to that effect. If less reckless government choose to negotiate a Norway type deal that would be quite reasonable and perfectly democratic.
There is nothing stopping the EU offering reforms and this then being put in another referendum. It is exactly what has happened with regard to treaties.
-
There is nothing stopping the EU offering reforms and this then being put in another referendum. It is exactly what has happened with regard to treaties.
Why would the EU offer reforms for a non member?
-
There is nothing stopping the EU offering reforms and this then being put in another referendum. It is exactly what has happened with regard to treaties.
The only problem would be the fact that we would just have had a referendum that tied the government to leaving the EU. It would be difficult in the extreme for anyone to fudge around that. A Norway type deal on the other hand would be an option.
-
By which time the press would rule the UK with the PM and chancellor being journalists and the establishment papers with their proven ability to control.
-
Brexiting is narrow self interest or a delusion.
No one I their right mind opts for unemployment, only those who gain personally might have a motivation and personal gain is not patriotism, To pretend or believe that the UK is an occupied country is sheer fantasy.
To believe that the Brexit leader Gove is nothing but a centralist and is interested in sharing control is a delusion.
-
I'm not sure what you are talking about NS.
The referendum will give us two choices: IN or OUT. If the electorate is stupid enough to vote for OUT, it will the duty of the government (whoever that might be at that point) to sort out the mess that will inevitably follow.
Of course hard-line Brexiteers do not want any kind of agreement with the EU - but there will be nothing on the ballot slip to that effect. If less reckless government choose to negotiate a Norway type deal that would be quite reasonable and perfectly democratic.
Yes, I know that it jakswan has raised the possibility of a renegotiation of the treaty in the result of a leave vote. I have been explaining why I think that won't happen. Note it's something that Johnson floated quite early in the campaign
-
There is nothing stopping the EU offering reforms and this then being put in another referendum. It is exactly what has happened with regard to treaties.
please god not another fucking referendum.
-
Here's having a go....
The world system as we know it, biblically speaking, is Babylon... and the EU is part of that system. The statue symbolises just that.
So then, God says, "....come out of her, my people..." meaning come out of the corrupt world system (that some refer to as the matrix).... and free yourselves.
You know? I don't think that Sass will be missed during her 28 day period of transportation to the colonies ....
-
Yes, I know that it jakswan has raised the possibility of a renegotiation of the treaty in the result of a leave vote. I have been explaining why I think that won't happen. Note it's something that Johnson floated quite early in the campaign
I suppose it's not impossible, but if any politician tried to overtly overturn the democratic referendum it would a very hazardous path in so many ways. Not even Boris could be that stupid (could he?). I don't see that happening.
-
I suppose it's not impossible, but if any politician tried to overtly overturn the democratic referendum it would a very hazardous path in so many ways. Not even Boris could be that stupid (could he?). I don't see that happening.
No, I don't see it happening either which is the whole point i'ce been making.
-
No, I don't see it happening either which is the whole point i'ce been making.
But a Norway-type deal is another matter.
-
But a Norway-type deal is another matter.
And wasn't what jakswan was talking about
-
And wasn't what jakswan was talking about
No, it was what I was talking about :)
-
Brexiting is narrow self interest or a delusion.
No one I their right mind opts for unemployment, only those who gain personally might have a motivation and personal gain is not patriotism, To pretend or believe that the UK is an occupied country is sheer fantasy.
To believe that the Brexit leader Gove is nothing but a centralist and is interested in sharing control is a delusion.
This stereotyping and attempt to portray those voting Leave as somehow morally questionable just because they will vote leave is monumental Irony. That you have previously used the murder of Jo Cox as some implicit threat and comment on those who voted leave was disgusting and a besmirchment on her.
-
please god not another fucking referendum.
Well if the reforms were good enough to convince the likes of John Mann, Gove and Johnson, etc it will be less toxic than the current one.
It might heal some divisions in the Tory party, the EU is not going to just stick two fingers up I'm convinced they will try to do a deal, despite Daveys assertions to the contrary we know him and other Bremainers will want a remain deal.
As I've said anyone who to stay in a reformed EU, vote leave, the EU will offer reforms for us to stay, if they don't they will not reform.
-
This stereotyping and attempt to portray those voting Leave as somehow morally questionable just because they will vote leave is monumental Irony. That you have previously used the murder of Jo Cox as some implicit threat and comment on those who voted leave was disgusting and a besmirchment on her.
I think there of a great deal of dishonesty in the Brexit camp, in that they persistently do 'not tell the whole truth'.
While it is possible that Brexit could eventually lead to a prosperous future, the route would not be an easy one and there would be a lot of short-term pain, but whenever credible people point this out their predictions are just dismissed as 'Project Fear' without counter arguments.
-
I think there of a great deal of dishonesty in the Brexit camp, in that they persistently do 'not tell the whole truth'.
While it is possible that Brexit could eventually lead to a prosperous future, the route would not be an easy one and there would be a lot of short-term pain, but whenever credible people point this out their predictions are just dismissed as 'Project Fear' without counter arguments.
And this is related to Vlad's use of Jo Cox's murder how?
-
Well if the reforms were good enough to convince the likes of John Mann, Gove and Johnson, etc it will be less toxic than the current one.
It might heal some divisions in the Tory party, the EU is not going to just stick two fingers up I'm convinced they will try to do a deal, despite Daveys assertions to the contrary we know him and other Bremainers will want a remain deal.
As I've said anyone who to stay in a reformed EU, vote leave, the EU will offer reforms for us to stay, if they don't they will not reform.
You really think that that referendum which is based on ignoring the vote in this one is going to be less toxic?
-
Well if the reforms were good enough to convince the likes of John Mann, Gove and Johnson, etc it will be less toxic than the current one.
The EU could never offer terms that would satisfy Gove, he is an ideologue. Johnson is more pragmatic and he would be desperately looking for a way out of the mess, but would he dare to challenge the democratic referendum result? A Norway deal would be his only sensible option.
And I don't somehow thing that John Mann will be part of the decision-making process.
-
'Babylon' is an urban word that means corrupt establishment, generally the police force.
However you say 'Babylon' is a word for the 'world system'
So the statue symbolises the people riding out of the world system, whatever that is, and away from the law?
Nah. The statue is Europa, one posh lady of impeccable lineage and the Phoenician mother of the King of Crete. She was, according to mythology, abducted by Zeus on a white bull.
Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read more into it. It is quite an appropriate symbol for the EU and very attractive.
Is it any worse than noting that Christians chose for their symbol an instrument of torture and death?
-
The EU could never offer terms that would satisfy Gove, he is an ideologue. Johnson is more pragmatic and he would be desperately looking for a way out of the mess, but would he dare to challenge the democratic referendum result? A Norway deal would be his only sensible option.
And I don't somehow thing that John Mann will be part of the decision-making process.
pragmatic, that's an interesting word for lying self obsessed dangerous wanker
-
Is it any worse than noting that Christians chose for their symbol an instrument of torture and death?
How does this relate to Brownie's post?
-
How does this relate to Brownie's post?
SweetPea claimed that the statue of Europa has unpleasant symbolism in her view. Brownie was raging against it and I was reinforcing his point.
It seemed pretty obvious to me.
-
And this is related to Vlad's use of Jo Cox's murder how?
"This stereotyping and attempt to portray those voting Leave as somehow morally questionable"
I was illustrating that there is some basis for questioning the morality of the leave campaign.
-
pragmatic, that's an interesting word for lying self obsessed dangerous wanker
Sadly a Brexit vote could see that 'self obsessed dangerous wanker' as PM :o
-
"This stereotyping and attempt to portray those voting Leave as somehow morally questionable"
I was illustrating that there is some basis for questioning the morality of the leave campaign.
And again this is relevant to Vlad's use of Jo Cox's murder in what way?
-
Sadly a Brexit vote could see that 'self obsessed dangerous wanker' as PM :o
Never in a million years.
-
And again this is relevant to Vlad's use of Jo Cox's murder in what way?
Who cares? This is a thread about the Brexit vote, not Jo Cox's murder.
-
SweetPea claimed that the statue of Europa has unpleasant symbolism in her view. Brownie was raging against it and I was reinforcing his point.
It seemed pretty obvious to me.
How is anything about another group of people reinforcing the point?
-
Who cares? This is a thread about the Brexit vote, not Jo Cox's murder.
which Vlad cited as some sort of argument for Stay.
-
Never in a million years.
He is currently favourite at 5/2
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1199760
-
pragmatic, that's an interesting word for lying self obsessed dangerous wanker
I regret posting this, just another illustration of the coarsening of debate. I'd delete it but I think it better to leave it as an example to myself
-
I regret posting this, just another illustration of the coarsening of debate. I'd delete it but I think it better to leave it as an example to myself
Probably wise, you could be risking prosecution under the official secrets act.
-
This stereotyping and attempt to portray those voting Leave as somehow morally questionable just because they will vote leave is monumental Irony. That you have previously used the murder of Jo Cox as some implicit threat and comment on those who voted leave was disgusting and a besmirchment on her.
I imply the honest patriot Brexitter, but I also suggest those who have self interest trying to dupe the simple minded patriot....not sophisticated patriot....into a deluded view of Britain's status.
So where as some may have some self interest others are deluded imho.
I am still waiting for the Brexit strategy from those who want it.
You write from a place where the majority want the EU.
I write from a place once eyed by Farage as a possible winnable seat with long standing xenophobic and Europhobic leanings and have been exposed to the 'pub' mutterings.....
Why did the police urge extra vigilance at politicians surgeries and why did some close the day after on that advice?
-
Ominous header in the International New York Times.
''What will Britain have left if it leaves the EU?''
-
Interesting article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/eu-referendum-brexit-britain-in-2025-if-we-leave-eu-a7069476.html
Obviously quite 'tongue in cheek' but contains many elements that are only too real.
-
You really think that that referendum which is based on ignoring the vote in this one is going to be less toxic?
Yes Farage will still be for out but he would be marginalised.
-
The EU could never offer terms that would satisfy Gove, he is an ideologue. Johnson is more pragmatic and he would be desperately looking for a way out of the mess, but would he dare to challenge the democratic referendum result? A Norway deal would be his only sensible option.
Another referendum would challenge the earlier one.
And I don't somehow thing that John Mann will be part of the decision-making process.
He would be part of the debate.
-
He is currently favourite at 5/2
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1199760
Blimey do people still use bookies.
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.101193124
-
Blimey do people still use bookies.
www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.101193124
Google seems to rank them higher
-
Another referendum would challenge the earlier one.
Do you seriously think anyone wants another sodding referendum?
-
Dear Lapsed,
Hell yes!! :D :D
With 1.3 million UK nationals having left for Scotland, and another four million hoping to follow them, for once he spoke the plain truth. Referring to this influx in her Hogmanay address, Prime Minister Sturgeon paid mischievous homage to the outgoing US President by floating the idea of building a “wee wall, twice the length and height of Hadrian’s, to keep the English out”.
When it all goes pear shaped us Scots will welcome the English huddled masses with open arms, one proviso, you cannot wear the kilt until you taken the Jock test, this will include listening to Sydney Devine songs which will indoctrinate you into the sarcastic mindset of us Scots. :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Hell yes!! :D :D
When it all goes pear shaped us Scots will welcome the English huddled masses with open arms, one proviso, you cannot wear the kilt until you taken the Jock test, this will include listening to Sydney Devine songs which will indoctrinate you into the sarcastic mindset of us Scots. :P
Gonnagle.
I thought the Jock test was if you put your hand up his Kilt and come across a quarter pounder .....then he's a MacDonald.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Hell yes!! :D :D
When it all goes pear shaped us Scots will welcome the English huddled masses with open arms, one proviso, you cannot wear the kilt until you taken the Jock test, this will include listening to Sydney Devine songs which will indoctrinate you into the sarcastic mindset of us Scots. :P
Gonnagle.
No, the Scots can't brew decent beer and there are those appalling bagpipes and that climate, I think I'll be off somewhere further South.
-
Do you seriously think anyone wants another sodding referendum?
If we vote leave I have complete confidence you will be begging for one. :)
-
Vlad
I'd just like you to know that ihn this thread I am reading all your posts! :) It's nice to agree with you, so thank you!
Edited to add a missed out 'r'.
-
If we vote leave I have complete confidence you will be begging for one. :)
If we voted to leave, yes, I don't think it would take long before most people were regretting their decision, but it would not be so easy just to reverse things. For one thing there will be some ideologues in the government who would want to see the project through to the bitter end, and a humiliating U turn wouldn't appeal to anyone.
-
If we voted to leave, yes, I don't think it would take long before most people were regretting their decision, but it would not be so easy just to reverse things. For one thing there will be some ideologues in the government who would want to see the project through to the bitter end, and a humiliating U turn wouldn't appeal to anyone.
No U turns needed, after a Brexit vote the EU will offer the UK reforms, the EU will have broader appeal and another referendum will follow. Just as they do with treaties that voted down, e.g. Denmark and the Maastricht Treaty.
-
No U turns needed, after a Brexit vote the EU will offer the UK reforms, the EU will have broader appeal and another referendum will follow. Just as they do with treaties that voted down, e.g. Denmark and the Maastricht Treaty.
It's a u turn on the vote. It means that any referendums in future will be seen as meaningless. It will split the Tory party, bring down the govt.
-
No U turns needed, after a Brexit vote the EU will offer the UK reforms, the EU will have broader appeal and another referendum will follow. Just as they do with treaties that voted down, e.g. Denmark and the Maastricht Treaty.
That can't happen! - if they offered the kind of 'dream deal' to Britain that the Brexiteers are demanding, it would be the end of the EU.
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
-
That can't happen! - if they offered the kind of 'dream deal' to Britain that the Brexiteers are demanding, it would be the end of the EU.
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
In addition any such deal would need referendums in some countries.
-
How is anything about another group of people reinforcing the point?
I think you'll find the morality of the Leave Campaign was being questioned, not people who vote Leave.
I would certainly question the morality of the Leave Campaign, it seems like an orchestrated attempt to lie to the British people. That doesn't make all Leave voters immoral or even all Leave campaigners, but the campaign is immoral in its conduct as far as I can see.
-
Do you seriously think anyone wants another sodding referendum?
This is already "another sodding referendum".
Anyway, the answer is yes. Personally, I could see the following scenario as being feasible.
The Leavers win
Boris Johnson takes over as PM
The Europeans offer us a better deal if we change our minds
Boris calls a new referendum on the terms of the better deal.
If you want to argue that we shouldn't have another referendum even with a changed situation because democracy, I can point out several precedents including this one (referendum on EEC in the 70's). Also, the Irish once had a vote and rejected one of the EU treaties and were made to vote again to get the right answer. Also, if we vote leave but the Scots as a region vote stay, we will see another Scottish independence referendum.
-
If we vote leave I have complete confidence you will be begging for one. :)
True. After everybody realises what a fucking stupid mistake leaving is and how everything the leave campaign said was a lie, we'll all be begging for one.
-
That can't happen! - if they offered the kind of 'dream deal' to Britain that the Brexiteers are demanding, it would be the end of the EU.
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
There are some that have the view that its the end of the EU if Brexit.
-
In addition any such deal would need referendums in some countries.
Would it did the same apply to Denmark?
-
This is already "another sodding referendum".
Anyway, the answer is yes. Personally, I could see the following scenario as being feasible.
The Leavers win
Boris Johnson takes over as PM
The Europeans offer us a better deal if we change our minds
Boris calls a new referendum on the terms of the better deal.
If you want to argue that we shouldn't have another referendum even with a changed situation because democracy, I can point out several precedents including this one (referendum on EEC in the 70's). Also, the Irish once had a vote and rejected one of the EU treaties and were made to vote again to get the right answer. Also, if we vote leave but the Scots as a region vote stay, we will see another Scottish independence referendum.
Wow a post I almost agree with.
-
This is already "another sodding referendum".
Anyway, the answer is yes. Personally, I could see the following scenario as being feasible.
The Leavers win
Boris Johnson takes over as PM
The Europeans offer us a better deal if we change our minds
Boris calls a new referendum on the terms of the better deal.
If you want to argue that we shouldn't have another referendum even with a changed situation because democracy, I can point out several precedents including this one (referendum on EEC in the 70's). Also, the Irish once had a vote and rejected one of the EU treaties and were made to vote again to get the right answer. Also, if we vote leave but the Scots as a region vote stay, we will see another Scottish independence referendum.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have one, I just don't think it would be quite so simple as it would involve quite a lot of U turning and humiliating 'climb-downs'. And I don't see that the EU would ever be in a position to meet the demands of the Brexiteers, so any offer would fall short of a lot of peoples expectations.
-
I think you'll find the morality of the Leave Campaign was being questioned, not people who vote Leave.
I would certainly question the morality of the Leave Campaign, it seems like an orchestrated attempt to lie to the British people. That doesn't make all Leave voters immoral or even all Leave campaigners, but the campaign is immoral in its conduct as far as I can see.
think this relates to the other discussion. Not the mad one about Europa that my reply was related to?
-
Would it did the same apply to Denmark?
If there is going to be anything substantial on freedom of movement, I think other referendums would be triggered.
-
This is already "another sodding referendum".
Anyway, the answer is yes. Personally, I could see the following scenario as being feasible.
The Leavers win
Boris Johnson takes over as PM
The Europeans offer us a better deal if we change our minds
Boris calls a new referendum on the terms of the better deal.
If you want to argue that we shouldn't have another referendum even with a changed situation because democracy, I can point out several precedents including this one (referendum on EEC in the 70's). Also, the Irish once had a vote and rejected one of the EU treaties and were made to vote again to get the right answer. Also, if we vote leave but the Scots as a region vote stay, we will see another Scottish independence referendum.
There is a big difference in having a referendum 40 odd years after the EEC one, on what has changed hugely in that time and another one in a couple of years. Boris will only get to be PM if he promises many Tories to honour the Vote. Any deal with Europe would set off another leadership challenge, probably by Gove.
This has been too serious, too divisive and is a much bigger decision than the Irish example.
Also I am not convinced about the Scottish referendum, certainly not in the short term. Polls indicate a majority opposed to the idea of another referendum in the result of a UK leave, Scotland stay
Nicola won't call one unless there is a long period of polls showing Yes in front.
-
Also I am not convinced about the Scottish referendum, certainly not in the short term. Polls indicate a majority opposed to the idea of another referendum in the result of a UK leave, Scotland stay
Nicola won't call one unless there is a long period of polls showing Yes in front.
If the UK voted for OUT and a regional breakdown shows that Scotland solidly voted IN, I thing Nicola would have a very strong case to demand a re-run of the Scottish referendum.
-
My prediction for a leave vote.
If we leave and it goes well, the masses will not benefit.
If we leave and it goes badly, the masses will pay.
-
If we leave the markets will go crazy and the speculators with be raking it in - ultimately at our expense.
-
If the UK voted for OUT and a regional breakdown shows that Scotland solidly voted IN, I thing Nicola would have a very strong case to demand a re-run of the Scottish referendum.
And she will be under a great deal of pressure from some in her party but unless she is sure of a win, she won't call one.
-
If there is going to be anything substantial on freedom of movement, I think other referendums would be triggered.
Link to evidence please?
-
And she will be under a great deal of pressure from some in her party but unless she is sure of a win, she won't call one.
Agree if she loses another that will be it for a generation, no really this time.
-
And she will be under a great deal of pressure from some in her party but unless she is sure of a win, she won't call one.
With the price of Brent crude not likely to recover to $100/barrel for years, if ever, she'd be off her head to do so. Unless she's going to throw out every financial pledge Salmond ever made.
-
Wow a post I almost agree with.
As long as you understand that voting Leave because you want to play that strategy is a highly dangerous game of chicken.
-
Again I ask you....... what will happen to those who will lose their jobs, homes, experience family, break up because of Brexit.
How long will the NHS have to wait for it's 100 million a week?
Why cannot the Leave campaign commit to zero immigration or even give a figure?
And finally don't forget how the last popular uprising in this country went....The petrol protest? Fucking mayhem followed by a collapse when it was realised as a big Phyrric victory.
You have proof that that will happen?
They are just saying where some of the money could be spent if we leave. They aren't in power and so can't enact it.
The immigration issue is about control, so we allow in those we need. Hopefully we'd do all we can to produce our own home grown skills.
I left that in as I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you could explain. The referendum isn't a protest.
-
Yep Cameron should have set forward the range of options on the ballot paper since he stupidly chose a referendum in the first place.
Another example of Drombey power getting something dumbed down.
That is the full range : Stay or Leave.
-
No U turns needed, after a Brexit vote the EU will offer the UK reforms, the EU will have broader appeal and another referendum will follow. Just as they do with treaties that voted down, e.g. Denmark and the Maastricht Treaty.
Who, in government or what ever, is going to suggest we have another referendum?
-
That is the full range : Stay or Leave.
Yes and what happens when we leave.....and have you any proof for THAT?
-
Wow a post I almost agree with.
Except it's bollocks, as explained by NS.
-
You have proof that that will happen?
Don't you think those people aren't still around?........It was only 16 years ago after all.
-
If the UK voted for OUT and a regional breakdown shows that Scotland solidly voted IN, I thing Nicola would have a very strong case to demand a re-run of the Scottish referendum.
That would prove nothing because the SNP's position on the Scot-Ref was on a strong oil price. Most Scots would shy away from going independent.
-
If we leave the markets will go crazy and the speculators with be raking it in - ultimately at our expense.
As I've said before if we go down the EU does as well and then the globe.
-
Don't you think those people aren't still around?........It was only 16 years ago after all.
What the hell are you talking about? My question was about your assertion about future events.
-
What the hell are you talking about? My question was about your assertion about future events.
Well Hey, it looks as though I've thought about future consequences
of a brexit....It would have been good if the Leave campaign had.
-
Yes and what happens when we leave.....and have you any proof for THAT?
Leave should mean leave. What the Tories do with it is another matter.
-
Leave should mean leave. What the Tories do with it is another matter.
Not really since what they do will be as a consequence of, er, leaving.
What do you think should /will happen?
-
Well Hey, it looks as though I've thought about future consequences
of a brexit....It would have been good if the Leave campaign had.
Non of the leavers are in government (yet) and the official leave campaign are a little wet, and doesn't include Farage & co. Farage and UKIP are the real Leavers and it's their account which should be the official leave scenario.
-
Not really since what they do will be as a consequence of, er, leaving.
What do you think should /will happen?
My point was that because the Tories are in power what ever the result is the ball will be in their hands - that's just the way things are.
If we vote leave then we should apply article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and make a new arrangement with the EU as an independent country. This would give us 2 years to ease into our new situation. We could just nullify the 1972 EEC Act and go on to WTO rules but that could be a bit bumpy. My preferred option would be to amend the 1972 Act so that we immediately stop the undesirable aspects, such as free movement and so on and then negotiate the rest in the next two years.
-
Non of the leavers are in government (yet) and the official leave campaign are a little wet, and doesn't include Farage & co. Farage and UKIP are the real Leavers and it's their account which should be the official leave scenario.
But, Grayling, Patel and Gove are government ministers.
Real leavers? you either are or you aren't Jack, that's the way things are.
So there are at least two classes of leavers then. That doesn't bode well.
-
As I've said before if we go down the EU does as well and then the globe.
No that is absolutely wrong Jack. The EU, with all it's faults is a force for stability. Speculators make their money from instability - exactly the conditions that you and your chums are likely to create for many years if you win the referendum.
And where does all this money come from you might ask? . . . Ultimately right out of our pockets !
-
Non of the leavers are in government (yet) and the official leave campaign are a little wet, and doesn't include Farage & co. Farage and UKIP are the real Leavers and it's their account which should be the official leave scenario.
I don't see how since they only have 1 MP and are not in Government.
-
But, Grayling, Patel and Gove are government ministers.
Real leavers? you either are or you aren't Jack, that's the way things are.
So there are at least two classes of leavers then. That doesn't bode well.
But it is Cameron's government at the moment and they can't talk as though they can just go in carryout some manifesto plan. All they can do is say what could be done.
Don't follow your second line.
As I said the Tories are in government we can't change that fact overnight. Neither can we change what some see as leaving - that's life!!!
-
No that is absolutely wrong Jack. The EU, with all it's faults is a force for stability. Speculators make their money from instability - exactly the conditions that you and your chums are likely to create for many years if you win the referendum.
And where does all this money come from you might ask? . . . Ultimately right out of our pockets !
The EU won't get our membership fee so the others, who are in massive debt will have to pay more. They will not get our 60 billion trade if they refuse us a deal - the EU is stagnating and losing its share of world GDP year on year. The EZ is a basket case and many within the EU are not happy with it and want change. The cards would staked against them and they would crack up. If the EU does then the global market will too.
They, the world, have no choice but to be nice to us.
-
But it is Cameron's government at the moment and they can't talk as though they can just go in carryout some manifesto plan. All they can do is say what could be done.
Don't follow your second line.
As I said the Tories are in government we can't change that fact overnight. Neither can we change what some see as leaving - that's life!!!
An OUT vote could well result in a 'perfect storm' where we have an increasingly unpopular Tory government who are doing all the wrong things for the economy, and Corbyns Labour party who are perceived as being even worse!
What a choice!
-
I don't see how since they only have 1 MP and are not in Government.
I wasn't saying they could because of the situation of the parliament make up, all I was saying was that UKIP are proposing what should be done, all things being equal.
-
An OUT vote could well result in a 'perfect storm' where we have an increasingly unpopular Tory government who are doing all the wrong things for the economy, and Corbyns Labour party who are perceived as being even worse!
What a choice!
Yes, a perfect storm for UKIP to take power as the people lose faith in the two Westminster bubble parties!!! ;D
-
The EU won't get our membership fee so the others, who are in massive debt will have to pay more. They will not get our 60 billion trade if they refuse us a deal - the EU is stagnating and losing its share of world GDP year on year. The EZ is a basket case and many within the EU are not happy with it and want change. The cards would staked against them and they would crack up. If the EU does then the global market will too.
They, the world, have no choice but to be nice to us.
If immigration treaties are suspended by the UK then the EU has no further need to stop immigration of Non EU nationals from France. Last year the brief and low scale disturbances with the tunnel led to loss to the Kent economy......We can imagine what a retaliatory suspension of border control would be.
saying that the world has no choice but be nice sounds a bit James Bond to me.
They only have to start to be a bit tit for tat to create problems.
The precedent question is therefore. How much was lost to the British economy during Operation Stack and how much was lost to the French economy?
-
The EU won't get our membership fee so the others, who are in massive debt will have to pay more. They will not get our 60 billion trade if they refuse us a deal - the EU is stagnating and losing its share of world GDP year on year. The EZ is a basket case and many within the EU are not happy with it and want change. The cards would staked against them and they would crack up. If the EU does then the global market will too.
They, the world, have no choice but to be nice to us.
If you had listened to those 'More or less' broadcasts you would realise that:
A/ There will be no massive 'windfall' from ending our EU subscription.
B/ The size of that payment is small compared to the benefits of membership.
The EU market is still one of the largest and most important in the world, we can't afford to turn our back on it!
The world is not going to come rushing to our rescue if we get ourselves in deep shit.
-
Yes, a perfect storm for UKIP to take power as the people lose faith in the two Westminster bubble parties!!! ;D
Twirls moustache..........................
-
Yes, a perfect storm for UKIP to take power as the people lose faith in the two Westminster bubble parties!!! ;D
In that scenario, UKIP would be seen as a major part of the problem - the only ones who might come out 'smelling of roses' would be the Lib Dems.
-
Yes, a perfect storm for UKIP to take power as the people lose faith in the two Westminster bubble parties!!! ;D
Meanwhile, for viewers in Scotland.............Ha Ha Ha.
-
Meanwhile, for viewers in Scotland.............Ha Ha Ha.
Yep - it is quite puzzling to some of us here in Scotland that UKIP seem to be taken seriously at all elsewhere in the UK.
They did stunningly well in the recent Holyrood election here in contesting the Regional seats, polling a massive 2% of the votes cast and winning a staggering no seats at all.
-
Yep - it is quite puzzling to some of us here in Scotland that UKIP seem to be taken seriously at all elsewhere in the UK.
I've always found it strange that people could take such an obvious bunch of clowns seriously - maybe it is a symptom of a serious problem in our educational system?
-
I've always found it strange that people could take such an obvious bunch of clowns seriously - maybe it is a symptom of a serious problem in our educational system?
Yes......The effect of the removal of pedagogical freedoms from teachers and the loss of the Lefty teacher.
-
Yes......The effect of the removal of pedagogical freedoms from teachers and the loss of the Lefty teacher.
No, I think it was probably when they stopped doing metalwork. That kind of hands-on stuff taught you to spot bullshit a mile off.
-
There is a big difference in having a referendum 40 odd years after the EEC one, on what has changed hugely in that time and another one in a couple of years.
Either change legitimises a new referendum or it does not. Given the right concessions from the EU, a new prime minister could justify a new referendum.
Boris will only get to be PM if he promises many Tories to honour the Vote. Any deal with Europe would set off another leadership challenge, probably by Gove.
That maybe, but it is still just speculation. I don't say my scenario is likely but it could happen.
This has been too serious, too divisive and is a much bigger decision than the Irish example.
But that doesn't mean a second referendum couldn't happen.
Also I am not convinced about the Scottish referendum, certainly not in the short term. Polls indicate a majority opposed to the idea of another referendum in the result of a UK leave, Scotland stay
Nicola won't call one unless there is a long period of polls showing Yes in front.
I agree that there will not be another referendum in Scotland unless the Independence vote is certain to win, but if we vote out and the majority of Scots vote in, I think the certainty is there.
In the scenario where Britain votes leave but Scotland votes remain by More than about 60%, I'd put money on a new Scottish referendum within five years.
-
Link to evidence please?
He doesn't need evidence, he said "I think" which means it is an opinion.
-
Odds moved further to stay, now 5\2 on
-
Gove takes the piss.
Asking people to vote for democracy.
If you've got a vote you've got democracy...................
-
Either change legitimises a new referendum or it does not. Given the right concessions from the EU, a new prime minister could justify a new referendum.
...
Well, what are the right concessions? Who in the EU is going to offer them? Angela?
To get any significant reform these need to be drafted, agreed by the reformers and a massive consensus in the EU countries built up to support them and start treaty change.
If we are talking about exemptions to existing treaties just for the UK then this is easier, but still requires the UK to get agreement from the heads of government of all of the other countries, each of which have their own list they would want supported in exchange. Negotiating this is an activity that Cameron, at least, has proved inept at. Would Johnson, Gove or even Corbyn do any better? Or maybe we rely on Donald Tusk to be able to convince the other leaders that they can't manage without the UK?
-
More on Gove on democracy
Gove introduced 8 regional schools commissioners answerable to him above local control.
Conservatives proposed removal of local management of schools.
Gove suddenly a friend of democracy and NHS.
-
More on Gove on democracy
Gove introduced 8 regional schools commissioners answerable to him above local control.
Conservatives proposed removal of local management of schools.
Gove suddenly a friend of democracy and NHS.
Gove is an idiot he wrecked the education system!
-
Gove is an idiot he wrecked the education system!
Metrics?
-
Metrics?
The number of teachers leaving the profession.
The number of trainees not following up teacher training.
Teacher shortages in key subjects.
The number of teachers leaving within 5 years.
The number of days lost due to industrial action on his watch.
The amount of accredited courses.
The number of vocational oriented courses which count as education.
-
Either change legitimises a new referendum or it does not. Given the right concessions from the EU, a new prime minister could justify a new referendum.
That maybe, but it is still just speculation. I don't say my scenario is likely but it could happen.
But that doesn't mean a second referendum couldn't happen.
Of course, it's speculation but what we are talking about is likelihood. The justification for another referendum will not feel the same as your EEC example because of the time difference. They are only superficially analogous. That a second referendum could happen is not the issue, it's the whole question of what is likely.
I agree that there will not be another referendum in Scotland unless the Independence vote is certain to win, but if we vote out and the majority of Scots vote in, I think the certainty is there.
In the scenario where Britain votes leave but Scotland votes remain by More than about 60%, I'd put money on a new Scottish referendum within five years.
I really don't get where you can use a term certainty here. There is enough ambivalent statements coming out of the SNP about this to cause at least some doubt. Recently Humza Yousaf made comments casting doubt on a second referendum, and link below is to a Marco Biagi article outlining why.
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/marco-biagi-holding-second-indyref-after-brexit-would-risk-throwing-the-independence-campaign-into-disarray.18905
-
He doesn't need evidence, he said "I think" which means it is an opinion.
though I could certainly be asked for reasons. As I see it any deal would have to involve something significant in terms of freedom of movement, it sermshighly unlikely that this would be seen simply as an exemption to treaties for the UK since it is by nature a mutual treaty with the other countries. In that case that would trigger the need for referendums in certain countries.
-
Except it's bollocks, as explained by NS.
ERM, thanks, I think but it's not really what I was attempting to do. I'm having a perfectly reasonable discussion with Jeremypx I think he's incorrect in his view that there is any significant possibility of a renegotiation referendum but we are both just offering opinions.
-
Of course, it's speculation but what we are talking about is likelihood.
No, the word I used was "feasible" not "probable". I also said that anybody voting Leave in order to bring about my scenario is playing a very dangerous game of chicken. The reason I said that is because the likelihood is that a vote to Leave will result in us leaving the EU.
The justification for another referendum will not feel the same as your EEC example
You missed the point. My EEC example was just that: an example to show that referendums are not absolute for all time.
I really don't get where you can use a term certainty here.
Because, in my opinion, in the scenario I suggested, I think the shift in favour of Scottish independence would make the referendum result a certainty or at least certain enough for Sturgeon to be confident of winning. I'm dead against Scottish independence, but if we vote leave even I'd be urging the Scots to at least save themselves
-
No, the word I used was "feasible" not "probable". I also said that anybody voting Leave in order to bring about my scenario is playing a very dangerous game of chicken. The reason I said that is because the likelihood is that a vote to Leave will result in us leaving the EU.
You missed the point. My EEC example was just that: an example to show that referendums are not absolute for all time.
And since I am not arguing that they are it's a specious point. I'm also not saying that you do think it is highly probable, you have made it clear that you do not think it is. I am discussing the likelihood though and saying I don't think it will happen at no point have I said that it can't.
Because, in my opinion, in the scenario I suggested, I think the shift in favour of Scottish independence would make the referendum result a certainty or at least certain enough for Sturgeon to be confident of winning. I'm dead against Scottish independence, but if we vote leave even I'd be urging the Scots to at least save themselves
Again I know it's your opinion but I don't see where you get to certainty which you talked of. It may be that there is a referendum but based on current polling it's not wanted by a majority. That may change but I am not convinced that it will. With the independenve referendum, the GE, the Scottish Election and this referendum, we have been in campaign mode here for almost 2 years. I am a self confessed political geek but another referendum would try my patience.
-
Again I know it's your opinion but I don't see where you get to certainty which you talked of. It may be that there is a referendum but based on current polling it's not wanted by a majority. That may change but I am not convinced that it will. With the independenve referendum, the GE, the Scottish Election and this referendum, we have been in campaign mode here for almost 2 years. I am a self confessed political geek but another referendum would try my patience.
Surely, if there was a Brexit vote, it would seem highly likely that Scottish public opinion would change drastically in favour of independence?
-
Surely, if there was a Brexit vote, it would seem highly likely that Scottish public opinion would change drastically in favour of independence?
I suggest you read the Marco Biagi article I put the link in for earlier. I agree that it might happen but based on the arguments in Biagi's article and that polls show a majority of Scots do not agree with another referendum in the result of a UK Out vote and Scotland Remain, I don't see how we can conclude that it is 'highly likely'.
-
I suggest you read the Marco Biagi article I put the link in for earlier. I agree that it might happen but based on the arguments in Biagi's article and that polls show a majority of Scots do not agree with another referendum in the result of a UK Out vote and Scotland Remain, I don't see how we can conclude that it is 'highly likely'.
I think Marco Biagi is wrong. If I lived North of the border I would have voted against independence last time, but I would be infuriated if England caused us to leave the EU - that would change everything.
I think I would be a strong advocate of a second independence referendum in those circumstances.
-
I was just musing about Corbyn's point, when asked about limits to immigration, who said that free movement contradicts that. This seems obvious - as soon as you set a limit, you do not have free movement.
But historically, this is fascinating, since the right have traditionally advocated market economics, (which includes movement of capital, people, goods and services), and the left have criticized it. But now in the EU debate you seem to have the reverse, the right-wing are recommending state control of immigration, and the left arguing against it, (even though it may lower wages).
Of course, there are other arguments against free movement, for example, Farage's idea that I would not like to live next to Romanians, or whoever. And this argument seems to be heard on the campaign trail - there are too many of 'them' here.
But I think that in classical economics, migration is a response to labour shortages. I think Rhiannon mentioned the potato farmer who desperately needs pickers, and East Europeans turn up to do it. I'm not sure how the state is supposed to interfere with that, but it poses the interesting spectacle of a right-wing government controlling the economy in certain ways.
-
I think Marco Biagi is wrong. If I lived North of the border I would have voted against independence last time, but I would be infuriated if England caused us to leave the EU - that would change everything.
I think I would be a strong advocate of a second independence referendum in those circumstances.
Yes, I know you think he's wrong but you seem to be saying that based on simply ignoring his argument and using you own feelings as indicative of what would happen. Given the lack of follow through in how people said they would react with a Tory Govt, and how they then felt afterwards, Biagi, an ex SNP MSP has facts while you have your personal opinion about what you would do.
Added to the comments from Humza Yousaf, it would seem that the SNP are clearly not confident of what will happen. Indeed I know a number of long term members of the party who think it will make Scottish independence harder to achieve. One of the issues that the Yes campaign struggled with was the lack of clarity around continued EU membership. Given Brexitx that's only going to become less clear.
-
Yes, I know you think he's wrong but you seem to be saying that based on simply ignoring his argument and using you own feelings as indicative of what would happen. Given the lack of follow through in how people said they would react with a Tory Govt, and how they then felt afterwards, Biagi, an ex SNP MSP has facts while you have your personal opinion about what you would do.
Added to the comments from Humza Yousaf, it would seem that the SNP are clearly not confident of what will happen. Indeed I know a number of long term members of the party who think it will make Scottish independence harder to achieve. One of the issues that the Yes campaign struggled with was the lack of clarity around continued EU membership. Given Brexitx that's only going to become less clear.
What he seems to saying (in a nutshell) is that the SNP couldn't get their act together, but the major factor he is ignoring is that a Brexit vote would turn virtually all the arguments that were presented last time on their head.
-
What he seems to saying (in a nutshell) is that the SNP couldn't get their act together, but the major factor he is ignoring is that a Brexit vote would turn virtually all the arguments that were presented last time on their head.
No, he pointed out that despite people saying they would move to support independence if the Toriesgot elected, they didn''t. Therefore your idea that people would just move to Yes, isn't borne out. As I have already pointed out, current polls are opposed to a new referendum even in result of UK out, Scotland In.
He's also not talking solely about the SNP but the whole Yes side. In addition a Brexit vote turns no argument on its head and makes the whole question of whether EU membership is achievable less clear.
-
No, he pointed out that despite people saying they would move to support independence if the Toriesgot elected, they didn''t. Therefore your idea that people would just move to Yes, isn't borne out. As I have already pointed out, current polls are opposed to a new referendum even in result of UK out, Scotland In.
He's also not talking solely about the SNP but the whole Yes side. In addition a Brexit vote turns no argument on its head and makes the whole question of whether EU membership is achievable less clear.
While I wouldn't pretend to have the slightest grasp of the working of the SNP, the simple fact remains: last time, independence would have been a very risky option - if there were a Brexit vote independence could be the safe option.
-
While I wouldn't pretend to have the slightest grasp of the working of the SNP, the simple fact remains: last time, independence would have been a very risky option - if there were a Brexit vote independence could be the safe option.
and again you are using your opinion to extrapolate what other's might do, which as Biagi points out people don't even get right themselves. This has nothing to do with the working of the SNP, other than they won't want a second referendum unless they are sure they can win. I don't think it is clear what will happen to public opinion in the event of UK Out, Scotland Stay.
-
Odds swinging further to Stay now about 13/4 on
-
Odds swinging further to Stay now about 13/4 on
Laid staying @1.29.
-
Odds swinging further to Stay now about 13/4 on
Could you please explain as usual for me? :)
-
Could you please explain as usual for me? :)
The implied probability is that we are 77% likely to see a vote to remain.
If you think the market is too low, you lay the bet and cash out when it moves.
-
thank you -souns promising!
-
In a poll run by Business News Wales, the split in Wales seems to be 59% to leave, 38% to remain and 3% undecided. http://tinyurl.com/hrdxphx
-
In a poll run by Business News Wales, the split in Wales seems to be 59% to leave, 38% to remain and 3% undecided. http://tinyurl.com/hrdxphx
Voodoo poll
-
Voodoo poll
I know anecdotal but I work in Norwich live in Swansea, I'd say Swansea is for out, Norwich for remain.
-
I know anecdotal but I work in Norwich live in Swansea, I'd say Swansea is for out, Norwich for remain.
I think it is very hard to assess regional opinion without proper polling. You may be right on Swansea as Leave have been quite successful (albeit yet another lie) that Port Talbot would have been saved if it weren't for us being in the EU.
But on this one - I just voted in it, from my office in London. It purports to be a poll of Wales voters - it is nothing of the kind - it is a voodoo poll where anyone from anywhere can 'vote' without any attempt to make the poll demographically representative, or even restrict to those who it purports to be polling.
-
Voodoo poll
PD, I saw it 'advertised' by the Federation of Small Businesses (Wales) who my wife (who is the member) and I had understood to be for Remain - suggesting that it isn't wholly 'voodoo' as that organisation only contacts businesses within Wales.
-
PD, I saw it 'advertised' by the Federation of Small Businesses (Wales) who my wife (who is the member) and I had understood to be for Remain - suggesting that it isn't wholly 'voodoo' as that organisation only contacts businesses within Wales.
Of course it is a voodoo poll - I just voted in it and I'm not in Wales. Anyone can vote in it wherever they are in the world.
-
Of course it is a voodoo poll - I just voted in it and I'm not in Wales. Anyone can vote in it wherever they are in the world.
But how many people who aren't Welsh were aware of the link until I posted it here? I'm not saying that one can't vote in it from outside Wales, but then there are Welsh people living outside of their home country who should be able to vote.
-
But how many people who aren't Welsh were aware of the link until I posted it here? I'm not saying that one can't vote in it from outside Wales, but then there are Welsh people living outside of their home country who should be able to vote.
You've just answered your own question - someone linked to it via social media.
My Facebook feed is stuffed with tons of Welsh political stuff, mainly because I have a FB friend who is a welsh MP and another who is a vociferous plaid supporter (interestingly living in the same constituency so the former is the MP of the latter).
It's a voodoo poll.
-
Much discussion in the more untamed parts of the Web about Jo Cox's murder being a false flag event to affect the referendum. Strangely the same people were claiming Orlando as a false flag too.
-
As ever while there might be bits I disagree with, it's well written and makes excellent points from Alex Massie
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/every-political-generation-low-moment/
-
If immigration treaties are suspended by the UK then the EU has no further need to stop immigration of Non EU nationals from France. Last year the brief and low scale disturbances with the tunnel led to loss to the Kent economy......We can imagine what a retaliatory suspension of border control would be.
saying that the world has no choice but be nice sounds a bit James Bond to me.
They only have to start to be a bit tit for tat to create problems.
The precedent question is therefore. How much was lost to the British economy during Operation Stack and how much was lost to the French economy?
Legally we can send any immigrants back to France due to the Dublin Accord as that is where they came from. If need be we can close the tunnel down as a very last resort.
The issue with the EU is non of the things people are talking about here. It is about the concentration of power to Brussels where in the future a psychopath could then take control; as seen with Stalin in the USSR. We are not only freeing ourselves we are a pied piper for the Brussels hellhole.
-
If you had listened to those 'More or less' broadcasts you would realise that:
A/ There will be no massive 'windfall' from ending our EU subscription.
B/ The size of that payment is small compared to the benefits of membership.
The EU market is still one of the largest and most important in the world, we can't afford to turn our back on it!
The world is not going to come rushing to our rescue if we get ourselves in deep shit.
Perhaps if you read my posts you wouldn't come out with such ill-informed rubbish.
A - besides the point.
B - Not true. As you assume that we won't be getting those benefits when we leave, if those doing the negotiations do it properly.
The EU is stagnating and the EZ is in crisis. You again foolishly assume that when you talk about the EU it is as it is now. It won't be because we would have left, leaving it without our fee and so putting this extra burden on the other bankrupt members.
Without us the EU would quickly crack up.
-
And since I am not arguing that they are it's a specious point.
It's rather egotistical of you to assume that everything said on this thread must be in answer to a point you made.
I'm also not saying that you do think it is highly probable, you have made it clear that you do not think it is. I am discussing the likelihood though and saying I don't think it will happen at no point have I said that it can't.
Well we'll have to agree to agree then.
-
In that scenario, UKIP would be seen as a major part of the problem - the only ones who might come out 'smelling of roses' would be the Lib Dems.
That's just highly risible. What warped mind thinks that's a rational idea? Oh yes, LA's.
-
Meanwhile, for viewers in Scotland.............Ha Ha Ha.
And how would Scotland stop it? Ha Ha Haa.
-
Well we'll have to agree to agree then.
Is that allowed?
-
I've always found it strange that people could take such an obvious bunch of clowns seriously - maybe it is a symptom of a serious problem in our educational system?
You have the perfect example in the Scots and the SNP!!! ;D
-
I was just musing about Corbyn's point, when asked about limits to immigration, who said that free movement contradicts that. This seems obvious - as soon as you set a limit, you do not have free movement.
But historically, this is fascinating, since the right have traditionally advocated market economics, (which includes movement of capital, people, goods and services), and the left have criticized it. But now in the EU debate you seem to have the reverse, the right-wing are recommending state control of immigration, and the left arguing against it, (even though it may lower wages).
For most intelligent politicians, migration is a non issue except insofar as their electorate gets agitated about it. The real reason that the government has never really grasped the nettle of immigration is that it is beneficial to everybody except the British losers who find themselves unemployed as a result.
Migrants from the EU tend to be economically active, thus paying taxes and not to be a drain on resources because they are usually young and fit and if they can't get a job, they go elsewhere in the EU. If you're a in government trying to balance the books, what's not to like about that? I listened to the More or Less programme on immigration yesterday. They had an expert on who said that, if Leavers win, the government will reduce immigration for a bit just to prove they can and then just let it creep up again because it's good for them.
By the way, studies of immigration, particularly in the USA show that it doesn't affect wages as much as you might think.
Of course, there are other arguments against free movement, for example, Farage's idea that I would not like to live next to Romanians, or whoever. And this argument seems to be heard on the campaign trail - there are too many of 'them' here.
Farage is a racist shit.
But I think that in classical economics, migration is a response to labour shortages.
Yes it is and British workers have benefitted in the past. In the dark days of the 80's many workers found they could go to places like Germany and get good work.
-
No, I think it was probably when they stopped doing metalwork. That kind of hands-on stuff taught you to spot bullshit a mile off.
Didn't work for you!!! ;D
-
While I wouldn't pretend to have the slightest grasp of the working of the SNP, the simple fact remains: last time, independence would have been a very risky option - if there were a Brexit vote independence could be the safe option.
Despite the fact that I agree it could happen, there would still be interesting hurdles. For example, if the UK handed in its notice, Scotland would still have to apply as a new member.
-
Gove takes the piss.
Asking people to vote for democracy.
If you've got a vote you've got democracy...................
Not if we stay in the EU.
-
Heard an interesting report on R4 this evening.
Somebody has just done a Europe wide poll on EU scepticism and the Brexit referendum. Apparently a small majority want Britain to stay in - unsurprising as we are the third largest net contributor. However opinion on whether people want their own country to stay in the EU is on the same kind of knife edge as it is here.
And here is the kicker (according to the reporter), EU politicians are frightened that a British Leave vote would prompt people in other countries in the EU to leave particularly if we negotiate a good deal with the EU post Brexit. This means we won't be able to get a good deal with the EU after Brexit which means we are stuffed.
-
Not if we stay in the EU.
Says the rabid mouth frother who claims the EU is Stalin's USSR. Yeah right.
-
Surely, if there was a Brexit vote, it would seem highly likely that Scottish public opinion would change drastically in favour of independence?
They may whinge on about it but they would not vote for it because of the low price of oil.
-
Heard an interesting report on R4 this evening.
Somebody has just done a Europe wide poll on EU scepticism and the Brexit referendum. Apparently a small majority want Britain to stay in - unsurprising as we are the third largest net contributor. However opinion on whether people want their own country to stay in the EU is on the same kind of knife edge as it is here.
And here is the kicker (according to the reporter), EU politicians are frightened that a British Leave vote would prompt people in other countries in the EU to leave particularly if we negotiate a good deal with the EU post Brexit. This means we won't be able to get a good deal with the EU after Brexit which means we are stuffed.
I read a couple of weeks ago that Sweden in particular are keeping a watchful eye on the result, Brexit being assumed to add substance to, er, Swexit.
-
Heard an interesting report on R4 this evening.
Somebody has just done a Europe wide poll on EU scepticism and the Brexit referendum. Apparently a small majority want Britain to stay in - unsurprising as we are the third largest net contributor. However opinion on whether people want their own country to stay in the EU is on the same kind of knife edge as it is here.
And here is the kicker (according to the reporter), EU politicians are frightened that a British Leave vote would prompt people in other countries in the EU to leave particularly if we negotiate a good deal with the EU post Brexit. This means we won't be able to get a good deal with the EU after Brexit which means we are stuffed.
Which also means the EU is stuffed too.
-
For most intelligent politicians, migration is a non issue except insofar as their electorate gets agitated about it.
In a democracy without an electorate they won't be politicians.
The real reason that the government has never really grasped the nettle of immigration is that it is beneficial to everybody except the British losers who find themselves unemployed as a result.
Ahh British losers fuck those guys, what are food banks for, fucking losers.
Migrants from the EU tend to be economically active, thus paying taxes and not to be a drain on resources because they are usually young and fit and if they can't get a job, they go elsewhere in the EU.
As opposed to migrants from places like India, do they leech of the state, perhaps they are worse than British losers.
If you're a in government trying to balance the books, what's not to like about that? I listened to the More or Less programme on immigration yesterday. They had an expert on who said that, if Leavers win, the government will reduce immigration for a bit just to prove they can and then just let it creep up again because it's good for them.
I think most leave politicians would agree that immigration is a good thing and have said exactly that.
By the way, studies of immigration, particularly in the USA show that it doesn't affect wages as much as you might think.
I think the Bank of England said a 10% increase in immigration suppresses wages by 2%? I think that was for care workers, waiting staff, and cleaners, you might think they are losers though.
I made this point to my boss, he said 'yeah but things are cheaper then', he is voting remain.
-
Jon Oliver's take - NSFW
https://www.youtube.com/embed/iAgKHSNqxa8
-
Which also means the EU is stuffed too.
Not if people like you don't wreck it.
-
In a democracy without an electorate they won't be politicians.
Correct, which is why people like Johnson and Gove are pretending immigration is a problem.
Ahh British losers fuck those guys, what are food banks for, fucking losers.
Ah Romanian losers, fuck them. They can all go back and starve in their own countries. You still haven't explained why an Eastern European's life is intrinsically worth less than a British person's.
Actually, if you are British and you can't compete in the job market with somebody who is thousands of miles from home and whose first language is not English, you pretty well must be a loser.
As opposed to migrants from places like India, do they leech of the state, perhaps they are worse than British losers.
I've no idea. The programme I listened to concentrated on EU migrants since it is they that the likes of Farage are trying to kick out.
I think most leave politicians would agree that immigration is a good thing and have said exactly that.
And yet they are all concocting scare stories about immigration.
I think the Bank of England said a 10% increase in immigration suppresses wages by 2%? I think that was for care workers, waiting staff, and cleaners, you might think they are losers though.
It's hard to see how you are going to depress the wages of many of these people since it is illegal to pay below the minimum wage.
I made this point to my boss, he said 'yeah but things are cheaper then', he is voting remain.
Your boss is wrong because immigration doesn't affect wages as much as you might think. However, I guess, if he likes fruit then he is at an advantage because, without immigrants the fruit would rot in the fields.
-
And as predicted, here's George Soros on Brexit, sterling and the economy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36582026
-
Useful analysis here of the impact of immigration on wages.
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/how-small-small-impact-immigration-uk-wages#.V2jeA_R4XCQ
-
It was also interesting to hear an interview with a strawberry farmer on BBC Breakfast yesterday in whih she confirmed that she has to employ (East) Europeans simply because very few, if any local people want to work in the industry regardless of the pay.
-
It was also interesting to hear an interview with a strawberry farmer on BBC Breakfast yesterday in whih she confirmed that she has to employ (East) Europeans simply because very few, if any local people want to work in the industry regardless of the pay.
Same situation here in East Anglia. I've watched interviews on regional tv with local young people who say that picking fruit or veg is demeaning and unemployment preferable. How representative that is...
-
Hope,
For the record, when I was a student I used to pick apples here in Kent during the vacations. I loved it, but when I went back to the same farm three years later there were crowds of foreigners, particularly Eastern Europeans, working there and I just gave up - they were so unfriendly. If they had not been there I am pretty sure I would have avoided a very annoying period of unemployment.
Jeremy,
As far as I know, the aim is not to kick migrants out but to restrict the number coming in. America does it because everyone wants to live there. Why shouldn't we?
-
If anyone ought to know about these things this guy should:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36582026
Can we really be that stupid? Shit Creek beckons and we are throwing away our paddle!
A particularly relevant quote:
"On Thursday evening and through the night, some of the world's biggest banks are expected to have senior traders working during what some people think could be the most volatile trading for sterling since Black Wednesday."
-
Correct, which is why people like Johnson and Gove are pretending immigration is a problem.
They think uncontrolled immigration causes problems. Much like the rest of the world and even the EU themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36558694 - Charity refuses funding due to EU migration policy.
Ah Romanian losers, fuck them. They can all go back and starve in their own countries. You still haven't explained why an Eastern European's life is intrinsically worth less than a British person's.
No never said that about Romanians, you used the phrase "British losers", own it. I do not think an Eastern European's life is intrinsically worth less than a British person's, I think UK taxes, economy, culture, government are rightfully more concerned with British citizens.
You still haven't explained why an EU persons life is intrinsically worth less than a Non-EU person.
Actually, if you are British and you can't compete in the job market with somebody who is thousands of miles from home and whose first language is not English, you pretty well must be a loser.
Simplistic.
I've no idea. The programme I listened to concentrated on EU migrants since it is they that the likes of Farage are trying to kick out.
Take it up with Farage then.
And yet they are all concocting scare stories about immigration.
It's hard to see how you are going to depress the wages of many of these people since it is illegal to pay below the minimum wage.
So the the Bank of England is a credible source when it supports your position but when it doesn't support your view you will just assert the evidence away.
Your boss is wrong because immigration doesn't affect wages as much as you might think. However, I guess, if he likes fruit then he is at an advantage because, without immigrants the fruit would rot in the fields.
Yes agree immigration is good for the UK, you keep not hearing this, I wonder why.
-
It was also interesting to hear an interview with a strawberry farmer on BBC Breakfast yesterday in whih she confirmed that she has to employ (East) Europeans simply because very few, if any local people want to work in the industry regardless of the pay.
That's true, the BEEB did that program a year or so ago when they tried to get local unemployed to fill some of these vacancies - and failed miserably. Most people weren't interested of couldn't get out of bed and the ones who really tried just couldn't do the work.
A lot of our farmers would be in big trouble without EU migrants and that would ripple through the whole community.
-
For most intelligent politicians, migration is a non issue except insofar as their electorate gets agitated about it. The real reason that the government has never really grasped the nettle of immigration is that it is beneficial to everybody except the British losers who find themselves unemployed as a result.
As one employment agent said the other day - if he sends a British person to do the picking fruit and veg work, many cannot do the physical work and it doesn't suit them to do it either. Migrants from the EU tend to be economically active, thus paying taxes and not to be a drain on resources because they are usually young and fit and if they can't get a job, they go elsewhere in the EU. If you're a in government trying to balance the books, what's not to like about that? I listened to the More or Less programme on immigration yesterday. They had an expert on who said that, if Leavers win, the government will reduce immigration for a bit just to prove they can and then just let it creep up again because it's good for them.
Oh, bother, I missed that - I'll have to do a listen again.
At least, it now looks as if a remain vote is a tad more likely than the opposite.
-
As one employment agent said the other day - if he sends a British person to do the picking fruit and veg work, many cannot do the physical work and it doesn't suit them to do it either. Oh, bother, I missed that - I'll have to do a listen again.
At least, it now looks as if a remain vote is a tad more likely than the opposite.
I fervently hope so.
-
Not if people like you don't wreck it.
Open your eyes, Jeremy, they are doing a wonderful job at trashing it themselves. They don't need my help to do that.
-
As one employment agent said the other day - if he sends a British person to do the picking fruit and veg work, many cannot do the physical work and it doesn't suit them to do it either. Oh, bother, I missed that - I'll have to do a listen again.
At least, it now looks as if a remain vote is a tad more likely than the opposite.
If they are competing with pickers from other countries, it might appear that they can't do the work. Probably they can't pick nearly as much as the Europeans when working alongside them. But when I was fruit picking, there were some British pickers who had made a career of it, who did manage to keep up with them. It is a shame that we have to rely on foreign workers to meet our needs to the extent that we can't survive without them.
If we did leave, and the foreign workers went elsewhere, other people would be available to do the work (eg people who might be made redundant due to Brexit). There would be a drop in output to start with, but we would adapt and get stronger and better at it.
-
I can't be bothered to wade through the 97 pages of this thread, but has the consequence of leaving and the threat of TTIP already been mentioned?
In the event of Brexit, the right-wing cabal that would rule the Conservative Party would drool at the mouth for a mini-TTIP between the newly "independent" UK and the USA. It is practically certain that the NHS would be wound up and an American-style health insurance scheme introduced to replace it.
Is that what Brexiters really desire?
-
I can't be bothered to wade through the 97 pages of this thread, but has the consequence of leaving and the threat of TTIP already been mentioned?
In the event of Brexit, the right-wing cabal that would rule the Conservative Party would drool at the mouth for a mini-TTIP between the newly "independent" UK and the USA. It is practically certain that the NHS would be wound up and an American-style health insurance scheme introduced to replace it.
Is that what Brexiters really desire?
World War 3, doom and gloom and now the NHS ended.
I think TTIP has the potential to undermine the NHS. For a maxi-TTIP to pass Cameron, post Bremain, has to not use his veto. For a UK-US deal to pass, post Brexit, Cameron has to get the support of a majority of MPs (and his majority is slim) and the support from the public.
A UK government will do things that go against UK public opinion but eventually folds to public opinion, the EU is nearly immune to UK public opinion, which is why, we, the public need to take back control.
-
I think TTIP has the potential to undermine the NHS. For a maxi-TTIP to pass Cameron, post Bremain, has to not use his veto. For a UK-US deal to pass, post Brexit, Cameron has to get the support of a majority of MPs (and his majority is slim) and the support from the public.
So thanks for that - you have ably confirmed that the UK government has a veto on the TTIP or Brexit-TTIP whether we remain or leave. So leaving won't make any difference if the government choses not to support.
However there is a difference if the Tory government decides it loves the libertarian-free market approach of the TTIP. In brexit all IDS/Gove/Johsnon need to do is whip their MPs and through it goes. Actually I doubt that a trade deal requires primary legislation so the government can probably approve without ever referring it to parliament. What makes you think a UK/USA trade deal needs to be ratified by parliament Jakswan?
If we remain we can rely on any of 27 other countries who might be of a less libertarian-free market persuasion to veto it until it is moderated to an appropriate level.
-
The family of a friend of my daughter's have had stones thrown at their house for displaying Remain posters.
-
So thanks for that - you have ably confirmed that the UK government has a veto on the TTIP or Brexit-TTIP whether we remain or leave. So leaving won't make any difference if the government choses not to support.
If the Tory cabinet supports TTIP then the veto will not be used.
However there is a difference if the Tory government decides it loves the libertarian-free market approach of the TTIP. In brexit all IDS/Gove/Johsnon need to do is whip their MPs and through it goes. Actually I doubt that a trade deal requires primary legislation so the government can probably approve without ever referring it to parliament. What makes you think a UK/USA trade deal needs to be ratified by parliament Jakswan?
If it has that impact I think it would, we don't do our own trade deals currently so not really sure.
The Tories can whip all they like the majority the have is slim, all it would take would be for a few Tory MP's to not follow the whip for this to fail. In light of the pressure from public opinion then I think this would fail.
If we remain we can rely on any of 27 other countries who might be of a less libertarian-free market persuasion to veto it until it is moderated to an appropriate level.
So if 27 countries want libertarian-free market approach to public services but one doesn't then 27 countries democracies are undermined. Sounds like a shit system, vote leave.
-
The family of a friend of my daughter's have had stones thrown at their house for displaying Remain posters.
My wife saw a Remain canvasser physically assaulted in a shopping street the other week - there are some very nasty characters around and they seem the be getting quite wound-up by the Brexit propaganda.
-
I suspect there are knuckle-dragging idiots in both camps turning to agression and violence, sadly. Feelings are running high.
-
My wife saw a Remain canvasser physically assaulted in a shopping street the other week - there are some very nasty characters around and they seem the be getting quite wound-up by the Brexit propaganda.
This, and the incident Rhi mentioned, are depressing.
It seems to me that we were bounced into this referendum mainly so as to sort out some internal dissent within the Tory party, plus the threat the Tories felt that UKIP were to them, only to find that it has had the opposite effect and has caused friction on a far wider scale. Since I don't recall much in the way of demands to leave the EU other than from an element within the Tory party this looks like a case of putting party before country.
No matter what the result is, and a great deal of damage has been done already, it seems unlikely that there won't be further fallout in terms of internal UK politics, since it seems to me that the wounds already inflicted are too big to heal by themselves and I suspect the negativity created by having this referendum in the first place will continue irrespective of the result rather than be resolved by it.
If it is 'stay' then I doubt the Europhobes will just roll over, and I doubt Cameron has the guts to get rid of this element from within his own party so it rumbles on, and if it is 'leave' who knows what changes this will have in terms of key people at the top or government without reference to the electorate, unless sufficient MPs trigger a GE. If the result is very close, with just perhaps a few thousand votes either way, then would this be enough of a mandate to proceed with confidence be it 'stay' or 'leave' that wins?
It will be interesting to see what the regional differences in voting are, and not just from here in Scotland compared to England but in different areas of the UK - it could be very divisive no matter what the permutations are.
-
That's nationalism for you.
-
It seems to me that we were bounced into this referendum mainly so as to sort out some internal dissent within the Tory party, plus the threat the Tories felt that UKIP were to them, only to find that it has had the opposite effect and has caused friction on a far wider scale. Since I don't recall much in the way of demands to leave the EU other than from an element within the Tory party this looks like a case of putting party before country.
I have long thought this. Cameron has shot himself in the foot.
Whatever the result, Cameron will enter history books as the least competent prime minister since Eden (I don't mean the garden - but who knows?) and will have this debacle round his neck as well as the decision not have a commission into the UK constitution following the Scottish referendum.
But the Conservative party has been in a mess since Thatcher. The main qualification for a party leader has been that his name was not Kenneth Clarke.
-
I suspect there are knuckle-dragging idiots in both camps turning to agression and violence, sadly. Feelings are running high.
I suspect that there is something in the Brexit campaign that strikes a chord with a certain type of person and pushes a few over the edge.
-
But the Conservative party has been in a mess since Thatcher. The main qualification for a party leader has been that his name was not Kenneth Clarke.
Ken would certainly have been my preferred party leader, but as you say, not popular with some factions. He's getting a bit long in the tooth now (like many of us)
-
My granddaughter (a thoroughly sensible girl, who will be voting remain of course) sent me this link to Prof Michael Dougan, a Professor of Law, speaking very well for the remain vote. Whether you agree or not, you will acknowledge his expertise and clear delivery.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y
-
There are sensible people who will be voting to leave too.
-
Dear Lapsed,
I suspect that there is something in the Brexit campaign that strikes a chord with a certain type of person and pushes a few over the edge.
Never!! Really!! I suspect there are quite a lot of citizens that BREXIT have struck a chord with, I also suspect that they have quite a lot of good arguments for feeling that BREXIT could be the answer to all their ills.
What I don't suspect, I know for a fact that the answer to all their ills lie at the feet of the Tory party, not the EU.
Slightly controversial, but, what the Tory party needs regarding the EU is a Maggie not a David :o
Anyway, tomorrow the Brexiters will have their chance for their Independence Day ( has there been any cartoons with Johnson in a fighter jet yet ) I just hope that they realise, out or in, that we will still be stuck with old Tory ways of thinking, we will still be stuck with queues of immigrants, we will still be stuck with a failing NHS, through lack of investment and not because we have massive immigration, we will still be stuck with no investment in infrastructure, in short we will still be stuck with capitalism which is a busted flush.
To end ( and now the end is here ) I would like to thank every poster who participated in this thread, it has been a roller coaster of emotions but I am still for remain, Remain and Reform and I honestly think that Mr Cameron is the wrong Prime Minister to give us that Reform.
Gonnagle.
-
There are sensible people who will be voting to leave too.
Indeed there are, but there is a nastiness in the tone of an awful lot of the propaganda - largely sourced from UKIP.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Never!! Really!! I suspect there are quite a lot of citizens that BREXIT have struck a chord with, I also suspect that they have quite a lot of good arguments for feeling that BREXIT could be the answer to all their ills.
What I don't suspect, I know for a fact that the answer to all their ills lie at the feet of the Tory party, not the EU.
I'd certainly agree that the UK government and local authorities have a responsibility to provide service such as schools and doctors. If the population of an area is increased by migrants, this ought to have been anticipated by government and the necessary services provided.
Slightly controversial, but, what the Tory party needs regarding the EU is a Maggie not a David :o
I'll bet Teresa May could do a good 'Iron Lady' :)
Anyway, tomorrow the Brexiters will have their chance for their Independence Day ( has there been any cartoons with Johnson in a fighter jet yet ) I just hope that they realise, out or in, that we will still be stuck with old Tory ways of thinking, we will still be stuck with queues of immigrants, we will still be stuck with a failing NHS, through lack of investment and not because we have massive immigration, we will still be stuck with no investment in infrastructure, in short we will still be stuck with capitalism which is a busted flush.
Let's just hope that they all slither back into the woodwork for another 40 years or more - though I suspect that it might just turn-out that Boris had actually been quite pro EU all the time ;)
To end ( and now the end is here ) I would like to thank every poster who participated in this thread, it has been a roller coaster of emotions but I am still for remain, Remain and Reform and I honestly think that Mr Cameron is the wrong Prime Minister to give us that Reform.
Gonnagle.
I don't think Cameron will be around for so much longer, what worries me is what might come next.
-
This, and the incident Rhi mentioned, are depressing.
It seems to me that we were bounced into this referendum mainly so as to sort out some internal dissent within the Tory party, plus the threat the Tories felt that UKIP were to them, only to find that it has had the opposite effect and has caused friction on a far wider scale. Since I don't recall much in the way of demands to leave the EU other than from an element within the Tory party this looks like a case of putting party before country.
I think it was pressure from UKIP who were getting a lot of support from the electorate, as I recall had 10% of the vote in Scotland in 2014.
No matter what the result is, and a great deal of damage has been done already, it seems unlikely that there won't be further fallout in terms of internal UK politics, since it seems to me that the wounds already inflicted are too big to heal by themselves and I suspect the negativity created by having this referendum in the first place will continue irrespective of the result rather than be resolved by it.
I think there are hardcore leave \ remain supporters who won't accept the result, personally I think the issue will be done for a generation (that is not a Sturgeon type promise).
If it is 'stay' then I doubt the Europhobes will just roll over, and I doubt Cameron has the guts to get rid of this element from within his own party so it rumbles on, and if it is 'leave' who knows what changes this will have in terms of key people at the top or government without reference to the electorate, unless sufficient MPs trigger a GE. If the result is very close, with just perhaps a few thousand votes either way, then would this be enough of a mandate to proceed with confidence be it 'stay' or 'leave' that wins?
Not really a case that Cameron could get rid of the Euro-skeptics within his party since much of the support for the Tory party is itself Euro-skeptic.
It will be interesting to see what the regional differences in voting are, and not just from here in Scotland compared to England but in different areas of the UK - it could be very divisive no matter what the permutations are.
London & Scotland will be for in, not aware of any other big regional differences, what are you expecting?
-
I'd certainly agree that the UK government and local authorities have a responsibility to provide service such as schools and doctors. If the population of an area is increased by migrants, this ought to have been anticipated by government and the necessary services provided.
So do taxes go up to pay for these?
-
So do taxes go up to pay for these?
Tax revenue goes up with taxes from migrants.
-
Dear Jakswan,
So do taxes go up to pay for these?
Taxes don't need to go up, the tax system needs to be reformed, the big companies who use tax dodges need to be brought to heel, or do we pander to them, do we turn a blind eye because they bring in jobs, or do we finally say, stuff your astronomical profits, time you gave back to the very people you have made your profits from.
Or, or! here's a novel approach, scrap trident, give that money to the NHS.
Gonnagle.
-
Tax revenue goes up with taxes from migrants.
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, you need a lot of capital investment. Also what happens when predictions are wrong?
-
I think it was pressure from UKIP who were getting a lot of support from the electorate, as I recall had 10% of the vote in Scotland in 2014.
In the recent Holyrood election UKIP just contested the regional seats and got 2% (and no seats), so here at least they aren't especially relevant - which makes the prominence Farage has in the UK-wide media disproportionate to the political situation in Scotland.
London & Scotland will be for in, not aware of any other big regional differences, what are you expecting?
tbh I'm not sure, but I suppose I'm wondering if the 'Leave' votes will win out mainly in areas where the Tories hold the parliamentary seats and also if there are notable variations across Scotland.
-
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, you need a lot of capital investment. Also what happens when predictions are wrong?
That argument could apply to any capital investment, but if the tax revenue is coming in it is reasonable for the government to make that investment.
It is generally acknowledged that the migrants 'pay their way' in terms of tax revenue against the cost of services - where there is a mismatch it is a government failure.
-
Taxes don't need to go up, the tax system needs to be reformed, the big companies who use tax dodges need to be brought to heel, or do we pander to them, do we turn a blind eye because they bring in jobs, or do we finally say, stuff your astronomical profits, time you gave back to the very people you have made your profits from.
OK so how much and by what means will you tax say Google, Facebook, Microsoft?
Or are you just doing a bit of backseat driving peddling easy answers?
Have actually ever voted having understood the issue or just done it based on who you think the good guys are?
Or, or! here's a novel approach, scrap trident, give that money to the NHS.
I think I agree! I think Trident is a vanity project and the NHS always needs money, it only generates a few thousand jobs and Scottish taxes can pay for their benefits.
-
I'm pro migration. However, there is an economic cost that can't be ignored. Many migrants come here to work for a certain period of time and live as cheaply as possible, sending their pay (after deductions) back home, either to keep their families or to be invested with the aim of purchasing a property or starting a business. The money that gets sent out of the country is money that isn't circulating in our economy. The question is whether the net benefits outweigh this.
-
I'm expecting urban areas to vote Remain, and rural areas for Leave, with some exceptions. For example, I think Fenland will be resolutely Leave, judging from comments I hear, and voting Tory. Too many Poles and Lithuanians working in the daffodil fields, you know.
Interesting map:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-map-poll-live-latest-brexit-remain-leave-a7093886.html
-
I don't get that. No migrant workers and the daffs rot. What's the point?
I love that we have a vibrant Eastern European community here, complete with Polish stuff in a dedicated aisle in Tesco.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Yes, I am not very politically savvy, my thoughts on taxes, I earn a quid I am taxed on that quid, exact same for Google, Microsoft or facebook, these companies need us to make their huge profits, no get out clause for them, they pay the exact same as me.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't get that. No migrant workers and the daffs rot. What's the point?
I love that we have a vibrant Eastern European community here, complete with Polish stuff in a dedicated aisle in Tesco.
It's not meant to be rational, is it? I saw a guy on TV who said, yeah, Leave, and then whispered in a horrified tone, 'you know they have Polish food in the local Tesco's', as if that settled the matter.
Possibly another factor - areas without much migration may vote Leave, on the principle that we don't like what we don't have. I'm not sure if it's correct that UKIP get a bigger vote, the fewer migrants there are, but it is often touted.
-
I'm pro migration. However, there is an economic cost that can't be ignored. Many migrants come here to work for a certain period of time and live as cheaply as possible, sending their pay (after deductions) back home, either to keep their families or to be invested with the aim of purchasing a property or starting a business. The money that gets sent out of the country is money that isn't circulating in our economy. The question is whether the net benefits outweigh this.
An interesting aspect is to do with shortages of labour, which you tend to get in agriculture (seasonal), catering, building, engineering, health care, teaching. Of course, you can have training schemes for English people to fill the gaps, but migrant labour also tends to fill them.
I'm not sure how governments control this, except by locating the shortages and accepting migrants there. But of course, classical economic theory predicts that they will be filled anyway, with free movement of labour, goods, capital and services. In a sense, no control is required.
(Ironically, this tends to be a right-wing position, but at the moment, for various reasons, they are banging the drum about bongobongoland and fuzzy-wuzzies).
-
It's not meant to be rational, is it? I saw a guy on TV who said, yeah, Leave, and then whispered in a horrified tone, 'you know they have Polish food in the local Tesco's', as if that settled the matter.
I can only hope that nobody tells the poor benighted creature that we've had Indian restaurants, Chinese takeaways and kebab shops for donkey's years.
-
I can only hope that nobody tells the poor benighted creature that we've had Indian restaurants, Chinese takeaways and kebab shops for donkey's years.
And Indian, Thai, Mexican and Chinese food in Tesco itself, for as long as I can remember.
Not to mention Italian, French, German, Dutch, Swiss and Greek cuisine, wine, spirits etc etc.
-
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/C8A5/production/_90056315_hi033643000.jpg
Breaking point! We cannot accept any more like this.
-
Oh ffs! Experts are Nazis!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/michael-gove-compares-experts-warning-against-brexit-to-nazis-wh/
-
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/C8A5/production/_90056315_hi033643000.jpg
Breaking point! We cannot accept any more like this.
Doesn't quite make sense - does this relate to the Glastonbury flood story?
-
Oh ffs! Experts are Nazis!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/michael-gove-compares-experts-warning-against-brexit-to-nazis-wh/
Just when you think the tone couldn't get any lower along comes Gove with a Godwinism!
-
Another interesting point about immigration is Cameron's claim to reduce it to 'tens of thousands'. However, you can argue that this would be catastrophic for the economy, and that Cameron was just saying this as a kind of empty slogan.
-
If the Tory cabinet supports TTIP then the veto will not be used.
If the Tory cabinet supports Brexit-TTIP it will happen if we leave.
Note you have completely failed to address my point about whether a trade deal requires the approval of the House of commons - you claim it does but you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I would consider this to be one of many government decisions that can be approved by the government alone, without reference to the commons. Certainly I cannot see how it would require primary legislation.
So lets look at the options then.
If the UK remains and the UK government doesn't want TTIP - it vetoes, result no TTIP.
If the UK remains and the UK government wants TTIP - it supports, but TTIP only happens if all other 27 support too. result, may get TTIP, may not.
If the UK leaves and the UK government doesn't want TTIP - it is in charge of the decision alone, result no TTIP.
If the UK leaves and the UK government wants TTIP - it is in charge of the decision alone, result TTIP.
So if you don't want TTIP and wouldn't want it even if this tory government wanted it, then you are much better in rather than out.
-
Another interesting point about immigration is Cameron's claim to reduce it to 'tens of thousands'. However, you can argue that this would be catastrophic for the economy, and that Cameron was just saying this as a kind of empty slogan.
I'm sure that if anyone were ever stupid enough to reduce migration so low, it would be pretty catastrophic.
-
If the Tory cabinet supports Brexit-TTIP it will happen if we leave.
Note you have completely failed to address my point about whether a trade deal requires the approval of the House of commons - you claim it does but you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I would consider this to be one of many government decisions that can be approved by the government alone, without reference to the commons. Certainly I cannot see how it would require primary legislation.
So lets look at the options then.
If the UK remains and the UK government doesn't want TTIP - it vetoes, result no TTIP.
If the UK remains and the UK government wants TTIP - it supports, but TTIP only happens if all other 27 support too. result, may get TTIP, may not.
If the UK leaves and the UK government doesn't want TTIP - it is in charge of the decision alone, result no TTIP.
If the UK leaves and the UK government wants TTIP - it is in charge of the decision alone, result TTIP.
So if you don't want TTIP and wouldn't want it even if this tory government wanted it, then you are much better in rather than out.
Everyone wants TTIP - it is detail in some of the terms that are in question.
As far as I can determine most disputed points have been addressed, in particular ISDS. Although there were fears earlier that the NHS might be compromised, the EU negotiators have gone to some length to ensure government services are not affected. They have also published information about the negotiations:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_en.htm
In particular a letter addressing the NHS concerns:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/june/tradoc_154617.pdf
If we leave, we won't be included by TTIP. Even though UK/US trade would be (or would have been) boosted by the agreement, new negotiations would be needed, and Pres. Obama indicated that the UK would end up at the back of the queue for these. There is no guarantee that such new negotiations would include any safeguards negotiated by the EU in TTIP.
And... whatever treaty is eventually arrived at, because of the wide scope, there will always be objections to some terms by some people.
-
I'm sure that if anyone were ever stupid enough to reduce migration so low, it would be pretty catastrophic.
I don't think there is any evidence that any UK government can "control" immigration or that leaving would mean lower overall immigration. Immigration is dependent on the economy. If we were able to "control" it, the Tory government would already have reduced non-EU immigration to a fraction of current EU immigration.
In fact, there is a strong possibility that, on Brexit, immigration would increase as the UK would need to lower labor costs to compete in the adverse business environment.
-
I don't think there is any evidence that any UK government can "control" immigration or that leaving would mean lower overall immigration. Immigration is dependent on the economy. If we were able to "control" it, the Tory government would already have reduced non-EU immigration to a fraction of current EU immigration.
In fact, there is a strong possibility that, on Brexit, immigration would increase as the UK would need to lower labor costs to compete in the adverse business environment.
Hmm . . . largescale migration of unskilled workers from non-EU countries. I'm sure that will please UKIP voters
-
It's going to be a bumpy ride - and we'll all wake up a lot poorer on Friday if there is a Brexit vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596250
-
Yes, I am not very politically savvy, my thoughts on taxes, I earn a quid I am taxed on that quid, exact same for Google, Microsoft or facebook, these companies need us to make their huge profits, no get out clause for them, they pay the exact same as me.
Their get out clause is that they raise the sale in Ireland and pay the tax (at a much reduced rate) in Ireland.
-
If the Tory cabinet supports Brexit-TTIP it will happen if we leave.
Note you have completely failed to address my point about whether a trade deal requires the approval of the House of commons - you claim it does but you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I would consider this to be one of many government decisions that can be approved by the government alone, without reference to the commons. Certainly I cannot see how it would require primary legislation.
So lets look at the options then.
If the UK remains and the UK government doesn't want TTIP - it vetoes, result no TTIP.
If the UK remains and the UK government wants TTIP - it supports, but TTIP only happens if all other 27 support too. result, may get TTIP, may not.
If the UK leaves and the UK government doesn't want TTIP - it is in charge of the decision alone, result no TTIP.
If the UK leaves and the UK government wants TTIP - it is in charge of the decision alone, result TTIP.
So if you don't want TTIP and wouldn't want it even if this tory government wanted it, then you are much better in rather than out.
If the UK remains and the UK government doesn't want TTIP but 27 other states do - it might not veto, result TTIP.
You forgot at least one, there are influences on the government, public opinion being one, in the case of remain 27 other nation states being the other.
-
Polls have Brexit ahead.
-
Polls have Brexit ahead.
They've been that way for some time, I believe.
-
They've been that way for some time, I believe.
But very worrying that they continue to be - there is usually a late swing back to the status quo, but there isn't really any evidence of this however.
-
They've been that way for some time, I believe.
They swung back away towards Remain hence the surge in sterling against the dollar at the start of the week. Just a blip or so it seems.
-
But very worrying that they continue to be - there is usually a late swing back to the status quo, but there isn't really any evidence of this however.
9% undecided. They would be likely to vote with what they know.
-
9% undecided. They would be likely to vote with what they know.
If they are the voting undecideds, rather than those who can't decide so end up not bothering to vote.
I am genuinely worried and feeling a touch depressed this evening.
Partly because of our work summer BBQ this afternoon. Sat eating and drinking with colleagues and friends - table with 2 Brits, 2 Germans, 1 Slovakian, 1 Dutch, 1 Italian and 2 Russians. All are fantastic and hard working academics, all but one have been in the UK for decades and in several cases are married and have kids here. All have contributed to the UK massively over years, not least in tax. All will be significantly affected by the result, obviously negatively if we leave.
Of those 9 people at the table, only 4 are allowed to vote tomorrow - the 2 Brits and the 2 Russians.
What on earth is wrong with us when we deny the vote to people who have been living and working in the UK for decades on a matter which will affect them massively simply because they were born in Holland, Germany, Slovakia or Italy. I was genuinely shocked.
-
The 9% indicated they would definitely vote.
-
The 9% indicated they would definitely vote.
Lets hope so - but lots of people say they'll definitely vote, but don't.
Any thoughts on EU nationals who have been living in the UK, working here, contributing here, bringing up their families here - yet not being able to vote tomorrow.
Seems so, so wrong to me. And that genuinely isn't simply about how they might vote. I just feel people who are permanently resident in the UK should have a say.
-
This clearly explains everything ...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/dont-look-back-in-anger-i-heard-eu-say?utm_term=.higErlGXM#.ee4DB4NxG
-
Polls have Brexit ahead.
The Telegraph, in a survey of polls on Tuesday had Remain on 53% and Leave on 46% on June 21st; Remain on 48% and Leave on 49% on June 14th; and Remain on 48% and Leave on 47% on June 7th.
-
Lets hope so - but lots of people say they'll definitely vote, but don't.
Any thoughts on EU nationals who have been living in the UK, working here, contributing here, bringing up their families here - yet not being able to vote tomorrow.
Seems so, so wrong to me. And that genuinely isn't simply about how they might vote. I just feel people who are permanently resident in the UK should have a say.
Yes, as it happens I agree - I'm not sure which criteria qualifies someone as a permanent resident and I'd have thought some kind of minimum stay would be required, but that should apply to all migrant families entitled to vote. It isn't right.
-
Yes, as it happens I agree - I'm not sure which criteria qualifies someone as a permanent resident and I'd have thought some kind of minimum stay would be required, but that should apply to all migrant families entitled to vote. It isn't right.
I'm talking about people who have been here for 15-20 years or more.
What is interesting is that both the Russians (also both been here for decades) can vote. The difference being that because they aren't from a EU country they both have dual citizenship, basically to make it easier to travel between the UK and Russia. For the EU nationals, there wasn't any need (because of free movement) so they remain German, Italian, Dutch citizens and therefore are ineligible to vote.
Just wrong.
-
Seems so, so wrong to me. And that genuinely isn't simply about how they might vote. I just feel people who are permanently resident in the UK should have a say.
I was surprised that Russian nationals living in the UK can vote; in the circumstances, if anything I'd only allow British citizens a vote - even though that would disenfranchise my wife (Australian) who has lived in the UK for 29 of the last 36 years (including the last 16 and a half years).
Mind you, all the sites I can find say that anyone who could vote in the last general election (or has become eligible to vote since and has registered) can vote in this referendum.
https://fullfact.org/europe/who-can-vote-eu-referendum/
https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/eu-referendum/about
http://tinyurl.com/juykx4p
No mention of uniquely Russian citizens being allowed to vote.
-
I'm talking about people who have been here for 15-20 years or more.
What is interesting is that both the Russians (also both been here for decades) can vote. The difference being that because they aren't from a EU country they both have dual citizenship, basically to make it easier to travel between the UK and Russia. For the EU nationals, there wasn't any need (because of free movement) so they remain German, Italian, Dutch citizens and therefore are ineligible to vote.
Just wrong.
Not sure why its wrong. Brits living in other European countries haven't been allowed to vote in referenda that such countries have held - such as those that some held on the Treay of Lisbon a few years ago.
If the Russians you refer to have taken out dual nationality then they are using their UK nationality to vote with.
-
EU citizens who were resident in Scotland were allowed to vote in IndyRef.
http://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/who-can-vote-in-the-referendum/
-
Dear eerrm, well dear somebody,
Only one thing missing, us Jocks, but well done Wales, well done Republic of Ireland, well done Northern Ireland, well done yon Sassenachs sorry, well done England, is this the wrong thread, sue me :D :D
Gonnagle.
-
EU citizens who were resident in Scotland were allowed to vote in IndyRef.
http://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/who-can-vote-in-the-referendum/
IIRC, the rules of that referendum were initially proposed by the Scottish Government not the British Govt. OK, the latter had to OK the rules, but it would have been difficult for them not to.
-
IIRC, the rules of that referendum were initially proposed by the Scottish Government not the British Govt. OK, the latter had to OK the rules, but it would have been difficult for them not to.
Not sure how that is relevant to why the UK government couldn't include resident EU citizens too.
-
I was surprised that Russian nationals living in the UK can vote;
But the prof is being just a little disingenuous, isn't he.
They are not "Russian nationals". The are British citizens who also have Russian nationality.
There is no reason why any of the other people should not have British nationality - they merely chose not to. Their disenfranchisement is entirely their own fault.
Were I living in another country for any length of time I would apply for citizenship of that country - if I pay taxes I would want to have a say in how those taxes are used.
-
But the prof is being just a little disingenuous, isn't he.
They are not "Russian nationals". The are British citizens who also have Russian nationality.
I don't think I was being disingenuous at all - certainly not deliberately. I thought I was very clear that the reason my 2 russian colleagues could vote was because they had dual nationality.
But this isn't really about EU vs russian at all. I simply think that people who have chosen permanently to make their home in the UK, lived here for decades, contributed for years and years, married, had kids here etc should be able to vote tomorrow.
Yet they aren't. That in my mind is wrong.
-
But they can't vote in general elections either presumably?
-
ComRes have Remain with an 8 point lead.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html
-
I don't think I was being disingenuous at all - certainly not deliberately. I thought I was very clear that the reason my 2 russian colleagues could vote was because they had dual nationality.
No. You described them as Russians not dual Russian/UK. You wrote
What is interesting is that both the Russians (also both been here for decades) can vote.
The implication of this statement is that they are not UK citizens. OK in your next sentence you do say that they hold dual nationality. The fact that their original nationality was Russian is a total red herring. You are making an observation based on their origin solely and not on their life choices.
They can vote because they are UK citizens. Their Russian nationality has nothing to do with this. You were being disingenuous.
The reason your other colleagues cannot vote is that they have been uninterested in maximising their civic role in their adopted home.
-
But they can't vote in general elections either presumably?
Correct, they can vote in local elections, devolved elections and EU elections.
-
Just off to vote, I wonder if they have put the broken glass down for UKIP supporters?
-
No. You described them as Russians not dual Russian/UK. You wrote
The implication of this statement is that they are not UK citizens. OK in your next sentence you do say that they hold dual nationality. The fact that their original nationality was Russian is a total red herring. You are making an observation based on their origin solely and not on their life choices.
They can vote because they are UK citizens. Their Russian nationality has nothing to do with this. You were being disingenuous.
Sorry HH _ I wasn't being disingenuous whatsoever.
These are people I know, you don't. They still consider themselves to be Russian, albeit Russians who have lived in the UK for decades. They have dual nationality so they remain russian. I never attempted to hid the fact of their dual nationality, indeed I was clear that to be the reason they could vote and the others can't.
But this is a side issues, one misinterpreted by others here. In my view all should be able to vote - all have been permanently resident in the UK for years, all are massively contributing to the UK in many, many ways. All will be affected by the outcome.
The reason your other colleagues cannot vote is that they have been uninterested in maximising their civic role in their adopted home.
Oh sod off HH - you don't know these people so how dare you claim authority to judge them.
These people are all fantastic academics, including internationally leading top researchers. They have a fantastically international outlook - working with people across the world. These are involved and engaged in all aspects of life in the UK. Except for this the lack of a UK passport has no effect on their lives so why would they change nationality.
If you went and lived in Italy would you become an Italian?
-
If you went and lived in Italy would you become an Italian?
Yes.
I have property in France which - for circumstances I won't bore you with - I do not occupy full time. Were I to be living in France full-time I would seek French citizenship. I regard that as my civic duty - an obligation that comes with privileges.
And thank you for your "Sod off." I took you for your better.
-
No. You described them as Russians not dual Russian/UK. You wrote
The implication of this statement is that they are not UK citizens. OK in your next sentence you do say that they hold dual nationality. The fact that their original nationality was Russian is a total red herring. You are making an observation based on their origin solely and not on their life choices.
They can vote because they are UK citizens. Their Russian nationality has nothing to do with this. You were being disingenuous.
The reason your other colleagues cannot vote is that they have been uninterested in maximising their civic role in their adopted home.
When you have been spinning with Cameron its hard to stop.
-
Just voted. Polling station very busy. Young lad telling us he's casting his vote for the first time - he's 18 today.
-
I was the first one at mine, I had to wait while they sealed the ballot boxes.
-
No. You described them as Russians not dual Russian/UK. You wrote
The implication of this statement is that they are not UK citizens.
I've just read his post: it says they have dual nationality right there in it.
OK in your next sentence you do say that they hold dual nationality. The fact that their original nationality was Russian is a total red herring. You are making an observation based on their origin solely and not on their life choices.
They can vote because they are UK citizens. Their Russian nationality has nothing to do with this. You were being disingenuous.
Surely the point is that they have dual nationality because they are Russians. An EU citizen does not need to go through all this British citizenship malarky because they have a right to live and work here anyway. Russians in the same situation have to apply for British citizenship. Ironically, this has given them a say in a situation that doesn't affect them but has disenfranchised a large group of people that will be significantly impacted by the decision.
-
Odds moving further to Stay, implied 80%
-
Odds moving further to Stay, implied 80%
Lets just hope - all we need now is another sodding recession.
-
Just checked my Ladbrokes account for the live odds, where there are various bets on offer - as follows (for anyone who fancies a bet).
UK Wide - Stay is 1/5, Leave is 7/2 - so the bookies will be delighted to take Leave bets.
On the percentages for Stay the lowest price is 13/8 at between 50-55% and 2/1 between 55-60%. Beyond that the odds increase either side (5/1 for 45-50% and 7/1 for 60-65%). So the bookies think that Stay will win but by no greater that 60/40 and probably somewhere around 55/45.
For Leave the lowest odds are 4/9 for 40-50%, with 4/1 for 50-60% and 9/2 for 30-40%, which means the bookies think that while Leave will get over 40% they won't win, hence the strong odds on for a Stay majority.
They also quote the Stay/Leave odd for each of the UK countries as follows.
Scotland - Stay is 1/50, Leave 2/1
Wales - Stay is 4/11, Leave 15/8
England - Stay is 1/3, Leave 2/1
N.Ireland - Stay is 1/33, Leave 8/1.
So they think Stay will win the majority in each of the 4 countries, and is a certainty in Scotland and Wales.
They are also offering bets on certain areas having the top Stay percentages in the list of areas offered for betting purposes: Edinburgh 2/1, Hackney 4/1, Southwark, 6/1, Islington 7/1, Cambridge 7/1, Oxford 7/1, Brighton & Hove, 16/1 Manchester 16/1, Cardiff 40/1.
For the highest proportion of Leave voting within the areas offered for betting purposes they have : Isle of Wight 7/2, Stoke-on-Trent 4/1, Peterborough 5/1, Cornwall 8/1, Plymouth, 12/1, Sunderland 12/1, Portsmouth 12/1, Swindon 16/1, Wolverhampton 16/1, Northampton 16/1, Kingston upon Hull 16/1, Derby 16/1.
Personally I'd rather bet on today's horse racing.
-
Personally I'd rather bet on today's horse racing.
More enjoyable if not profitable.
-
I've just read his post: it says they have dual nationality right there in it.
Surely the point is that they have dual nationality because they are Russians. An EU citizen does not need to go through all this British citizenship malarky because they have a right to live and work here anyway. Russians in the same situation have to apply for British citizenship. Ironically, this has given them a say in a situation that doesn't affect them but has disenfranchised a large group of people that will be significantly impacted by the decision.
Thanks JP - clearly you get it.
-
Continuing on with the theme of voter eligibility, I am completely at a loss as to why they are using eligibility for general elections, rather than EU elections. It makes no sense at all.
Here is another anomaly - here is a list of people who have made representations on either side of the argument in the run up to the vote:
Lord Sugar
Baroness Warsi (she who changed sides)
Lord Lawson
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Neil Kinnock
Lord Bamford (he of JCB and Brexit)
Guess what - none are able to vote, why? Because they are all members of the House of Lords and therefore ineligible to vote in general elections.
-
Guess what - none are able to vote, why? Because they are all members of the House of Lords and therefore ineligible to vote in general elections.
It would appear there's been some sort of specific amendment to allow members of the HoL to vote in this referendum. They're explicitly mentioned in the list of people eligible.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/eu-referendum/background-uk-eu-referendum-2016/
(Don't know what the position was for the AV referendum a few years ago.)
-
Market moved further to Stay. 87% likelihood of remain. More money been matched on Betfair in 4 days than the whole of the General Election.
-
I've already made my bet by not getting my holiday Euros ahead of the vote.
-
I've already made my bet by not getting my holiday Euros ahead of the vote.
Actually I think the Euro/£ levels would have been somewhat less affected than $/£ - because although a vote for Brexit would massively weakened the £ it would also harm the EU and therefore the Euro.
We are off to the states and Canada in the summer - a vote for Brexit would make that a much, much more expensive trip
-
Actually I think the Euro/£ levels would have been somewhat less affected than $/£ - because although a vote for Brexit would massively weakened the £ it would also harm the EU and therefore the Euro.
We are off to the states and Canada in the summer - a vote for Brexit would make that a much, much more expensive trip
There's going to be some 'interesting' things happening on the money markets tonight.
-
There's going to be some 'interesting' things happening on the money markets tonight.
Particularly because there is no official exit poll. The markets will be the thing to watch at 10.
-
Particularly because there is no official exit poll. The markets will be the thing to watch at 10.
But there is believed to be a private poll commissioned by speculators.
My daughters partner works for one of the big banks in Canary Wharf and a lot of people will be working all night. It's reckoned it's going to be the busiest trading period ever.
'Project Fear' seems quite a reasonable set of forecasts when you consider the stuff that is going on!
-
But there is believed to be a private poll commissioned by speculators.
My daughters partner works for one of the big banks in Canary Wharf and a lot of people will be working all night. It's reckoned it's going to be the busiest trading period ever.
'Project Fear' seems quite a reasonable set of forecasts when you consider the stuff that is going on!
Yes that's why the markets will be the thing to.watch
They should give a good indication of what the poll says.
As to the markets doing something that they alrady predict themselves as being a good or a bad thing, then that's just circular.
-
Yes that's why the markets will be the thing to.watch
They should give a good indication of what the poll says.
As to the markets doing something that they alrady predict themselves as being a good or a bad thing, then that's just circular.
I suppose it will all depend on how the exit polls and early results turn out. If it looks like a clear Remain, I would expect trading to be relatively quiet with the Pound and Euro recovering to sensible levels. If it looks like a Leave vote there will be panic with heavy trading and the Pound crashing, but if it is too close to call, there will be frantic trading all night with the Pound and Euro bouncing around all over the place.
-
Just checked my Ladbrokes account for the live odds, where there are various bets on offer - as follows (for anyone who fancies a bet).
Personally I'd rather bet on today's horse racing.
Why would anyone use Ladbrokes in these days of betfair?
-
Why would anyone use Ladbrokes in these days of betfair?
Familiarity, in my case anyway, and since I mostly do Totepool betting (Placepots/Quadpots) it makes no difference which company is used since the pools are centrally managed by the Tote.
-
That's now more matched on Betfair today than for t total of the General Election
-
Just to note if it is within one vote, looks like I won't make it back in time to vote due to 5 hours travel delay
-
Just to note if it is within one vote, looks like I won't make it back in time to vote due to 5 hours travel delay
Tip for the future NS - postal vote! Much easier anyway.
-
Odds are nailed on now 1.18.
Ohh well time to move on I hear Chilcott is coming soon!
Although a work colleague, a Corbyn supporter is a Brexiter but a little shy, I wonder if that will be a thing like shy Tories.
Mmm its very cheap to lay remain on Betfair.
-
Tip for the future NS - postal vote! Much easier anyway.
I like the physicality of voting. I like doing it on the day. I had allowed 4 hours.
-
Odds are nailed on now 1.18.
Ohh well time to move on I hear Chilcott is coming soon!
Although a work colleague, a Corbyn supporter is a Brexiter but a little shy, I wonder if that will be a thing like shy Tories.
Mmm its very cheap to lay remain on Betfair.
I think it is the Remainders who are likely to be'shy' with all the reports of violence that has been displayed by the more unstable elements of Brexit
-
Sprinted off plane, jumped over bags and as of 5 minutes ago voted.
-
After four results, it is looking pretty bad.
-
After four results, it is looking pretty bad.
or good!
-
or good!
No, it's bad.
Do you know why the pound is plummeting right now? It's not because everybody thinks a leave vote is going to be good.
-
It just goes to show that turkeys really can vote for Christmas - standby to be stuffed!
-
or good!
It is bad.
Perhaps we shall eventually see 23 June replacing 5 November as the day on which people celebrate their contempt for government.
-
Yes, I know you think he's wrong but you seem to be saying that based on simply ignoring his argument and using you own feelings as indicative of what would happen. Given the lack of follow through in how people said they would react with a Tory Govt, and how they then felt afterwards, Biagi, an ex SNP MSP has facts while you have your personal opinion about what you would do.
Added to the comments from Humza Yousaf, it would seem that the SNP are clearly not confident of what will happen. Indeed I know a number of long term members of the party who think it will make Scottish independence harder to achieve. One of the issues that the Yes campaign struggled with was the lack of clarity around continued EU membership. Given Brexitx that's only going to become less clear.
You were saying NS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102
"First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Scotland had delivered a "strong, unequivocal vote" to remain in the EU.
Leave has built an insurmountable lead in the race - with the BBC forecasting a win for Leave by 52% to 48%.
Ms Sturgeon's predecessor, Alex Salmond, said the result could lead to a second independence referendum."
-
You were saying NS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102
"First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Scotland had delivered a "strong, unequivocal vote" to remain in the EU.
Leave has built an insurmountable lead in the race - with the BBC forecasting a win for Leave by 52% to 48%.
Ms Sturgeon's predecessor, Alex Salmond, said the result could lead to a second independence referendum."
I honestly wouldn't blame them. England has just dragged them to disaster.
They're probably feeling pretty sick in Gibraltar too.
-
Keunsberg spinning leave Vote as a labour problem.
-
Hannan smiling as pound crashes.
-
It is grim news indeed. However, I'm going to try not to think about it while I'm away. Going to be difficult, though.
-
You were saying NS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102
"First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Scotland had delivered a "strong, unequivocal vote" to remain in the EU.
Leave has built an insurmountable lead in the race - with the BBC forecasting a win for Leave by 52% to 48%.
Ms Sturgeon's predecessor, Alex Salmond, said the result could lead to a second independence referendum."
And? Neither you, nor Alex, nor Nicola, nor me know what happens with voters intentions. A substantial part of the Yes vote voted Leave. Things are going to be complex here, that hasn't changed and even Alec who is the more bullish person in the SNP is only using the word 'could'. Unfortunately we live in interesting times.
-
Off to get my grandparents birth certificates this weekend
-
And? Neither you, nor Alex, nor Nicola, nor me know what happens with voters intentions. A substantial part of the Yes vote voted Leave. Things are going to be complex here, that hasn't changed and even Alec who is the more bullish person in the SNP is only using the word 'could'. Unfortunately we live in interesting times.
I fully agree things are going to be complex, but everything has changed and it is difficult to escape the logic of the case for a second Scottish referendum.
-
I am deeply depressed. I hope I am wrong but I suspect we will regret leaving the EU, BIG TIME. The pound has crashed, the stock market is well down. Any money we think we will be saving will probably be used to clear up the mess!
-
I fully agree things are going to be complex, but everything has changed and it is difficult to escape the logic of the case for a second Scottish referendum.
I am not arguing about the logic, but about the likelihood.
-
I am not arguing about the logic, but about the likelihood.
You think that the Scots are illogical?
-
Despite Cameron saying he wouldn't resign and would trigger article 50 immediately he's flipped on both. I won my bets!
-
You think that the Scots are illogical?
I think we all are.
-
I am sorry Cameron has resigned. :(
-
You think that the Scots are illogical?
As to the actual logic. There is a huge question about how Scotland would manage to do this in the time of Brexit, which means they would have to renegotiate in and that creates more uncertainty when it looks likely finances will be screwed across the UK. I was a Yes Voter but i'm not convinced we currently know enough about what is going to happen for positions to be logical.
-
I am sorry Cameron has resigned. :(
It was inevitable. His position was untenable once the result went for Brexit.
-
As to the actual logic. There is a huge question about how Scotland would manage to do this in the time of Brexit, which means they would have to renegotiate in and that creates more uncertainty when it looks likely finances will be screwed across the UK. I was a Yes Voter but i'm not convinced we currently know enough about what is going to happen for positions to be logical.
I think you start from where you are, and there is probably never going to be a better time.
-
And? Neither you, nor Alex, nor Nicola, nor me know what happens with voters intentions. A substantial part of the Yes vote voted Leave. Things are going to be complex here, that hasn't changed and even Alec who is the more bullish person in the SNP is only using the word 'could'. Unfortunately we live in interesting times.
Alex Salmond was practically demanding the independence referendum on R4 this morning.
-
Despite Cameron saying he wouldn't resign and would trigger article 50 immediately he's flipped on both. I won my bets!
Another Leaver lie: he has resigned. You can stop now, you've won.
Nigel Farage has now admitted that the £350 million promise to the NHS was a mistake. He has also said "We need a plan now". What? You mean there isn't one?
I'm sitting in an office with 100's of people who now think they will all lose their jobs because the company will almost certainly relocate to Germany. Do you want to come round here and tell them to their faces that they are better out than in?
-
I am deeply depressed. I hope I am wrong but I suspect we will regret leaving the EU, BIG TIME. The pound has crashed, the stock market is well down. Any money we think we will be saving will probably be used to clear up the mess!
I strongly suspect that a hell of a lot of people who voted Leave are already regretting their actions - They apparently believed that 'Project Fear' was just a ploy!
-
I am sorry Cameron has resigned. :(
As Trent has said, it was inevitable.
But why are you sorry that a man who put his party before his country is on his way out? He did so after the Scottish referendum and his intention, in calling the EU referendum was to give him more control over his own party. He has had a big kick in the bollocks now, and it is going to hurt him for a long, long time.
First consequence of result of referendum: increase in price of petrol at the pumps? Typical Brexit oaf: "I didn't think this would happen!"
-
Dear Jeremyp,
We need a plan, you turn off the lights and I will make sure all the doors are closed :(
Gonnagle.
-
There is a huge question about how Scotland would manage to do this in the time of Brexit, which means they would have to renegotiate in and that creates more uncertainty when it looks likely finances will be screwed across the UK. I was a Yes Voter but i'm not convinced we currently know enough about what is going to happen for positions to be logical.
Unless Cameron's successor bottles it, the resignation will go in in the autumn and then there will be a maximum of two years before we are officially out. I don't see how you can legislate for another referendum and dissolve the Union in time for that. Even if you could, you still have the same problem that Scotland is not a member of the EU, the UK is. However, by being independent of the xenophobes south of the border, Scotland can at least apply for membership.
-
As Trent has said, it was inevitable.
But why are you sorry that a man who put his party before his country is on his way out? He did so after the Scottish referendum and his intention, in calling the EU referendum was to give him more control over his own party. He has had a big kick in the bollocks now, and it is going to hurt him for a long, long time.
While I'm not going to shed any tears over Cameron's departure, it is worrying when you look at the possible replacements.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
We need a plan, you turn off the lights and I will make sure all the doors are closed :(
Gonnagle.
Your plan is simple: push for a new independence referendum and get out of the Union while you still can. I was dead against Scottish independence last time, but I cannot stand in your way this time.
-
Your plan is simple: push for a new independence referendum and get out of the Union while you still can. I was dead against Scottish independence last time, but I cannot stand in your way this time.
I feel exactly the same - the English voters have been duped into making the stupidest decision in living memory - the Scots would do well to make a break for it.
-
Let's face it - both campaigns were led by politicians - the Remain lot had no plan of what to do if they lost and Leave had no plan for if they won!
Both sides are now like ducks on a fast river - all serene on top and paddling like buggery underneath.
A couple of points - 10% more peolple voted yesterday than in the last General Election and a majority to Leave of over a million is not what you could call a merginal decision.
How many voted Leave because of the blatant scaremongering of the Remain supporters?
How many voted remain becasue Boris and Farage were for Leave?
And, possibly more importantly, how many didn't have a clue and voted on thge toss of a, even mental, coin.
What happens next?
PROBABLY:
. . . Scotland will demand another Independence referendum;
. . . Sinn Fein will demand a referendum in Northern Ireland on uniting the North and Eire
POSSIBLY
. . . just about anything that you can think of as nobody really knows.
One thing IS for sure - the Gravy Train of British Euro MEP/Bureaucrat expenses and backhanders has just left the tracks! As far as I personally am concerned that is a damn geeat plus!
The rest?
My fingers are tightly crossed.
-
I strongly suspect that a hell of a lot of people who voted Leave are already regretting their actions - They apparently believed that 'Project Fear' was just a ploy!
No, I think that most of them saw it for what it was - blatant and unmitigated blackmail.
-
I blame Hope's prayer groups.
-
Let's face it - both campaigns were led by politicians - the Remain lot had no plan of what to do if they lost and Leave had no plan for if they won!
Both sides are now like ducks on a fast river - all serene on top and paddling like buggery underneath.
A couple of points - 10% more peolple voted yesterday than in the last General Election and a majority to Leave of over a million is not what you could call a merginal decision.
How many voted Leave because of the blatant scaremongering of the Remain supporters?
How many voted remain becasue Boris and Farage were for Leave?
And, possibly more importantly, how many didn't have a clue and voted on thge toss of a, even mental, coin.
What happens next?
PROBABLY:
. . . Scotland will demand another Independence referendum;
. . . Sinn Fein will demand a referendum in Northern Ireland on uniting the North and Eire
POSSIBLY
. . . just about anything that you can think of as nobody really knows.
One thing IS for sure - the Gravy Train of British Euro MEP/Bureaucrat expenses and backhanders has just left the tracks! As far as I personally am concerned that is a damn geeat plus!
The rest?
My fingers are tightly crossed.
I disagree with that analysis Owlswing. It wasn't the responsibility of the Remain campaign to plan for an Leave vote, It's the Leave campaign who told the public that everything was going to be fine - and the media failed to press them on the details
All this turmoil was spelled out by the Remain camp but the Brexiteers just dismissed it as 'Project fear'
"Experts - what do they know?"
-
I feel exactly the same - the English voters have been duped into making the stupidest decision in living memory - the Scots would do well to make a break for it.
Can I add my voice to JEremyP and LA's. Last time I was against Scotland going for independence. I was wrong. Get out as soon as you can.
-
Dear Lapsed and Jeremyp,
It's coming! Nicola Sturgeon has often said, only if the people will it, well we have, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain, I honestly can't see any party here in Scotland willing to fight against Independence, Labour are in turmoil, the Tories will be running around wondering who will be our next PM, I am a ordinary voter but if there is even a hint that Boris is in the running I will tear down the Union Flag and raise the Saltire, sad, very sad!
Gonnagle.
-
I disagree with that analysis Owlswing. It wasn't the responsibility of the Remain campaign to plan for an Leave vote, It's the Leave campaign who told the public that everything was going to be fine - and the media failed to press them on the details
The remain campaign are not government, the debate was over who was going to run the country.
-
I disagree with that analysis Owlswing. It wasn't the responsibility of the Remain campaign to plan for an Leave vote, It's the Leave campaign who told the public that everything was going to be fine - and the media failed to press them on the details
All this turmoil was spelled out by the Remain camp but the Brexiteers just dismissed it as 'Project fear'
"Experts - what do they know?"
That's it, blame everyone else - typical gutless response from a political standpoint!
-
Dear Jakswan,
The remain campaign are not government, the debate was over who was going to run the country.
Boris!! But Donald Duck is visiting Scotland, I will have a word with him, maybe he wants the job.
Gonnagle.
-
No, I think that most of them saw it for what it was - blatant and unmitigated blackmail.
You don't understand the meaning of that word, do you.
-
The remain campaign are not government, the debate was over who was going to run the country.
No I would strongly disagree, the debate was between the xenophobia drummed up by Leave and the economic realities spelt out by Remain - and as someone just said on the radio "Project Fear has become Project Reality"
-
That's it, blame everyone else - typical gutless response from a political standpoint!
We are where we are - in a mess, and today it's difficult not to blame the idiots who got us here. Tomorrow things might look different - who knows!
-
No I would strongly disagree, the debate was between the xenophobia drummed up by Leave and the economic realities spelt out by Remain - and as someone just said on the radio "Project Fear has become Project Reality"
Even now the name calling and scare stories continue. You were never going to change someones mind by calling them names are spouting Tory spin.
-
Even now the name calling and scare stories continue. You were never going to change someones mind by calling them names are spouting Tory spin.
It's a matter of fact - a hell of a lot of people voted Leave simply because they feared immigration. The biggest mistake that Remain made was in failing to communicating the severity of the economic consequences to the public.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Scare stories! is the channel tunnel open for business, who is now guarding our borders, will we still have cross channel cooperation in who we allow to enter the UK.
Gonnagle.
-
It's a matter of fact - a hell of a lot of people voted Leave simply because they feared immigration.
Its a matter of fact that a hell of lot of people voted leave that do not fear immigration.
The biggest mistake that Remain made was in failing to communicating the severity of the economic consequences to the public.
Blimey a few days ago we had Cameron almost literally shouting 'won't someone think of the children', you are suggesting the scare stories were not scary enough.
-
I think the English and the Scots need to sort out our differences. The fact is that England, Wales and Scotland are one nation; this is dictated by the geography of Britain. We need to collectively renew our national identity.
-
I probably should have used the word 'country' - we all live in the same country.
-
I think the English and the Scots need to sort out our differences. The fact is that England, Wales and Scotland are one nation; this is dictated by the geography of Britain. We need to collectively renew our national identity.
What might that identity be then Spud, in view of the events of the last 24 hours?
-
Its a matter of fact that a hell of lot of people voted leave that do not fear immigration.
Is it?
Blimey a few days ago we had Cameron almost literally shouting 'won't someone think of the children', you are suggesting the scare stories were not scary enough.
Not enough people did think of the children.
The reason these stories are scare stories is that they are scary. Look what happened to the pound today. If you are not scared, you should be.
-
The fact is that England, Wales and Scotland are one nation;
Not for much longer.
this is dictated by the geography of Britain. We need to collectively renew our national identity.
Where were you when the Scottish results came in?
-
Another Leaver lie: he has resigned. You can stop now, you've won.
Nigel Farage has now admitted that the £350 million promise to the NHS was a mistake. He has also said "We need a plan now". What? You mean there isn't one?
I'm sitting in an office with 100's of people who now think they will all lose their jobs because the company will almost certainly relocate to Germany. Do you want to come round here and tell them to their faces that they are better out than in?
Some lost their jobs because of the EU years ago like the fisherman....
-
I wonder what will happen in Northern Ireland, as like Scotland the majority voted to Remain? Is it conceivable it could reunite with the rest of Ireland?
-
Let's face it - both campaigns were led by politicians - the Remain lot had no plan of what to do if they lost and Leave had no plan for if they won!
Both sides are now like ducks on a fast river - all serene on top and paddling like buggery underneath.
A couple of points - 10% more peolple voted yesterday than in the last General Election and a majority to Leave of over a million is not what you could call a merginal decision.
How many voted Leave because of the blatant scaremongering of the Remain supporters?
How many voted remain becasue Boris and Farage were for Leave?
And, possibly more importantly, how many didn't have a clue and voted on thge toss of a, even mental, coin.
What happens next?
PROBABLY:
. . . Scotland will demand another Independence referendum;
. . . Sinn Fein will demand a referendum in Northern Ireland on uniting the North and Eire
POSSIBLY
. . . just about anything that you can think of as nobody really knows.
One thing IS for sure - the Gravy Train of British Euro MEP/Bureaucrat expenses and backhanders has just left the tracks! As far as I personally am concerned that is a damn geeat plus!
The rest?
My fingers are tightly crossed.
You left out the upheaval that will take place in the EU as the sceptics use this to further their desire to totally overhaul the EU.
IT IS THE END OF THE EU AS WE KNOW IT!!!.......and I feel fine...
-
I think Sadiq and Nicola will be having a lot of chats.
-
No I would strongly disagree, the debate was between the xenophobia drummed up by Leave and the economic realities spelt out by Remain - and as someone just said on the radio "Project Fear has become Project Reality"
No it hasn't!!!
It's only been half a day so far how can you make such a judgement? Come back to us in 6 months time to a year and see how things are.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Scare stories! is the channel tunnel open for business, who is now guarding our borders, will we still have cross channel cooperation in who we allow to enter the UK.
Gonnagle.
We are still in the EU and will be for a few years yet. Don't panic, nothing will change rapidly. Keep cool. 8)
-
I blame Hope's prayer groups.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder what will happen in Northern Ireland, as like Scotland the majority voted to Remain? Is it conceivable it could reunite with the rest of Ireland?
Yeah right, ::)
If they try that there will be bloodshed once more.
-
Dear Jack,
We are still in the EU and will be for a few years yet. Don't panic, nothing will change rapidly. Keep cool. 8)
Oh! I am very cool now baby :-* I listened to our Nicola this morning, I now know what to do, and she also explained why you voted to leave, never mind, we can look forward to blowing each other kisses over the barb wire fence at the border.
Gonnagle.
-
I think Sadiq and Nicola will be having a lot of chats.
What they need are polls telling how it is because they can't afford to lose it again else it will be dead in the water for decades.
-
Dear Jack,
Oh! I am very cool now baby :-* I listened to our Nicola this morning, I now know what to do, and she also explained why you voted to leave, never mind, we can look forward to blowing each other kisses over the barb wire fence at the border.
Gonnagle.
The barbed wire would be there to stop you lot coming over to us as you lot starve and crave food, as you stupidly wait to join the EU and yet cease to be in our prosperous Union.
-
The barbed wire would be there to stop you lot coming over to us as you lot starve and crave food, as you stupidly wait to join the EU and yet cease to be in our prosperous Union.
Why will we have food. We cannot feed the population without imports.
We also receive a lot of farming subsidies which will disappear.
-
I see that fucking cunt Carney has just given the bankers £250 billion to make sure they are ok, so they don't get too upset. Yet when we need a handful of billions for the NHS no one seems to know where to get it from. He should be the one who should resign if anyone should.
-
The barbed wire would be there to stop you lot coming over to us as you lot starve and crave food, as you stupidly wait to join the EU and yet cease to be in our prosperous Union.
You and Farage seem to have a lot in common!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Why will we have food. We cannot feed the population without imports.
We also receive a lot of farming subsidies which will disappear.
We will be trading with the rest of the world plus a good arrangement with the EU.
-
What they need are polls telling how it is because they can't afford to lose it again else it will be dead in the water for decades.
Agreed. But that is a non sequitur to the point.
-
You and Farage seem to have a lot in common!!!!!!!!!!!
If Scotland choose to leave the Union then they should take the consequences.
-
Just leaving this here
http://tinyurl.com/zl5z2qp
-
Agreed. But that is a non sequitur to the point.
I don't agree. If they are likely to lose then all discussions are moot. I don't think the Scottish people have the stomach for another referendum, especially if the outcome would be to be out of the UK and of the EU, as they wait to join the EU.
What currency are they going to have; they can't have sterling if they want to join the EU. Oil prices are at rock bottom.....what else have they got to argue with?
-
Just leaving this here
Isn't that the look a dog gives when it has just shat on the carpet?
-
Dear Jackie boy,
I don't think the Scottish people have the stomach for another referendum, especially if the outcome would be to be out of the UK and of the EU, as they wait to join the EU.
Not a question of having the stomach for, we have been pushed into a corner, I don't want to leave the Union but what else can I do, wait for Boris to fuck us all or go it alone, sorry but you guys have made your bed, we tried to warn you, so I can now walk away with no guilt on my hands.
Oh and Nicola has been on the phone all morning with the EU, we will be a shoo in, if only to put one over on little England. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jackie boy,
Not a question of having the stomach for, we have been pushed into a corner, I don't want to leave the Union but what else can I do, wait for Boris to fuck us all or go it alone, sorry but you guys have made your bed, we tried to warn you, so I can now walk away with no guilt on my hands.
Oh and Nicola has been on the phone all morning with the EU, we will be a shoo in, if only to put one over on little England. ;)
Gonnagle.
England will be even smaller if Scotland leaves the union!
-
Its a matter of fact that a hell of lot of people voted leave that do not fear immigration.
Have you listened to any of the interviews with outers - migration is a big issue.
Blimey a few days ago we had Cameron almost literally shouting 'won't someone think of the children', you are suggesting the scare stories were not scary enough.
I'm saying that for whatever reason, he was unable to convince the majority of doubters that the economic threat was real.
-
London still wants to be in so perhaps they could marry up with the SNP and call in Scotlond.
-
We are still in the EU and will be for a few years yet. Don't panic, nothing will change rapidly. Keep cool. 8)
The problem is, that two years of uncertainty it leaves us in a very vulnerable position - right now our economy is just a 'play ground' for speculators.
If we are to get back on an even keel we need stability, and that means a firm plan. All we have at the moment is the Brexiteers vague ideas of an unspecified free trade zone.
-
Dear Floo,
England will be even smaller if Scotland leaves the union!
I really don't think it is an if, when is the word, I honestly don't see Boris and co pulling off anything extraordinary in the next couple of years which will change this.
Boris can't even point at the Union flag and ask me, where is your loyalty, for me, as a blue, white and red guy, he has walked over that flag that I once held so dear, he has taken the Great out of Great Britain.
Gonnagle.
-
There is a kind of black humour in the news that Cornwall is seeking reassurances, that they will still obtain various grants, formerly from the EU. I think the Leave vote in Cornwall was about 60/40 for Leave. Now that's what you call joined up thinking.
Further black humour, Farage wasted no time in saying that talking of money from former EU payments going to the NHS, was 'misguided'. Wow, that didn't take long.
-
Dear Floo,
I really don't think it is an if, when is the word, I honestly don't see Boris and co pulling off anything extraordinary in the next couple of years which will change this.
Boris can't even point at the Union flag and ask me, where is your loyalty, for me, as a blue, white and red guy, he has walked over that flag that I once held so dear, he has taken the Great out of Great Britain.
Gonnagle.
So its good news all round, Fan Dabi Dozi.
Enjoy the EURO and Greek style austerity, ten years on Sturgeon will be blaming the EU for it all, must have someone else to blame after all. :)
Hold the phone though, we are now hearing 'there is no need for haste' from Johnson.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Hold the phone though, we are now hearing 'there is no need for haste' from Johnson.
Aye!! But the message from the EU is, get on with it.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't agree. If they are likely to lose then all discussions are moot. I don't think the Scottish people have the stomach for another referendum, especially if the outcome would be to be out of the UK and of the EU, as they wait to join the EU.
What currency are they going to have; they can't have sterling if they want to join the EU. Oil prices are at rock bottom.....what else have they got to argue with?
And this has relevance to a comment that Sadiq Khan and Nicola Sturgeon will be talking a lot in the future in what way?
-
A friend said to me that Labour is really unelectable now, as sections of the working class have rebelled against the EU. Well, when did Labour ever take time to explain how neo-liberalism and globalization work, and also about immigration, and other stuff in the EU? Did anyone get the memo?
-
A friend said to me that Labour is really unelectable now, as sections of the working class have rebelled against the EU. Well, when did Labour ever take time to explain how neo-liberalism and globalization work, and also about immigration, and other stuff in the EU? Did anyone get the memo?
They didn't tell anyone, they just sneered at them and called them bigots.
-
They didn't tell anyone, they just sneered at them and called them bigots.
That's certainly not true where I live, although it may happen elsewhere.
-
Further black humour, Farage wasted no time in saying that talking of money from former EU payments going to the NHS, was 'misguided'. Wow, that didn't take long.
Surprise, surprise.
-
We will be trading with the rest of the world plus a good arrangement with the EU.
I think right now is probably the time that this wondrous plan ought to be unveiled in all it's glorious detail - or could it be that it it's just a few words scribbled on the back of a fag packet saying: "Keep fingers crossed and hope for the best"
-
Dear Jackie boy,
Not a question of having the stomach for, we have been pushed into a corner, I don't want to leave the Union but what else can I do, wait for Boris to fuck us all or go it alone, sorry but you guys have made your bed, we tried to warn you, so I can now walk away with no guilt on my hands.
Oh and Nicola has been on the phone all morning with the EU, we will be a shoo in, if only to put one over on little England. ;)
Gonnagle.
But the EU has already changed because we have left, and by the time you lot are getting near to joining the EU it will be so changed and so anaemic (in part because we left) you will be wishing you stayed with us.
-
The problem is, that two years of uncertainty it leaves us in a very vulnerable position - right now our economy is just a 'play ground' for speculators.
If we are to get back on an even keel we need stability, and that means a firm plan. All we have at the moment is the Brexiteers vague ideas of an unspecified free trade zone.
Nothing has changed and will probably not do so much for the next two years, so what are you yapping on about?
There's the WTO status - what's the problem?
-
Dear Jakswan,
Aye!! But the message from the EU is, get on with it.
Gonnagle.
That's a joke, the EU saying get on with it when they never have; being slower than a snail.
-
And this has relevance to a comment that Sadiq Khan and Nicola Sturgeon will be talking a lot in the future in what way?
You never mentioned Sadiq Khan. So why will they be talking a lot together?
-
Nothing has changed and will probably not do so much for the next two years, so what are you yapping on about?
There's the WTO status - what's the problem?
Nothing has changed?
Is the crashing pound and stock market just my imagination then?
-
Nothing has changed?
Is the crashing pound and stock market just my imagination then?
Fuel goes up next week as well.
When that goes up, so does everything else.
I am thinking of buying a wheelbarrow to handle my share of this £350m a week .
-
A friend said to me that Labour is really unelectable now, as sections of the working class have rebelled against the EU. Well, when did Labour ever take time to explain how neo-liberalism and globalization work, and also about immigration, and other stuff in the EU? Did anyone get the memo?
Seem that Corbyn's ass is on the line as well as Cameron's.
They seem to think a GE is a possibility but I can't see it myself but, hell, who knows considering the way things are going at the moment.
-
Fuel goes up next week as well.
When that goes up, so does everything else.
I am thinking of buying a wheelbarrow to handle my share of this £350m a week .
This is apparently Jack's concept of things not changing!
-
That's certainly not true where I live, although it may happen elsewhere.
They tried to brainwash people by coming up with the PC bollocks of closing down discussion by calling people racist and xenophobes etc. hoping their followers would just repeat it mindlessly like children.
-
They tried to brainwash people by coming up with the PC bollocks of closing down discussion by calling people racist and xenophobes etc. hoping their followers would just repeat it mindlessly like children.
Quite the reverse - they tried to use intelligent argument on people who were clearly not capable of taking it on board.
-
I think right now is probably the time that this wondrous plan ought to be unveiled in all it's glorious detail - or could it be that it it's just a few words scribbled on the back of a fag packet saying: "Keep fingers crossed and hope for the best"
Hey, who told you that? It's suppose to be a secret. That is the master plan ;)
-
Nothing has changed?
Is the crashing pound and stock market just my imagination then?
Not only yours but theirs as well. It'll be fine in a day or two.
-
Fuel goes up next week as well.
When that goes up, so does everything else.
I am thinking of buying a wheelbarrow to handle my share of this £350m a week .
The price of wheelbarrows have shot up too!!!
-
The price of wheelbarrows have shot up too!!!
Of course everything will, but said no change!
-
This is apparently Jack's concept of things not changing!
I did say the price of wheelbarrows are shooting up.
A low pound is good for exports and oil is at an all time low period, so much better to get the petro-companies to pass on the benefits.
-
Quite the reverse - they tried to use intelligent argument on people who were clearly not capable of taking it on board.
;D ;D ;D ;D
You think the Labour party are intelligent? :o ::)
-
Seem that Corbyn's ass is on the line as well as Cameron's.
They seem to think a GE is a possibility but I can't see it myself but, hell, who knows considering the way things are going at the moment.
Cameron no longer has an ass. Even Farage will have to kiss Boris's ring.
-
Of course everything will, but said no change!
Within normal parameters.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
You think the Labour party are intelligent? :o ::)
Petrol up 3P a litre.....Boris is a pretty expensive taste.
-
Cameron no longer has an ass. Even Farage will have to kiss Boris's ring.
No he won't. Anyway if there is a GE Farage will be there in parliament. We still have the expenses scandal of the last GE and by-elections of the Conservatives so more shit on them, meaning UKIP will have an even bigger chance of having some power.
-
Petrol up 3P a litre.....Boris is a pretty expensive taste.
That's just stupid to think things happen that fast. The companies have reserves which were bought or agreed months ago.
-
What might that identity be then Spud, in view of the events of the last 24 hours?
The fact that I am talking to you now is one aspect of it. I know the British have different ancestry and that the Celts have their own ancient languages and came here first. But if the Welsh, with their own language, can call themselves British, why not the Scots? You are all within driving distance of the South East where you can enjoy Mediterranean temperatures. And we love to come and climb your mountains. The same ocean forms a natural defense against invasion for us all.
Also, 2.2 million people in London voted to remain whereas in Scotland 1.7 million did so. So should London be allowed to remain in the EU too?
-
The fact that I am talking to you now is one aspect of it. I know the British have different ancestry and that the Celts have their own ancient languages and came here first. But if the Welsh, with their own language, can call themselves British, why not the Scots?
We do, for the present at least, but there is an alternative.
You are all within driving distance of the South East where you can enjoy Mediterranean temperatures. And we love to come and climb your mountains. The same ocean forms a natural defense against invasion for us all.
Aside from right-wing politicians and their agendas, given current political arrangements: which in the case of Scotland might be changed
Also, 2.2 million people in London voted to remain whereas in Scotland 1.7 million did so. So should London be allowed to remain in the EU too?
One is a city and the other a country with separate legal and education systems and a devolved parliament, so not quite the same thing (as I suspect you must know). It may be that some areas of England may well feel put out by this horrendous decision and this may well yet emerge as an issue.
-
One is a city and the other a country with separate legal and education systems and a devolved parliament, so not quite the same thing (as I suspect you must know). It may be that some areas of England may well feel put out by this horrendous decision and this may well yet emerge as an issue.
Maybe all the areas that voted Remain could be allowed to become part of an independent Scotland? ;)
-
So its good news all round, Fan Dabi Dozi.
Enjoy the EURO and Greek style austerity, ten years on Sturgeon will be blaming the EU for it all, must have someone else to blame after all. :)
Hold the phone though, we are now hearing 'there is no need for haste' from Johnson.
And hearing there is need for haste from the EU.
-
And hearing there is need for haste from the EU.
Of course there is need for haste, the future of our children and grandchildren is haemorrhaging away.
-
No he won't. Anyway if there is a GE Farage will be there in parliament. We still have the expenses scandal of the last GE and by-elections of the Conservatives so more shit on them, meaning UKIP will have an even bigger chance of having some power.
Well, I know there is a big thing now where we are being exhorted to understand and honour the weirdest of ideas but frankly it is ironic given your ideas that you are talking about normal parameters. What is normal about Britain losing billions in a day.
-
Vote leave people saying how their business almost went under when the last referendum happened.
In those days you had a housing allowance, Government retraining.
If it goes wrong under Brexit you are on your own.
-
Of course there is need for haste, the future of our children and grandchildren is haemorrhaging away.
so you agree with what I was saying?
-
We do, for the present at least, but there is an alternative.
Aside from right-wing politicians and their agendas, given current political arrangements: which in the case of Scotland might be changed
One is a city and the other a country with separate legal and education systems and a devolved parliament, so not quite the same thing (as I suspect you must know). It may be that some areas of England may well feel put out by this horrendous decision and this may well yet emerge as an issue.
Hi, I don't understand your second paragraph, unless by 'current' you meant something to do with the North Sea...
Agree with the third paragraph, although you do have a large proportion of seats in London's parliament precisely because we have a common geographical 'country', so why should we not have a say in your affairs?
-
Hi, I don't understand your second paragraph, unless by 'current' you meant something to do with the North Sea...
Agree with the third paragraph, although you do have a large proportion of seats in London's parliament, so why should we not have a say in your affairs?
where is the acknowledgement that this statement contradicts your earlier one abound 'country'?
-
This article may clarify:
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/06/england-has-a-soul-if-she-can-keep-it
-
Hi, I don't understand your second paragraph, unless by 'current' you meant something to do with the North Sea...
No - I mean that currently Scotland is part of the UK and it may, following this referendum, at some future point it won't be part of the UK.
Agree with the third paragraph, although you do have a large proportion of seats in London's parliament, so why should we not have a say in your affairs?
You mean the UK parliament surely, and who is 'we'? What is reserved to Westminster is for the UK-wide legislature (excepting for designated EVEL stuff) to deal with and then there are the powers that are fully devolved to Holyrood.
You don't seem up-to-speed with the existing arrangements, Spud.
-
This article may clarify:
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/06/england-has-a-soul-if-she-can-keep-it
why would it? It's almost unreadable.
-
Aside from right-wing politicians and their agendas, given current political arrangements: which in the case of Scotland might be changed
Last time I checked the SNP were closer to the Tories than LibDems, Labour or the Greens with regards to tax policy in Scotland. The SNP are almost a centre right policy that spin left with dog whistle anti-English rhetoric thinly veiled when they use the label "Westminster".
Don't get me wrong they have some awesome politicians but the toxic politics of grievance are not welcome, so hopefully indyref2 will resolve this finally.
-
Last time I checked the SNP were closer to the Tories than LibDems, Labour or the Greens with regards to tax policy in Scotland. The SNP are almost a centre right policy that spin left with dog whistle anti-English rhetoric thinly veiled when they use the label "Westminster".
Don't get me wrong they have some awesome politicians but the toxic politics of grievance are not welcome, so hopefully indyref2 will resolve this finally.
Last time you talked on this you showed your complete lack of understanding of how the tax system works currently in Scotland and ignored that the proposal from SLab took more away from lower tax payers but there we are
-
This article may clarify:
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/06/england-has-a-soul-if-she-can-keep-it
Good grief Spud: is there no end to your gullibility!
This is ill-informed US drivel that is both patronising nonsense, where the most notable thing about us Scots is that our 'brogue' is difficult for Americans to understand, but here nothing about the political history behind the UK or that Scotland has its own parliament, legal system, education system etc.
Of course this article comes from a journal with a religious agenda - perhaps you should consider other sources of information.
-
Last time I checked the SNP were closer to the Tories than LibDems, Labour or the Greens with regards to tax policy in Scotland.
In what way?
iirc they have the power to increase the income tax rate for everyone in Scotland but not to vary this across tax bands. They declined to do so when pressed to by Scottish Labour since this blunt-instrument approach would have involved everyone paying more tax Scotland-wide by default, thereby reducing the income of the least well-paid taxpayers.
-
so you agree with what I was saying?
I'll be quite honest, I wasn't exactly sure what you were saying, you use a peculiar turn of phrase, but of course I agree that there is a need for haste - the speculators are having a field-day with the economy.
-
I'll be quite honest, I wasn't exactly sure what you were saying, you use a peculiar turn of phrase, but of course I agree that there is a need for haste - the speculators are having a field-day with the economy.
so we can only make decisions fast as possible?
-
so we can only make decisions fast as possible?
No . . . I don't think it is possible to do most things faster than possible
-
No . . . I don't think it is possible to do most things faster than possible
Eh?
-
Good grief Spud: is there no end to your gullibility!
This is ill-informed US drivel that is both patronising nonsense, where the most notable thing about us Scots is that our 'brogue' is difficult for Americans to understand, but here nothing about the political history behind the UK or that Scotland has its own parliament, legal system, education system etc.
Of course this article comes from a journal with a religious agenda - perhaps you should consider other sources of information.
It is basically saying that if a country does not have a definite boundary such as a range of mountains, a large river or an ocean, then it cannot withstand the tendency in the long term for people in the surrounding area to attempt to absorb it into their territory. Norfolk being the main example.
You judge whether Scotland has that kind of boundary. Maybe it does, I dont know.
-
It is basically saying that if a country does not have a definite boundary such as a range of mountains, a large river or an ocean, then it cannot withstand the tendency in the long term for people in the surrounding area to attempt to absorb it into their territory. Norfolk being the main example.
So, since you used an article from an American journal, why are the U.S.A and Canada not one country since there is no single geographical feature that separates their joint border? In addition, does Alaska and Hawaii not complicate the simplistic approach you're referring to?
You judge whether Scotland has that kind of boundary. Maybe it does, I dont know.
It has a border with England - there are even signs to tell you that on the roads that cross the designated border.
-
It is basically saying that if a country does not have a definite boundary such as a range of mountains, a large river or an ocean, then it cannot withstand the tendency in the long term for people in the surrounding area to attempt to absorb it into their territory. Norfolk being the main example.
You judge whether Scotland has that kind of boundary. Maybe it does, I dont know.
What a crazy post, DUH!
-
Some lost their jobs because of the EU years ago like the fisherman....
No. fishermen lose their jobs because there literally aren't enough fish in the sea.
We will still have to regulate our own fishing areas to prevent them from becoming barren but our fisherman will no longer be allowed to fish in other EU areas.
-
We will be trading with the rest of the world
Like we already do now.
plus a good arrangement with the EU.
Good luck with that. I don't think we're flavour of the month there.
-
I am thinking of buying a wheelbarrow to handle my share of this £350m a week .
Sorry, but the Bank of England needs £250 billion cash in case the financial system collapses. I'm afraid that's all of our shares of the £350 million for the next thirteen years.
-
Anyone see Digby Jones this morning. Now there is a positive outlook.
I have no idea why Scotland leaving a union would be a wondeful thing, a great opportunity but the UK leaving a union is doom and gloom, a disaster of biblical proportion.
Also nice to see the leavers referred to as the great unwashed. It is exactly this attitude that made it happen. Before Digby Jones there was a bloke from YouGov who made the case for how disenfranchised the "great unwashed" had become over the last 15 - 20 years and he made a good case. Well the chickens have come home to roost and the social and politcal elite have come unstuck. Hows that democracy doing for you all now.
Btw, I voted remain
-
I don't think Sturgeon thinks she can win indyref2, but she does realise if uk leaves eu the game is up. So there is nothing lost by going for it.
Looks like dream might die after all Alex.
-
There is bound to be a general election before we leave. The SNP will put up candidates all over the the UK, sweep into power and cancel this ridiculous "leaving the EU" nonsense.
Well .. we can dream can't we?
All this "accepting the result" stuff - why exactly? As Conservative and Labor parties are teetering a new pro-EU coalition can be formed and fight it all the way - and build a coalition with EU reformers in other countries to get the reforms needed.
-
There is bound to be a general election before we leave. The SNP will put up candidates all over the the UK, sweep into power and cancel this ridiculous "leaving the EU" nonsense.
Well .. we can dream can't we?
All this "accepting the result" stuff - why exactly? As Conservative and Labor parties are teetering a new pro-EU coalition can be formed and fight it all the way - and build a coalition with EU reformers in other countries to get the reforms needed.
Because accepting the result is what you do in a democracy.
That's what we are told,that we live in a democracy.
For a pro EU group to form and go against the vote is more dictatorship than democracy.
Not offering us the vote is one thing, ignoring it is another and a step to far.
If a pro EU group did what you suggest we are becoming a dictatorship.
Even though I voted remain I'm unhappy about that.
It's the same with the Scottish independance vote, once they vote independance you have to respect that, not find sly and sneaky ways of ignoring it.
Otherwise UK rule becomes a dictatorship.
:(
-
Watched Jeremy Corbyn and realised that Monty Python had presciently mocked another JC
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaQ_Bhgmrc
-
I don't think Sturgeon thinks she can win indyref2, but she does realise if uk leaves eu the game is up. So there is nothing lost by going for it.
Looks like dream might die after all Alex.
Again.....What's the Brexit Plan Jak?
36 hours later and there doesn't seem to be one. All the predictions are coming true.
Why and who should trust politicians who let things get to the ''think on your feet stage'' while people change their minds about what they did and the economy goes tits up.
-
Alex Massie on Cameron
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/24/david-cameron-was-a-historic-and-disastrous-failure/
-
Ian Paisley Jnr has advised all of his constituents to apply for Irish passports. It's a different world.
-
Piece from the Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexit-fantasy-is-about-to-come-crashing-down-1.2698974#.V24S6rSWxXE.facebook
-
Because accepting the result is what you do in a democracy.
That's what we are told,that we live in a democracy.
For a pro EU group to form and go against the vote is more dictatorship than democracy.
Not offering us the vote is one thing, ignoring it is another and a step to far.
If a pro EU group did what you suggest we are becoming a dictatorship.
Even though I voted remain I'm unhappy about that.
It's the same with the Scottish independance vote, once they vote independance you have to respect that, not find sly and sneaky ways of ignoring it.
Otherwise UK rule becomes a dictatorship.
:(
Well .. the Bastards nagged and niggled on for 40 years against the previous result and ended up with another referendum. The other countries could be persuaded of the benefits of some key EU reforms - some are already pressing for them.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
-
I still feel this doesn't take account of how people will feel about this but interesting anyway
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-petition-second-eu-referendum-how-to-get-new-vote-on-uk-membership-a7102646.html
-
Alastair Campbell
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/boris-johnson-looked-sick-because-he-has-no-idea-how-fix-national-disaster-hes-bequeathed-us-1567413
-
Piece from the Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexit-fantasy-is-about-to-come-crashing-down-1.2698974#.V24S6rSWxXE.facebook
I like his analogy of the drunk and the trick with the table cloth - but in the real world, the drunk is lying on the floor surrounded by shattered crockery and denying that there is any problem.
-
Well, I know there is a big thing now where we are being exhorted to understand and honour the weirdest of ideas but frankly it is ironic given your ideas that you are talking about normal parameters. What is normal about Britain losing billions in a day.
Britain hasn't lost anything the wheeler dealers have and that is only monopoly money at that. You really don't understand the markets do you - they are fixed like Libor.
-
No. fishermen lose their jobs because there literally aren't enough fish in the sea.
We will still have to regulate our own fishing areas to prevent them from becoming barren but our fisherman will no longer be allowed to fish in other EU areas.
So from that stupid post I gather you don't understand the implications of the CFP.
-
So from that stupid post I gather you don't understand the implications of the CFP.
Clearly you don't, either.
-
Like we already do now.
Except any imports from them have tariffs on them pushing up their prices. We will lose those now making our products from the rest of the world cheaper.
Good luck with that. I don't think we're flavour of the month there.
If it doesn't bother Brussels that we have left why are they all shocked and pale faced about the outcome? If they have a free hand to whip our asses for being naughty boys and girls why are they talking about giving us a fair deal and keeping us as partners in the growth and future of the EU?
-
Avaaz have sent this to all their supporters, who will - of course - be saddened by the outcome. I believe that those of us who voted for Remain have got to ensure that the best is made of a bad thing:
Dear Avaazers,
Today is a painful and shocking day for Britain, for Europe, and for our world.
But, in one way, it may have been what we needed.
The progress we have built in our world of openness, tolerance, and interconnection is not something we can take for granted, it must be continuously, vigilantly sustained. The institutions we build to connect us must live in our hearts and minds, not just as bureaucratically functional tools. We need an ethic, spirit and culture of human connection and unity to keep the dark forces of our past - nationalism, racism - at bay.
Much of the campaign for Britain to remain in the EU was fought on fear and dry self-interest - how much money someone stood to lose or make. Our community beautifully brought love and unity to the equation, but it was not enough, this time, to win. A couple of fear-mongering newspaper editors and opportunist politicians helped persuade 51.9% of the public to blame the EU for what ailed them.
But we must not falter now - this is one battle on a larger tapestry and the forces of fear and division are rising - from other nationalisms destroying Europe, to Donald Trump threatening generations of progress on racism and unity in the US, to much more. We must make Brexit a call to arms for our movement, a spark that reignites our passion to defend and renew the project of human peace and unity that our parents and grandparents wisely advanced from their painful experience.
The youth of Britain backed Europe by massive margins, as they also oppose Trump and his ilk. The future is with us, if we can carry the banner long enough to hand it off to the next generations. Let's gather our courage and commitment to fight for the world we all dream of. Click here to share a message of inspiration, solidarity and hope for the road ahead:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/love_will_win/?bPAPckb&v=78405&cl=10283610689&_checksum=03b35050302015d705bfb23a4b81379b84749a97185a915224dc183348d5dc62
Over the past weeks our community rose and let its light shine in a beautiful way -- hundreds of thousands of us around Europe met the politics of fear and division with love and unity -- donating for ads and actions that covered the front pages of the media, coming out for love on the streets, calling to remove the editor from a newspaper spewing fear, and making thousands of phone calls to citizens to vote Remain.
Many UK voters - especially older voters in rural areas of England - were persuaded that Europe and the immigration it brought was threatening their communities, freedom and prosperity. Some just wanted any change to the status quo. Much of this had to do with a section of Britain's unscrupulous media who turned themselves into naked propagandists for Brexit. But our broader movement also needs to do better on immigration - ensuring that policy choices about levels of immigration are backed up by hearts and minds. This is a weakness in many countries that movements of fear and division are keen to exploit.
New and serious battles are coming fast -- Trump in the US, Le Pen in France, and Farage in the UK.
But we are a rising and powerful movement. We will meet each of these crusaders trying to drive us apart with our love and determination. And to win we are going to have to get even bigger and better to address the spreading viral cocktail of fear, nationalism and racism.
It is out of these darkest moments that new dawns are born. Jo Cox MP, who was assassinated last week, said "we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us." We must now listen to each other, and not let the fear-mongering forces that killed her triumph. To honour her let’s commit to work together to carry her banner of love.
Click to share your own message of unity and power with others. Let’s refuel with solidarity and love for the fights ahead, and show that nothing will stop us.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/love_will_win/?bPAPckb&v=78405&cl=10283610689&_checksum=03b35050302015d705bfb23a4b81379b84749a97185a915224dc183348d5dc62
With hope and gratitude,
Ricken, Alice, Emma, Christoph, Luis, Iain, Mia, Melanie, Fatima, Ben, Allison, Rewan, Adam, Dan and the whole Avaaz team.
-
Watched Jeremy Corbyn and realised that Monty Python had presciently mocked another JC
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaQ_Bhgmrc
He's not the Labour leader he's a very naughty boy!!!
-
Clearly you don't, either.
Clearly you haven't read the preceding posts to this.
-
Watched Jeremy Corbyn and realised that Monty Python had presciently mocked another JC
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaQ_Bhgmrc
For a moment I actually thought it was Corbyn in that video.
-
Clearly you haven't read the preceding posts to this.
Actually, I have, and thought that you didn't understand what you were talking about even then. I even picked you up on some of those incidents.
-
Farage now says we were heading for recession anyway.
-
Because accepting the result is what you do in a democracy.
Why, when it is so obviously a mistake?
Democracy means that we are allowed to change our minds.
-
It's the European way, it seems, to ignore the will of the people. They did it in Denmark and Ireland. Let's hope they don't do it in England.
-
It's the European way, it seems, to ignore the will of the people. They did it in Denmark and Ireland. Let's hope they don't do it in England.
or Scotland and Northern Ireland?
-
It's the European way, it seems, to ignore the will of the people. They did it in Denmark and Ireland. Let's hope they don't do it in England.
It's still the will of the majority of people in the EU that the EU continues. Why are you hell bent on denying them their will?
-
The will of the majority of the people is not ignored in this country ad-o. We are 'out' aren't we? Because the majority wanted it so, or so it appeared at the polls. Never mind that it is a small majority and some leavers are now regretting it, that's what happened.
What happened in Denmark and Ireland that makes you think it is the European way to deny the will of the people?
-
The will of the majority of the people is not ignored in this country ad-o. We are 'out' aren't we? Because the majority wanted it so, or so it appeared at the polls. Never mind that it is a small majority and some leavers are now regretting it, that's what happened.
What happened in Denmark and Ireland that makes you think it is the European way to deny the will of the people?
Denmark voted against Maastricht Treaty and Ireland against Lisbon Treaty.
-
I got this from Wiki:
The Maastricht Treaty (formally, the Treaty on European Union or TEU) undertaken to integrate Europe was signed on 7 February 1992 by the members of the European Community in Maastricht, Netherlands. On 9–10 December 1991, the same city hosted the European Council which drafted the treaty.
Later:
The process of ratifying the treaty was fraught with difficulties in three states. In Denmark, the first Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum was held on 2 June 1992 but a shortfall of fewer than 50,000 votes resulted in the treaty not being ratified.[7] After the failure, alterations were made to the treaty through the addition of the Edinburgh Agreement which lists four Danish exceptions. The treaty was eventually ratified the following year on 18 May 1993 after a second referendum was held in Denmark,[8] with legal effect after the formally granted royal assent on 9 June 1993
so it seems the Danes changed their minds.
It appears the Lisbon treaty was eventually accepted in Ireland. The Irish are now, at any rate, overwhelming pro-EU.
Like us here in the UK, any country can have a referendum and leave the EU if the majority want it.
-
Deeply worrying if correct
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/tata-steel-bidders-get-cold-feet-over-brexit/story-29443384-detail/story.html#ixzz4CbqbziYS
-
Deeply worrying if correct
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/tata-steel-bidders-get-cold-feet-over-brexit/story-29443384-detail/story.html#ixzz4CbqbziYS
There are going to be many stories like this as the next few months go by. In this case, I was pretty pessimistic anyway. Brexit probably only seals the inevitable fate of the industry.
-
Mystic Clegg
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/will-wake-vote-leave/
-
Mystic Clegg
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/will-wake-vote-leave/
Good thing it was dated 22nd June. Or I would have believed he wrote it yesterday.
-
Like us here in the UK, any country can have a referendum and leave the EU if the majority want it.
...or, like the Danes...
after a second referendum was held in Denmark
...we in the UK can have a second go and reverse the first one?! ::)
-
Yes we can. I hope we do because so many are shocked at the result and those who didn't or, for some reason, couldn't, vote first time round will make sure they do next time.
-
Yes we can. I hope we do because so many are shocked at the result and those who didn't or, for some reason, couldn't, vote first time round will make sure they do next time.
And if it is 48/52 the other way should it be best of 3?
-
Deeply worrying if correct
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/tata-steel-bidders-get-cold-feet-over-brexit/story-29443384-detail/story.html#ixzz4CbqbziYS
That was predictable and very much the shape of things to come I suspect.
Maybe Boris would like to pay them a visit and explain how this is going to provide a better future for them all.
-
Saw this is the current BBC live update on Brexit/Corbyn. So, I'm wondering where the savings are coming from.
German MP Michael Fuchs, a senior ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, spoke to the Today programme a short time ago.
With a chuckle, he made it clear things were going to have to change.
"Either you are in a club or you are out of a club. If you are in a club you have to follow the rules. If you are out of the club, there will be different rules," he said.
Asked if it would be possible for the UK to retain access to the single market, he replied: "It will be possible, of course, but not for free.
"You have to see with Norway, with Switzerland, you have to pay a certain fee. And the per capita fee of Norway is exactly the same as what Britain is now paying into the EU. So there won't be any savings."
-
And if it is 48/52 the other way should it be best of 3?
The Danes caused the treaty to change before ratifying with the second referendum. Here, the terms of membership would need to change, ie. some appropriate EU reforms agreed. Some of the Leave leeders would need to switch sides.
-
And if it is 48/52 the other way should it be best of 3?
That's a very good point NS. I did wonder if there would have been such a rush to have another vote if the result had been different.
There has to be a cut off point, one more vote and that's it I think, otherwise it sets a precedent. It will anyway so shouldn't be made worse.
-
That's a very good point NS. I did wonder if there would have been such a rush to have another vote if the result had been different.
There has to be a cut off point, one more vote and that's it I think, otherwise it sets a precedent. It will anyway so shouldn't be made worse.
And why would the next one be the important one? If part of the reason for people voting leave is they think metropolitan elites ignore them, then the message sent out by this is of course we do you racist oiks.
-
That's a very good point NS. I did wonder if there would have been such a rush to have another vote if the result had been different.
There has to be a cut off point, one more vote and that's it I think, otherwise it sets a precedent. It will anyway so shouldn't be made worse.
No.
There can be no artificial limits to the number of times the British people change their minds, but there should be solid evidence that the British people have changed their minds or a change in circumstances that would would reasonably leads us to believe the British people could change their minds.
Right now, there is no strong evidence that another referendum would go the other way, so we shouldn't rerun it. If, in a couple of months time, the economy has tanked, British companies are queueing up to move to Dublin and opinion polls are overwhelmingly for not triggering article 50, maybe we should rerun the referendum or maybe the new PM should just ignore the current one.
-
Saw this is the current BBC live update on Brexit/Corbyn. So, I'm wondering where the savings are coming from.
It depressing because it's exactly what you would have expected to happen . . . unfortunately a large number of voters were naive enough to believe the Brexit lies.
-
Dear Forum,
Just for the record and I will post this on all the threads concerning Brexit, why? It has to be shouted loud and clear.
This whole debacle, this absolute mess, this catastrophe lies at the feet of the Conservative Party, this EU Referendum was a party political stunt, it never had the thoughts and wishes of the people of Great Britain uppermost.
We now have a nation divided, the Scots are shouting Independence, Northern Ireland are also talking about joining the Republic and both those countries are now wondering about border controls.
Our Capital city ( London ) voted overwhelmingly to remain the rest of England voted to exit, we now have a nation totally divided, our nation is in turmoil because of Tory infighting.
Our Prime Minister ( a Tory ) has washed his hands of the whole mess, we are now left with Tories who don’t have a clue about a way forward.
I have often said that ( long before we even considered a EU Referendum ) the Tory party is the most unchristian, unBritish party we have.
Time for the Conservative Party to disband, give them their marching orders, we a fed up with a party that plays politics, that plays with the life’s of every citizen of Great Britain, they have forfeited the right to stand in our House of Commons, the only thing that mattered to a Tory was the Conservative Party the rights of a British citizen came second, they are a boil on the backside of Great Britain, time to lance that boil.
Gonnagle.
-
That's fine G, but unfortunately we don't have a 'Government in waiting'
-
Saw this is the current BBC live update on Brexit/Corbyn. So, I'm wondering where the savings are coming from.
If we are out of the EU but in the single market and a time of crisis came in which it might be useful to be able to leave the single market, would this be easier to do than if we were still in the EU?
-
Dear Lapsed,
We have a House of Commons stacked full of politicians who do have the will of the people uppermost in their minds, give Brexit to them, take it away from Tories before they break it completely.
Here's a thought, a coalition of all parties minus of course the traitorous Tories, and if you are looking for a suitable candidate for Prime Minister, I am sure our Nicola wouldn't mind a wee holiday down south until we all sort out the brexit mess. ;)
-
Dear Lapsed,
We have a House of Commons stacked full of politicians who do have the will of the people uppermost in their minds, give Brexit to them, take it away from Tories before they break it completely.
Here's a thought, a coalition of all parties minus of course the traitorous Tories, and if you are looking for a suitable candidate for Prime Minister, I am sure our Nicola wouldn't mind a wee holiday down south until we all sort out the brexit mess. ;)
Why do you blame the Tories all the time?
The government were for REMAIN. This is NOT what most of the Tories wanted, not most of the Labour MP's either.
-
Dear Lapsed,
We have a House of Commons stacked full of politicians who do have the will of the people uppermost in their minds, give Brexit to them, take it away from Tories before they break it completely.
Here's a thought, a coalition of all parties minus of course the traitorous Tories, and if you are looking for a suitable candidate for Prime Minister, I am sure our Nicola wouldn't mind a wee holiday down south until we all sort out the brexit mess. ;)
Government of National Unity - I suppose it could work if any of the parties had had a leader.
-
Dear Berational,
I read one of your earlier posts regarding who should vote and you also stated that there should be some kind of exam to pass before you are allowed to vote, the fact is, the very sad fact, we should never have had a EU referendum, well not until we had all the facts, not until a brexit plan had been put on the table, this mess has been a rail crash waiting to happen, we have gone at it at the speed of light with no thought for the consequences, this lies firmly at the feet of the Tories, don't blame Farage, this is a Tory stunt gone badly wrong.
Gonnagle.
-
What Gonnagle says ^^^^^^
Cameron shot himself in the foot in the most spectacular way and screwed eveone when he did so.
-
What Gonnagle says ^^^^^^
Cameron shot himself in the foot in the most spectacular way and screwed eveone when he did so.
He thought he was on a safe wicket - no one would really be stupid enough to vote for Leave - could they?
But the British electrate proved him wrong :o
-
Indeed
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/okay-what-the-jesus-fking-balls-is-going-on-asks-britain-20160627109859
-
Why do you blame the Tories all the time?
The government were for REMAIN. This is NOT what most of the Tories wanted, not most of the Labour MP's either.
It's simple: we only had the referendum at all because Cameron wanted to stop the racist wing of his party from destroying it.
Had Cameron not promised a referendum in the last manifesto, maybe we wouldn't have a Conservative government (bad for him) but we certainly wouldn't have this horrible mess.
-
It's simple: we only had the referendum at all because Cameron wanted to stop the racist wing of his party from destroying it.
Had Cameron not promised a referendum in the last manifesto, maybe we wouldn't have a Conservative government (bad for him) but we certainly wouldn't have this horrible mess.
But the Tories and Labour supported REMAIN.
We can only blame the people for the mistake.
-
But the Tories and Labour supported REMAIN.
We can only blame the people for the mistake.
I think you could argue that Remain's problem was that they were too honest and they faced a bunch of people who could look you in the eye while lying through their teeth.
-
Dear Berational,
No, the people were pushed, bullied, I am not a intelligent guy but even I can figure out why leavers voted leave, they have been let down by Tory austerity and of course Blairite thinking, this is why so many Labour supporters voted leave.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
No, the people were pushed, bullied, I am not a intelligent guy but even I can figure out why leavers voted leave, they have been let down by Tory austerity and of course Blairite thinking, this is why so many Labour supporters voted leave.
Gonnagle.
A significant number voted Leave because they wanted "to get rid of those bloody foreigners"
-
Dear Lapsed,
Yes, immigration has not been handled well by Tory and Labour governments, and the real shame is that we have another thread running showing the racist side of all this nonsense :(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Yes, immigration has not been handled well by Tory and Labour governments, and the real shame is that we have another thread running showing the racist side of all this nonsense :(
Gonnagle.
The neo-liberals are, of course, in favour of it. Cheap labour.
-
The neo-liberals are, of course, in favour of it. Cheap labour.
Unless you favour a Soviet style economy, you must let labour rates find their own level (though the minimum wage does set a lower limit)
If you want to earn more money you are free to get a better job.
-
Unless you favour a Soviet style economy, you must let labour rates find their own level (though the minimum wage does set a lower limit)
If you want to earn more money you are free to get a better job.
Not at all. There aren't only two options.
-
Dear Berational,
No, the people were pushed, bullied, I am not a intelligent guy but even I can figure out why leavers voted leave, they have been let down by Tory austerity and of course Blairite thinking, this is why so many Labour supporters voted leave.
Gonnagle.
I think immigration was a big factor.
-
Not at all. There aren't only two options.
I think there are only two principles: Employers pay the market rate for a job or salaries set are by some legal process - which would amount to massive state intervention.
-
I think there are only two principles: Employers pay the market rate for a job or salaries set are by some legal process - which would amount to massive state intervention.
There are in theory an infinite number of mixed economic systems. Why shouldn't the state intervene where it sees fit? But then I veer quite a way to the left on economic issues. For a start I would renationalise many industries. The austerity of the EU and the idea we need mass immigration is a lie.
-
There are in theory an infinite number of mixed economic systems. Why shouldn't the state intervene where it sees fit? But then I veer quite a way to the left on economic issue. For a start I would renationalise many industries, for a start. The austerity of the EU and the idea we need mass immigration is a lie.
There we would differ - industry generally does better without interference from government imo and industries should not be nationalised because they then become political 'footballs'.
Migration has generally worked well for the UK, actually creating jobs in some industries such as agriculture.
-
People employ immigrant labour, semi-skilled and skilled (eg plumbers), because they are efficient, reliable and cheerful. Anyone who has been ripped off and let down by builders who disappear for weeks and can't be contacted will know what I am talking about. It's not all about what is paid.
Eastern European migrants have also been employed doing jobs like picking turnips, which the indigenous population will not do.
I've no problem at all with immigrants.
-
The PM is on BBC news atm
Live house of commons
-
But the Tories and Labour supported REMAIN.
There would have been no remain and no leave campaign if there had been no referendum.
We can only blame the people for the mistake.
We can also blame the politicians for underestimating the stupid. We can blame the Leave campaign for being such convincing liars. We can blame the Remain campaign for failing despite having the facts on its side. We can even blame the EU (as my French boss in Brussels did today) for failing to connect with the British and inspiring them with the European dream.
There are lots of reasons why this has happened. There is plenty of blame to share round.
-
If you want to earn more money you are free to get a better job.
Or move to a country that pays better.. oh, sorry, that option has gone.
-
We can even blame the EU (as my French boss in Brussels did today) for failing to connect with the British and inspiring them with the European dream.
What European dream? This is the reality of "European dream".
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-10/20/17/enhanced/webdr09/enhanced-buzz-wide-7161-1445377115-20.jpg
http://www.borgenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/greece.jpg
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AJ580_SPECON_G_20120427164813.jpg
-
What European dream?
The dream of the countries of Europe working together for a better future.
This is the reality of "European dream".
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-10/20/17/enhanced/webdr09/enhanced-buzz-wide-7161-1445377115-20.jpg
http://www.borgenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/greece.jpg
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AJ580_SPECON_G_20120427164813.jpg
Nobody said things are perfect, but Britain is now running away from its responsibilities.
-
The dream of the countries of Europe working together for a better future.
It is not working, though, and it never can. It is a failed experiment.
-
It is not working, though, and it never can. It is a failed experiment.
It may be a failed experiment now we have given it a good kicking, but t didn't have to be.
-
A vote for remain was always a vote for all the neo-liberal excesses it currently stands for: ever increasing centralisation, austerity, mass immigration, multinational corporation tax avoidance etc.
-
Just heard that Germany is planning to "come down pretty hard on Britain". The reason: To deter other countries from attempting to leave.
-
Well, I know there is a big thing now where we are being exhorted to understand and honour the weirdest of ideas but frankly it is ironic given your ideas that you are talking about normal parameters. What is normal about Britain losing billions in a day.
Look at the %ages. They are small. The markets are worth 10s of trillions - and we haven't lost anything the bankers have and it is gossamer money anyway.
-
Look at the %ages. They are small. The markets are worth 10s of trillions - and we haven't lost anything the bankers have and it is gossamer money anyway.
Before the referendum, Brexit seemed to think our £350m per week payment to the EU (actually a lie) was a lot of money but suddenly the loss of a few tens of billions is considered insignificant?
-
Look at the %ages. They are small. The markets are worth 10s of trillions - and we haven't lost anything the bankers have and it is gossamer money anyway.
Do you have a pension? Because if you do, I can tell you, it is worth significantly less now than it was a week ago. This is unfortunate, because at the same time, everything you buy in the shops is about to get much more expensive.
Plus the drop in Britain's credit rating means that the amount more that we have to pay to service our debt is more than the savings of EU membership fees.
-
Before the referendum, Brexit seemed to think our £350m per week payment to the EU (actually a lie) was a lot of money but suddenly the loss of a few tens of billions is considered insignificant?
Show me you know what you are talking about and explain where this money has been lost to the UK economy and public finance?
-
Do you have a pension? Because if you do, I can tell you, it is worth significantly less now than it was a week ago. This is unfortunate, because at the same time, everything you buy in the shops is about to get much more expensive.
Plus the drop in Britain's credit rating means that the amount more that we have to pay to service our debt is more than the savings of EU membership fees.
Lie 1 from Jeremy : Our pensions have been dropping for ages because of the fucking banking system and Neo-Liberal project/Elites. If you want our pensions to get the returns they once did in the good old days you need to destroy the venal financial system.
Lie 2 from Jeremy : Why are our pricing going to go up? 'Up' must mean hugely because our prices are relatively low compared to some countries on this planet. Also, if they do go up in the short term that would be quit understandable under the present transitory period we are in. Nothing to write home about.
Lie 3 from Jeremy : The additional amount that we may be paying might in the short term be so but this Brexit is a long term project and a little British spirit will carry us through. Again, this is due to the crappy financial system which we bailed out - that's where our true extra interest payments come from. Destroy the banking system and we can get our debts right down, instead of all this QE shit.
Note, to bail out the banks we had to borrow the money....from who I hear you ask, oh yes, the banks who were insolvent at the time of bailing them out - work that one out, Jeremy!!!
-
Sounds very unlikely that anyone in this country would be happy to live in a country where the banking system had been destroyed. Do you have any examples of such happy states? Have you tried living in one?
-
Sounds very unlikely that anyone in this country would be happy to live in a country where the banking system had been destroyed. Do you have any examples of such happy states? Have you tried living in one?
Yes, the banking system along with usury needs to be destroyed. It is a crime which cries out to heaven to be dealt a deadly blow.
-
Yes, the baking system along with usury needs to be destroyed. It is a crime which cries out to heaven to be dealt a deadly blow.
If you don't like cake, noones forcing you! You could always move to a country intolerant of usury though these also tend to be countries where everything belongs to one family.
-
This is Paul Hellyer, former Canadian minister of defence explaining why the monetary system has to be changed, and is in effect legalised fraud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXYk5SV3KWM
-
Sounds very unlikely that anyone in this country would be happy to live in a country where the banking system had been destroyed. Do you have any examples of such happy states? Have you tried living in one?
Firstly, the system we have, the Neo-Liberal one, is only one of many ways of doing it. Secondly, what they do is not banking it is gambling at our expense. Thirdly, Iceland put many of their bankers in jail and have removed the banking system we use from their land. They are growing sustainably though it has been tough for them but the future is on the up, all things being equal. Greece, however, who are entrenched in the Neo-Liberal austerity approach is bombing and becoming a third world country.
-
This is Paul Hellyer, former Canadian minister of defence explaining why the monetary system has to be changed, and is in effect legalised fraud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXYk5SV3KWM
And here is Paul on aliens
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8sIXlbzG1o
-
Wow! I never knew that, mind you I used to look out of my bedroom window in the early morning, onto the allotments, expecting to see a crater with Martians in it; that was when I was a child, after reading HG Wells.
The Canadians have some very strange ideas about us over here, I've noticed that from posting with a (very nice) Canadian person on another forum. Not that Paul Hellyer was talking about us, he talked about the monetary system in general. 'The Money Mafia' is the name of a book he wrote and promotes which I won't read as my mind will wander; If anyone else does and summarises it on here I'll read the summary.
Funny to think he was a government minister.
I wonder what David Icke has to say about the EU referendum.
Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDiGONVJqcU
and here's something on the monetary system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt_z50huFSw
-
Lie 1 from Jeremy : Our pensions have been dropping for ages because of the fucking banking system
Wrong. At least mine hasn't been.
and Neo-Liberal project/Elites. If you want our pensions to get the returns they once did in the good old days you need to destroy the venal financial system.
You're a total idiot. Don't you understand how pensions work? You make contributions which get invested in the venal financial system so that they grow in value in real terms. Destroy the financial system and you destroy all pensions.
Lie 2 from Jeremy : Why are our pricing going to go up? 'Up' must mean hugely because our prices are relatively low compared to some countries on this planet.
Which countries?
Lie 3 from Jeremy : The additional amount that we may be paying might in the short term be so but this Brexit is a long term project and a little British spirit will carry us through.
Oh just fuck off. British spirit doesn't pay the heating bill.
-
Yes, the banking system along with usury needs to be destroyed. It is a crime which cries out to heaven to be dealt a deadly blow.
Have you ever thought perhaps you might be happier living in North Korea ad_orientem ?
-
Have you ever thought perhaps you might be happier living in North Korea ad_orientem ?
Eh?
-
Eh?
You seem to reject all the fundamentals of capitalism so I thought you might prefer the alternative.
-
You seem to reject all the fundamentals of capitalism so I thought you might prefer the alternative.
I'm against neo-liberalism and all its excesses. For you, it seems, there are only two choices: the two extremes. I reject both. I tend to the left, though, and reject anti-Christian usury.
-
It looks increasingly likely a variation of the Norway option is going to be the way to go. This would involve the 52% and 48% having to compromise on a few issues.
Free Trade - as now but UK retakes control of fishing, ability to negotiate our own free trade deals. Noticed that Australia and New Zealand have already stated they want to do a deal.
Contribution - Nett as now although UK take back control of £10 billion.
Sovereignty - UK takes back control but has to conform with any rules that apply to things sold in free market.
Free Movement - not sure of the difference between free movement of people and free movement of labour. The Britis won't be an EU citizens anymore. From what I've read Norway can apply time limited brakes to immigration, the Swiss can limit Croatians, so its possible EU would make some concessions.
The Tories are in control so I'm expecting the Tory leader candidates to campaign advocating an EU position, once one gets elected they will then announce another General election (especially if Labour spilt). All parties will have positions on the EU in their manifesto and whoever wins that is what will happen.
-
It looks increasingly likely a variation of the Norway option is going to be the way to go. This would involve the 52% and 48% having to compromise on a few issues.
Actually, it would be a loss for the Leavers.
Free Trade - as now but UK retakes control of fishing, ability to negotiate our own free trade deals. Noticed that Australia and New Zealand have already stated they want to do a deal.
Norway had to do a deal with the EU on fisheries. Likely we would too and it would probably be as good as the one we have now or worse.
Contribution - Nett as now although UK take back control of £10 billion.
How will we be "taking back control" if the contribution will be roughly the same as now?
Sovereignty - UK takes back control but has to conform with any rules that apply to things sold in free market.
You failed to demonstrate that we had ever lost any sovereignty.
Free Movement - not sure of the difference between free movement of people and free movement of labour.
Free movement of labour means you have to let people go where the jobs are or let the jobs go where the people are, but you could, theoretically come down hard on tourists.
The Britis won't be an EU citizens anymore. From what I've read Norway can apply time limited brakes to immigration, the Swiss can limit Croatians, so its possible EU would make some concessions.
The EU will not be making concessions. You live in fantasy land.
The Tories are in control so I'm expecting the Tory leader candidates to campaign advocating an EU position, once one gets elected they will then announce another General election (especially if Labour spilt). All parties will have positions on the EU in their manifesto and whoever wins that is what will happen.
This is the first time we have agreed about anything on this. There is a big danger that the only party that campaigns with a "we will trigger article 50" position is UKIP which means UKIP will make significant gains but, hopefully, not enough (from my point of view) to cause Brexit.
-
Not sure if anyone heard it yesterday but Radio 4 Law in Action, 3 x professors of European law discussing the legal aspects. No hyperbole, just what is and what is not possibe under the law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07kdsdl
BTW, from what they said, although it looks good for public consumption, Nicola is completely and utterly wasting her time.
-
Not sure if anyone heard it yesterday but Radio 4 Law in Action, 3 x professors of European law discussing the legal aspects. No hyperbole, just what is and what is not possibe under the law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07kdsdl
BTW, from what they said, although it looks good for public consumption, Nicola is completely and utterly wasting her time.
I'm not sure that she is actually wasting here time. She can't legally stop the process, but if she is seen to do everything she possible can do and is overridden by the UK government - that might strengthen the case for independence.
-
Actually, it would be a loss for the Leavers.
Why? They did actually lose so isn't that fair?
Norway had to do a deal with the EU on fisheries. Likely we would too and it would probably be as good as the one we have now or worse.
Norway are outside of the Common Fisheries Policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy
How will we be "taking back control" if the contribution will be roughly the same as now?
£20 billion gross, £10 billion nett, the £10billion we do get back is in control of the EU. We would be able to reform CAP, choose how the money is spent.
You failed to demonstrate that we had ever lost any sovereignty.
We would have our own supreme court.
Free movement of labour means you have to let people go where the jobs are or let the jobs go where the people are, but you could, theoretically come down hard on tourists.
As I understand it, if someone has a job they would be free to come to UK, if they don't they will be able to come as a tourist. They would not be able to claim out of work benefits? Not sure.
The EU will not be making concessions. You live in fantasy land.
Oh well just as well leave then, the Swiss have some concessions already how did they get them if the EU do not make concessions?
This is the first time we have agreed about anything on this. There is a big danger that the only party that campaigns with a "we will trigger article 50" position is UKIP which means UKIP will make significant gains but, hopefully, not enough (from my point of view) to cause Brexit.
So far every senior UK wide politician has indicated that they will "respect the result" apart from the LibDems (not sure about Greens). So we don't seem to agree.
Its getting really hard to predict anything in current climate but I can see; Corbyn winning leadership contest, centre left MP's joining LibDems en masse winning the early GE on a "we're not leaving" policy, UKIP a spent force, Tories in opposition and Labour more a socialist protest party. Wow I'd probably get odds of 10,000 to 1 on that. :) Result: UK remains
I can also see; somehow Labour remains a broad church but fails utterly in early GE, UKIP still banging on about immigration does well, LibDems much better as I think the 48% will easily flip to LibDems, Tories win the election possibly having to go into a coalition again. Result: UK leaves with Norway type deal.
Finally, no early GE, then it depends who becomes Prime Minister, most likely Boris who will go for a Norway type deal anyway, actually wasn't Boris suggesting negotiations early on in the campaign.
-
I'm not sure that she is actually wasting here time. She can't legally stop the process, but if she is seen to do everything she possible can do and is overridden by the UK government - that might strengthen the case for independence.
Posturing is a skill she excels at. :)
-
I'm not sure that she is actually wasting here time. She can't legally stop the process, but if she is seen to do everything she possible can do and is overridden by the UK government - that might strengthen the case for independence.
Indeed as previously noted elsewhere, the Scottish Govt has made clear it does not have a veto but witholding legislative consent puts it in the position of being over ridden. At no time did Nicola state that it had a veto.
-
Wrong. At least mine hasn't been.
You're a total idiot. Don't you understand how pensions work? You make contributions which get invested in the venal financial system so that they grow in value in real terms. Destroy the financial system and you destroy all pensions.
Which countries?
Oh just fuck off. British spirit doesn't pay the heating bill.
No but we can cuddle up together ;D
-
I'm not sure that she is actually wasting here time. She can't legally stop the process, but if she is seen to do everything she possible can do and is overridden by the UK government - that might strengthen the case for independence.
Wasting her time or not, I think she has to be seen to try and do the best for Scotland she can.
What other option does she have? Given that most Scots voted to stay.
Even if you take independance out of the question altogether, I think she still has to do it.
Because she is representing the majority vote in Scotland.
She can't afford to have the same accusation thrown at her that was thrown at Jeremy Corbin, that she was ineffective.
She has to be seen to be pulling out all the stops even if it is hopeless.
-
Interesting article by Aidan O'Neill
https://eutopialaw.com/2016/06/28/englands-difficulty-scotlands-opportunity/
-
lBTW, from what they said, although it looks good for public consumption, Nicola is completely and utterly wasting her time.
About what? Having a new referendum or trying to veto the article 50 invocation?
-
About what? Having a new referendum or trying to veto the article 50 invocation?
Is that what she is off to see Junker about?
-
And a blog from Face Palm Man
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/andriukaitis/blog/thoughts-weareseat123_en
-
Why? They did actually lose so isn't that fair?
It would be a loss for the Leavers because, with a Norway style deal, the main difference compared to now is that we won't have voting rights in the EU. All the reasons given for leaving would not happen. The immigration rules would be the same as now. The need to abide by European regulations would be the same as now. The need to pay money to the EU would be nearly the same as now.
There would be no change except we have slightly less control over the rules which is the opposite of what the Leavers want.
Norway are outside of the Common Fisheries Policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy
But they have separate bilateral treaties with the EU on fishing. Do you think the EU is in any mood to give us a better deacon fishing than what we have now?
£20 billion gross, £10 billion nett, the £10billion we do get back is in control of the EU. We would be able to reform CAP, choose how the money is spent.
All the people that currently get EU grants will be begging the government to maintain them. If we don't maintain them, it spells catastrophe for the people that receive them. For instance, if you get rid of farming subsidies, most farms would immediately go out of business.
Furthermore, when you say "we" you mean "the new right wing Conservative government". Chances are that £10 billion will just fund a very small income tax cut.
We would have our own supreme court.
You mean like the one we already have?
There is no evidence, by the way, that European courts are less able to apply justice correctly than British ones.
As I understand it, if someone has a job they would be free to come to UK, if they don't they will be able to come as a tourist. They would not be able to claim out of work benefits? Not sure.
I thought we already had some leeway not to give new immigrants out of work benefits. Anyway, after a while, you have to start giving them money so they don't go round starving to death in the streets.
Not that it is a huge problem, most immigrants who can't get work just go home. On average, EU immigrants contribute more to the Treasury than they take out.
Oh well just as well leave then, the Swiss have some concessions already how did they get them if the EU do not make concessions?
The Swiss were never in the EU. The EU will play hardball with us because, politically, we can't be seen to get a good deal.
So far every senior UK wide politician has indicated that they will "respect the result" apart from the LibDems (not sure about Greens). So we don't seem to agree.
We will see.
Finally, no early GE, then it depends who becomes Prime Minister, most likely Boris who will go for a Norway type deal anyway, actually wasn't Boris suggesting negotiations early on in the campaign.
I think that's the most likely outcome but it represents defeat for the Leavers.
-
Is that what she is off to see Junker about?
She is off to talk to Junker about Scotland joining the EU. That's not a waste of time even if the answer is no (it won't be).
-
She is off to talk to Junker about Scotland joining the EU. That's not a waste of time even if the answer is no (it won't be).
Scotland needs to be an independent country to join the EU. Others have refused to talk to her as she is not a representative of the governent of the UK which Scotland is a part, however she will have a new best friend in Junker.
-
Scotland needs to be an independent country to join the EU.
Yes. It is going to be an independent country. If article 50 goes in, that is inevitable.
Others have refused to talk to her as she is not a representative of the governent of the UK which Scotland is a part, however she will have a new best friend in Junker.
I expect her to be the first Prime Minister of independent Scotland since 1707. Then they will talk to her.
-
Thanks for the reply, but Scotland is not an independant country. What may happen in the future is another thing, but at the moment all she is doing, is posturing.
-
Thanks for the reply, but Scotland is not an independant country. What may happen in the future is another thing, but at the moment all she is doing, is posturing.
And being listened to. And what she does now helps create that future.
-
To be honest the UK vote has done her a favour. If Salmond had got the vote he wanted Scotland would have left the EU. Now they will already be out so the first step is complete. Now all his sidekick needs to do is get the vote he failed to get.
-
And being listened to. And what she does now helps create that future.
By someone else who also has a dislike for the UK. Others in the EU hierarchy seem to have a bit more common sense.
-
To be honest the UK vote has done her a favour. If Salmond had got the vote he wanted Scotland would have left the EU. Now they will already be out so the first step is complete. Now all his sidekick needs to do is get the vote he failed to get.
I am unconvinced that Scotland will be out. The lack of plans and lack of precedent make such predictions mere flummery. Lawyers are all very well but this is politics. It is a very different beast especially given this is international law, a ghost of its civil parent.
-
By someone else who also has a dislike for the UK. Others in the EU hierarchy seem to have a bit more common sense.
Ah the 'common sense argument'. She us being listened to and you seem to think it was just two people. Given you are factually incorrect, can I ask what you mean by common sens?
-
Thanks for the reply, but Scotland is not an independant country.
Basic English lesson 2: The future tense
If somebody says "x is going to y" it means it will happen at some point in the future but isn't happening right now. So when I wrote
"Scotland is going to be independent (nb spelling of "independent")"
I was saying Scotland is not independent now but it will be in the future.
What may happen in the future is another thing, but at the moment all she is doing, is posturing.
There is no "may" about it. It will happen if article 50 is triggered (that's one of the reasons Boris has got cold feet). What Sturgeon is doing now is making sure that, when it happens, there will be a coherent plan for getting back into the EU. If the EU Leavers had been as thoughtful, maybe we wouldn't be in the current mess.
-
I am unconvinced that Scotland will be out. The lack of plans and lack of precedent make such predictions mere flummery. Lawyers are all very well but this is politics. It is a very different beast especially given this is international law, a ghost of its civil parent.
The three professors on European law who were on radio 4 yesterday disagree with you.
-
It would be a loss for the Leavers because, with a Norway style deal, the main difference compared to now is that we won't have voting rights in the EU. All the reasons given for leaving would not happen. The immigration rules would be the same as now. The need to abide by European regulations would be the same as now. The need to pay money to the EU would be nearly the same as now.
There are some losses on both sides, its a compromise.
There would be no change except we have slightly less control over the rules which is the opposite of what the Leavers want.
No, rules that apply to the single market would applied the rest of the rules return to UK.
But they have separate bilateral treaties with the EU on fishing. Do you think the EU is in any mood to give us a better deacon fishing than what we have now?
They are our waters, any deals to fish there are within the control of the UK not the EU.
All the people that currently get EU grants will be begging the government to maintain them. If we don't maintain them, it spells catastrophe for the people that receive them. For instance, if you get rid of farming subsidies, most farms would immediately go out of business.
I never mentioned getting rid of them suggest you understand the differance between "reform" and "abolish".
Furthermore, when you say "we" you mean "the new right wing Conservative government". Chances are that £10 billion will just fund a very small income tax cut.
The one that gets elected, if that is in their manifesto and they get elected.
You mean like the one we already have?
There is no evidence, by the way, that European courts are less able to apply justice correctly than British ones.
But British courts rule over Britain not any EU courts.
I thought we already had some leeway not to give new immigrants out of work benefits. Anyway, after a while, you have to start giving them money so they don't go round starving to death in the streets.
Not that it is a huge problem, most immigrants who can't get work just go home. On average, EU immigrants contribute more to the Treasury than they take out.
OK so not a huge problem, we agree.
The Swiss were never in the EU. The EU will play hardball with us because, politically, we can't be seen to get a good deal.
So we are best to leave then and not join the EEA?
I think that's the most likely outcome but it represents defeat for the Leavers.
The leavers wanted to leave the EU, we would have left, spin that to defeat if it helps you get through the day! :)
-
Thanks for the reply, but Scotland is not an independant country. What may happen in the future is another thing, but at the moment all she is doing, is posturing.
Or she is making useful contacts for future substantive discussions.
I expect it will be time well spent since it seems (having just watched PMQ's) that this idiocy of Brexit will go ahead and since, hopefully, the door of No.10 will shortly have a 'Welcome Boris' banner on it.
Given the combination of both these disasters I'd expect that many more of us Scots will vote to ditch the UK compared with 2014, when we were assured that if we left the UK we'd be out of the EU: the irony of recent events hasn't been missed, and the prospect of PM Boris is simply perverse and unacceptable.
-
The three professors on European law who were on radio 4 yesterday disagree with you.
that's nice. As noted they are talking about law, I'm talking about politics.
-
How is a Norway deal a compromise? The vote was to be in or out. Norway is out.
-
Basic English lesson 2: The future tense
If somebody says "x is going to y" it means it will happen at some point in the future but isn't happening right now. So when I wrote
"Scotland is going to be independent (nb spelling of "independent")"
I was saying Scotland is not independent now but it will be in the future.
There is no "may" about it. It will happen if article 50 is triggered (that's one of the reasons Boris has got cold feet). What Sturgeon is doing now is making sure that, when it happens, there will be a coherent plan for getting back into the EU. If the EU Leavers had been as thoughtful, maybe we wouldn't be in the current mess.
And the patronising post makes it. Typo on my part. If you care to look at #2615 you will see the correct spelling, and I also get the tense thing thank you. Can you grasp we were talking about different things, I am in the here and now, not in some mythical place where Scotland may be in a year or two depending on how this whole thing pans out.
-
that's nice. As noted they are talking about law, I'm talking about politics.
But the EU has legislation about joining.
-
But the EU has legislation about joining.
and how do you think legislation gets made?
-
Don't ask me I'm a thicko. Perhaps Jeremy might help me out.
-
Don't ask me I'm a thicko. Perhaps Jeremy might help me out.
But I am asking you.
-
Or she is making useful contacts for future substantive discussions.
She is being seen talking to the EU just when they have announced that they won't negotiate with the UK:
"First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is holding a series of meetings with leading EU officials on her visit to Brussels to discuss Brexit."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36656980
I'd say that was quite a result for her.
I expect it will be time well spent since it seems (having just watched PMQ's) that this idiocy of Brexit will go ahead and since, hopefully, the door of No.10 will shortly have a 'Welcome Boris' banner on it.
God help us!
Given the combination of both these disasters I'd expect that many more of us Scots will vote to ditch the UK compared with 2014, when we were assured that if we left the UK we'd be out of the EU: the irony of recent events hasn't been missed, and the prospect of PM Boris is simply perverse and unacceptable.
I would be very surprised if the independence vote didn't go through this time.
-
There are some losses on both sides, its a compromise.
Oh yes, Remain has already lost. A Norway type deal means that Leave loses too. Everyone's a loser.
No, rules that apply to the single market would applied the rest of the rules return to UK.
What rules are those?
They are our waters, any deals to fish there are within the control of the UK not the EU.
We can say "British waters for British fishermen only". The EU can then say "OK no British fishermen in EU waters" or they could say "no deal, bye". What will happen is we will have a bilateral deal with the EU which will look remarkably like the common fisheries policy except a bit worse for British fishermen.
I never mentioned getting rid of them suggest you understand the differance between "reform" and "abolish".
Even reform means taking money away from some people who get it now. Which EU grants would you take away from whom?
The one that gets elected, if that is in their manifesto and they get elected.
We can hope for a general election but there doesn't need to be one until 2020.
But British courts rule over Britain not any EU courts.
While we are in the EU we are under the jurisdiction of their courts. What's the problem? Do you think them incompetent?
So we are best to leave then and not join the EEA?
How is that relevant? The Swiss got a relatively good deal from the eU because they have not tried to wreck the EU project. We won't get that deal because we can't be seen to benefit from what we have just done.
The leavers wanted to leave the EU, we would have left, spin that to defeat if it helps you get through the day! :)
Because the objectives of the Leavers were never just to leave the EU. There were allegedly many benefits to doing so, none of which will be realised if we enter into a Norway type deal.
-
And the patronising post makes it.
You deserved it. I made the point that Scotland is going to be independent and you tried to rebut it by saying it is not independent now. The spelling thing was a bit childish, I admit.
Can you grasp we were talking about different things, I am in the here and now, not in some mythical place where Scotland may be in a year or two depending on how this whole thing pans out.
You are basing your arguments on erroneous reasoning. You say Scotland is not independent therefore Sturgeon is wasting her time. You are effectively saying she should not be planning for the future. I say good for her and, if only the Leavers had planned for the future.
-
But the EU has legislation about joining.
Does it have legislation to say that independent Scotland cannot join? If not, then why shouldn't Nicola Sturgeon plan for the future?
-
No some people in Scotland want to be independant.
It's not a certainty.
We don't have to offer it.
They had their vote.
It would have to be agreed by London.
London can say no.
-
No some people in Scotland want to be independant.
It's not a certainty.
We don't have to offer it.
They had their vote.
It would have to be agreed by London.
London can say no.
Can you imagine what would happen if Scotland said "can we have a new referendum please" and they were denied by the UK government?
-
We wanted to leave the EU, but we won't allow you to leave the UK. Yeah, right.
-
But I am asking you.
There is legislation in place regarding membership of the EU, this law is made by politicians. What is your point?
-
You deserved it. [......]
Really, for disagreeing with you on an internet forum where I am talking about the present situation, not one that may exist somewhere in the future, timescale unknown, after who knows what wrangling will take place. There is a lot of mileage in this yet, it could be years away. The people who are Nicola's new best friends may not even be there when that time comes.
For this you are patronising enough to point out a typio when I had previously, on other occasions spelt the same word correctly.
Is there not a "law" on t'internet about that, akin to Godwin's where if you need to be so trivial it is an admission you are losing.
-
There is legislation in place regarding membership of the EU, this law is made by politicians. What is your point?
So if the politics changes what happens?
-
So if the politics changes what happens?
It's your bag, you tell me.
My point is that there is legislation in place which sets out the criteria a country needs to meet when they apply to join the EU. This is written into EU law and applies to all applications.
-
Everyone's a loser.
I disagree and I think it is what will happen. I don't think there is much point in debating further your asserting things will happen which you can't possibly know.
-
It's your bag, you tell me.
My point is that there is legislation in place which sets out the criteria a country needs to meet when they apply to join the EU. This is written into EU law and applies to all applications.
And is changeable, and adaptable based on politics.
-
And is changeable, and adaptable based on politics.
Are you suggesting the EU politicians will change the legal requirements for entry.
-
I disagree and I think it is what will happen. I don't think there is much point in debating further your asserting things will happen which you can't possibly know.
Jeremy is unable to accept its going to happen.
He's in denial.
-
No some people in Scotland want to be independant.
It's not a certainty.
We don't have to offer it.
They had their vote.
It would have to be agreed by London.
London can say no.
Wrong - Westminster cannot stop the government in Holyrood running a second referendum in Scotland - that is entirely in the hands of the Scottish parliament. What Westminster can do is refuse to acknowledge its validity and refuse to act on it. But that would be tricky and would open a can of worms if they were accepting the validity of the EU referendum. Note that both would merely be 'advisory' in legal terms.
-
Wrong - Westminster cannot stop the government in Holyrood running a second referendum in Scotland - that is entirely in the hands of the Scottish parliament. What Westminster can do is refuse to acknowledge its validity and refuse to act on it. But that would be tricky and would open a can of worms if they were accepting the validity of the EU referendum. Note that both would merely be 'advisory' in legal terms.
Well it sounds to me like not everyone in Scotland wants one.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/684174/Nicola-Sturgeon-Brexit-referendum-Scotland-betrayal-EU
-
Well it sounds to me like not everyone in Scotland wants one.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/684174/Nicola-Sturgeon-Brexit-referendum-Scotland-betrayal-EU
That's an entirely different point. I was responding to your assertion that Holyrood cannot hold a referendum in Scotland without the permission of Westminster - that is not true.
On whether the people of Scotland want a referendum is a critical issue and one that will exercise Sturgeon greatly over the next few weeks and months.
My feeling is that the UK feels almost punch-drunk from the recent events and I suspect that Scotland will feel so doubly after the IndyRef and then EU-Ref. Is there an appetite for even more division and turmoil. I'm not sure there is.
I suspect I'm not alone in kind of wanting the whole world to simply go away at the moment. Or perhaps to wake up and realise that the past 6 days have all been a bad dream.
-
According to this they do.
Any moves to hold an independence referendum would need to be agreed in Westminster.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683263/Nicola-Sturgeon-calls-SECOND-Scottish-referendum-Brexit
Westminster could refuse permission
-
According to this they do.
Any moves to hold an independence referendum would need to be agreed in Westminster.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683263/Nicola-Sturgeon-calls-SECOND-Scottish-referendum-Brexit
Westminster could refuse permission
Sorry but after last week anyone who holds the Daily Express to be a beacon of the truth really needs their head examined.
The Westminster government has no authority to stop the Holyrood government holding a referendum in Scotland. What Westminster can do, in advance, is to state that it will simply ignore it therefore negating its validity as Westminster are the only authority who can actually grant Scotland independence.
So back in 2014 Cameron couldn't stop the referendum taking place, but on this occasion he accepted its validity (albeit on the basis of an advisory referendum). The Westminster government does not have to accept its validity but it cannot stop it taking place.
-
No in 2014 they had a temporary permission from Westminster to hold an independance referendum
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
The power is held at Westminster on anything that effects the constitution and union.
Scotland cannot hold a second referendum on independance without approval from Westmister.
Which is why in one of my links Nicola Sturgeon says she thought it unlikely Westmister would refuse.
Well they can.
-
This link may be better
Westminster may not even allow it
First things first: Scotland may have its own parliament, but to hold a national referendum it still needs permission from Westminster in London. Over 55% of the country voted to stay in the UK in the last independence referendum in 2014, undoubtedly a healthy margin which surprised expectations.
But following a decisive Scottish vote to remain in the EU, the post-Brexit anger in Scotland could be enough to make Westminster politicians think twice about allowing another independent Scotland vote. And there is no constitutional obligation for the UK government to allow it to happen, Dr. Catterall says:
"The argument the UK government may put forward is that it needs to approve a second Scottish referendum and could, in theory, withhold the consent. When the Americans wanted independence in 1776 they did it by violence. We don’t want that — we want to follow constitutional procedure. The question then becomes, how far do you push against the inevitable?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-why-scotland-will-not-get-an-independence-referendum-2016-6
-
That's an entirely different point. I was responding to your assertion that Holyrood cannot hold a referendum in Scotland without the permission of Westminster - that is not true.
On whether the people of Scotland want a referendum is a critical issue and one that will exercise Sturgeon greatly over the next few weeks and months.
My feeling is that the UK feels almost punch-drunk from the recent events and I suspect that Scotland will feel so doubly after the IndyRef and then EU-Ref. Is there an appetite for even more division and turmoil. I'm not sure there is.
I suspect I'm not alone in kind of wanting the whole world to simply go away at the moment. Or perhaps to wake up and realise that the past 6 days have all been a bad dream.
While I have on occasion disagreed with you in the past on such matters, in full agreement here. We seem set for more constitutional shenanigans for the foreseeable future and while it might be that a referendum appeals as a idea, th reality may be different.
-
While I have on occasion disagreed with you in the past on such matters, in full agreement here. We seem set for more constitutional shenanigans for the foreseeable future and while it might be that a referendum appeals as a idea, th reality may be different.
I can see that there might be a reluctance to have another referendum so soon after the last, but will another opportunity like this one ever come again?
I'd say it's now or never.
-
Just to note my understanding of the ability to hold a referendum isn't either that Holyrood has the ability or th Westminster can stop it, rather a referendum called by Holyrood without Westminster can be challenged by individual citizens.
-
I can see that there might be a reluctance to have another referendum so soon after the last, but will another opportunity like this one ever come again?
I'd say it's now or never.
Westminster can refuse to give permission ( see links above) and I think they should.
ATM there is enough to cope with
Scotland voted in, so that's that.
-
Holyrood would need Westminster’s legislative approval to stage an official referendum, as it did in 2014. Cameron had previously said no UK government would give that again so soon, but Sturgeon said on Friday it would be inconceivable for Westminster to ignore a democratic vote by MSPs requesting that authority.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/alex-salmond-second-scottish-independence-referendum-is-certain
Lucky for Scotland I'm not an MP.
Yet!
-
Westminster can refuse to give permission ( see links above) and I think they should.
ATM there is enough to cope with
In theory maybe, but thanks to the Brexit fiasco the Scots now have a very strong case, and almost certainly a significant majority of voters in favour.
-
I can see that there might be a reluctance to have another referendum so soon after the last, but will another opportunity like this one ever come again?
I'd say it's now or never.
I was more expressing personal agreement with Prof Davey of a severe ennui of constantly talking about the constitution, which we will just get more of for any forseeable time. It may well be that this is the only time to fit in a referendum, who knows? But I would like more governing and less campaigning
-
. . . .
But I would like more governing and less campaigning
Surely, if it was worth all the hassle of having a referendum before when the time was obviously wrong - it must be worth trying now when all the factors are lined-up in your favour.
-
In theory maybe, but thanks to the Brexit fiasco the Scots now have a very strong case, and almost certainly a significant majority of voters in favour.
Yes I know.
Once they get a second referendum we would have to abide by the result.
I'm as unhappy about that as Jeremy P is about Brexit.
Once the votes are cast though, if they choose to leave then I feel it's a matter of honour to fulfil that.
It's the same with Brexit.
If you block the referendum, it does away with the problem.
If we hadn't been offered the EU referendum in the first place, we wouldn't be in this flippin mess.
-
Surely, if it was worth all the hassle of having a referendum before when the time was obviously wrong - it must be worth trying now when all the factors are lined-up in your favour.
No it just means they dive in and make a bigger mistake on the back of the EU one.
It doesn't mean an independant Scotland is going to be any more of a resounding success ,than us leaving the EU.
It's all dreams.
People and their dreams.
::)
-
Surely, if it was worth all the hassle of having a referendum before when the time was obviously wrong - it must be worth trying now when all the factors are lined-up in your favour.
What hassle did I have having the last referendum?
Things may be lined up in favour of a second referendum. But that's not my favour. See you thing is the material change in circumstance cuts both ways. Just now I am not even sure what the circumstances are. We have a cellophane PM, an official opposition that can't oppose anything other than itself, an unresolved refugee problem and no fucking plan. We are going to indulge in a Tory party wankfest to electronic a PM amongst 150,000 people. And the a will they, won't you Article 50 bore.
As evil Willow would say, 'Bored now', and then flay them
-
What hassle did I have having the last referendum?
Remarkable if you didn't.
Things may be lined up in favour of a second referendum. But that's not my favour. See you thing is the material change in circumstance cuts both ways. Just now I am not even sure what the circumstances are. We have a cellophane PM, an official opposition that can't oppose anything other than itself, an unresolved refugee problem and no fucking plan. We are going to indulge in a Tory party wankfest to electronic a PM amongst 150,000 people. And the a will they, won't you Article 50 bore.
You seem to be listing really good reasons for independence - but hey, it's your choice - just don't decide you want one in five years time because it's a fair bet that everything will have changed.
-
Remarkable if you didn't.You seem to be listing really good reasons for independence - but hey, it's your choice - just don't decide you want one in five years time because it's a fair bet that everything will have changed.
It's a fair bet everything will have changed in 1 day. You seem to be saying that I, as an individual can't change my mind - that seems a trifle odd. Do you think that you're not allowed to change your mind?
-
We have a cellophane PM,...
Not a cellophane one, but one definitely dead in the water. Mind you, I'm not sure what else he could have done in the circumstances.
We are going to indulge in a Tory party wankfest to electronic a PM amongst 150,000 people. And the a will they, won't you Article 50 bore.
I'd suggest the more serious issue is that of the Labour Party who seem to be at war with itself, as you say. Whilst it's official policy towards Europe was, as was the Tory policy, to stay in, it seems that its historical antagonism to Europe going back to the original referendum in 1975 has never gone away. Its either been swept under the carpet for 40 years or its been ignored. At least we've always known where we stand with the Tories.
-
No in 2014 they had a temporary permission from Westminster to hold an independance referendum
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
The power is held at Westminster on anything that effects the constitution and union.
Scotland cannot hold a second referendum on independance without approval from Westmister.
Which is why in one of my links Nicola Sturgeon says she thought it unlikely Westmister would refuse.
Well they can.
Absolute rubbish.
The Holyrood government can choose to hold a referendum on whatever it like in Scotland. What it cannot do, necessarily is deliver on the result of that referendum because it only has authority to change actually enact changes in certain areas.
So, for example, Holyrood could decide to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should ditch the monarchy and become a republic. Westminster cannot stop them, but they do not have the authority to actually make that happen - that power rests in Westminster. So 99% of the people of Scotland could vote for a republic and Westminster can shrug its shoulders and say - tough, not your decision.
And that was the case for IndyRef - the power to enact Scottish independence rested entirely in Westminster. But what Westminster did do was to take a decision to recognise the referendum, in other words to accept its findings - but that was its choice.
So on IndyRef 2 - Westminster cannot stop it happening, but it can simply state that it refuses to recognise it, therefore ignoring its findings whether pro independence or anti independence.
-
It's a fair bet everything will have changed in 1 day. You seem to be saying that I, as an individual can't change my mind - that seems a trifle odd. Do you think that you're not allowed to change your mind?
Of course you can change your mind, I'm just pointing out that it will probably be a very long time before the opportunity will come round again - so don't complain if you have to endure a Boris Government.
-
Of course you can change your mind, I'm just pointing out that it will probably be a very long time before the opportunity will come round again - so don't complain if you have to endure a Boris Government.
It appears I might have to do that way in advance of any referendum so why not?
-
Not a cellophane one, but one definitely dead in the water. Mind you, I'm not sure what else he could have done in the circumstances.
I'd suggest the more serious issue is that of the Labour Party who seem to be at war with itself, as you say. Whilst it's official policy towards Europe was, as was the Tory policy, to stay in, it seems that its historical antagonism to Europe going back to the original referendum in 1975 has never gone away. Its either been swept under the carpet for 40 years or its been ignored. At least we've always known where we stand with the Tories.
The split in Labour isn't about the EU. Gisela Stuart isn't being attacked for her Leave stance or even coming up with the bus £350M slogan. This is a shadow cause. It's much much more to do with the Middle East.
-
No it just means they dive in and make a bigger mistake on the back of the EU one.
It doesn't mean an independant Scotland is going to be any more of a resounding success ,than us leaving the EU.
It's all dreams.
People and their dreams.
::)
I think Scotland would be fine and independence for Scotland would be better for everyone. At the very least indeyref2 will settle the issue for a generation, really this time.
-
No in 2014 they had a temporary permission from Westminster to hold an independance referendum
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
The power is held at Westminster on anything that effects the constitution and union.
Scotland cannot hold a second referendum on independance without approval from Westmister.
Which is why in one of my links Nicola Sturgeon says she thought it unlikely Westmister would refuse.
Well they can.
And that goes for the EU referendum.
It would be the ultimate act of English imperialism to refuse a referendum and yet another guff reason for Brexit...sanctimonious waffle about sovereignty....would unravel.
-
I disagree and I think it is what will happen. I don't think there is much point in debating further your asserting things will happen which you can't possibly know.
Everyone's a loser if we get a Norway deal because
a) we are out of the EU and no longer part of the shared future which means Remainers have lost
b) a Norway-like deal will mean we still do not have control over EU citizens coming here and we will still be paying our membership fee. So the Leavers will have lost.
Note, this is not me trying to make prophecy, it is me telling you what the facts will be in the event of one particular future possibility.
-
Jeremy is unable to accept its going to happen.
He's in denial.
Fuck off.
-
Westminster can refuse to give permission ( see links above) and I think they should.
That would be pouring petrol on the flames.
-
Westminster can refuse to give permission ( see links above) and I think they should.
ATM there is enough to cope with
Scotland voted in, so that's that.
That was then - this is now, and thanks mainly to voters (but not all of them) in England and Wales we are being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the clear majority here in Scotland. It is particularly galling that faced with this calamity the main concern elsewhere in the UK right now seems to be on who will lead the Labour and Tory parties in Westminster.
So, unsurprisingly, some of us here in Scotland aren't particularly concerned about what voters in England and Wales might think about our situation or the desire of some of us to leave the UK, especially given the damage some of them have done to it, or will look kindly on any attempts to constrain our option to leave a UK that no longer represents the consensus of our views!
Over the last few days things have fundamentally changed compared to the situation in 2014, and for anyone to pretend otherwise is head-in-the-sand stupidity.
-
Everyone's a loser if we get a Norway deal because
a) we are out of the EU and no longer part of the shared future which means Remainers have lost
b) a Norway-like deal will mean we still do not have control over EU citizens coming here and we will still be paying our membership fee. So the Leavers will have lost.
Note, this is not me trying to make prophecy, it is me telling you what the facts will be in the event of one particular future possibility.
I don't think its accurate to describe positions based on winning or losing. I was for Brexit and would be quite happy with a Norway type deal, for the reasons I wrote about earlier.
I'm telling you what i think and you are claiming I don't think it.
I'm advocating a Norway type deal, what are you advocating?
-
Everyone's a loser if we get a Norway deal because
a) we are out of the EU and no longer part of the shared future which means Remainers have lost
b) a Norway-like deal will mean we still do not have control over EU citizens coming here and we will still be paying our membership fee. So the Leavers will have lost.
Note, this is not me trying to make prophecy, it is me telling you what the facts will be in the event of one particular future possibility.
While I agree with the points you make, I suspect that the alternatives will be even worse.
-
That was then - this is now, and thanks mainly to voters (but not all of them) in England and Wales we are being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the clear majority here in Scotland. It is particularly galling that faced with this calamity the main concern elsewhere in the UK right now seems to be on who will lead the Labour and Tory parties in Westminster.
With all due respect Gordon Scotland is a population of 5 million. If Scotland leaves its important for people in Scotland, but who controls the UK is important for everyone in the UK.
Not sure there is much appetite for consuming more SNP whinging in rUK.
So, unsurprisingly, some of us here in Scotland aren't particularly concerned about what voters in England and Wales might think about our situation or the desire of some of us to leave the UK, especially given the damage some of them have done to it, or will look kindly on any attempts to constrain our option to leave a UK that no longer represents the consensus of our views!
I think a lot in England and Wales would quite like you to leave.
Over the last few days things have fundamentally changed compared to the situation in 2014, and for anyone to pretend otherwise is head-in-the-sand stupidity.
Agree think you should crack on and get it done, although it looks like Sturgeon is rolling back a bit now.
looks like the Spanish Pm is going to veto any moves she makes:-
"I want to be very clear," Mr Rajoy said. "Scotland does not have the competence to negotiate with the European Union. Spain opposes any negotiation by anyone other than the government of the United Kingdom.
"I am extremely against it, the treaties are extremely against it and I everyone is against it. If the United Kingdom leaves....Scotland leaves."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spanish-prime-minister-mariano-rajoy-opposes-eu-talks-with-scotland-a7109176.html
-
I'm advocating a Norway type deal, what are you advocating?
The Norway type deal is the best deal we can get now, unless we can find a democratic way to ignore the referendum result.
-
I think that, unless Brexit is cancelled, we will have to leave the EU and that some in the EU won't recognise Scotland as a separate entity currently, while it is still enmeshed in the UK, is no great surprise (especially Spain, who have their own problem with the Catalan situation).
However, at the point Scotland isn't part of the UK then the situation is surely fundamentally different, and that is presumably why our FM was in Brussels this week.
-
I think that, unless Brexit is cancelled, we will have to leave the EU and that some in the EU won't recognise Scotland as a separate entity currently, while it is still enmeshed in the UK, is no great surprise (especially Spain, who have their own problem with the Catalan situation).
However, at the point Scotland isn't part of the UK then the situation is surely fundamentally different, and that is presumably why our FM was in Brussels this week.
That's about the size of it and there is no harm in putting down some groundwork now.
I'm truly sorry we, the English, have fucked you over so badly.
-
The Norway type deal is the best deal we can get now, unless we can find a democratic way to ignore the referendum result.
If the best the negotiator can get is a Norway type deal (ie Freedom of Movement is still in force) then this will be seen as ignoring the referendum result unless either the PM was elected with a mandate to get such a deal, or the deal is put to the electorate in another referendum.
-
If the best the negotiator can get is a Norway type deal (ie Freedom of Movement is still in force) then this will be seen as ignoring the referendum result unless either the PM was elected with a mandate to get such a deal, or the deal is put to the electorate in another referendum.
No it wouldn't. The referendum did not ask the question "should we impose more controls on immigration". With a Norway type deal we are still out of the EU in accordance with the referendum result.
-
That was then - this is now, and thanks mainly to voters (but not all of them) in England and Wales we are being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the clear majority here in Scotland. It is particularly galling that faced with this calamity the main concern elsewhere in the UK right now seems to be on who will lead the Labour and Tory parties in Westminster.
Unfortunately, Gordon, Westminster is where all the important decisions are taken/made. Who leads the various national - as opposed to regional - parties is therefore very important for the UK electorate.
So, unsurprisingly, some of us here in Scotland aren't particularly concerned about what voters in England and Wales might think about our situation or the desire of some of us to leave the UK, especially given the damage some of them have done to it, or will look kindly on any attempts to constrain our option to leave a UK that no longer represents the consensus of our views!
Not sure what the exact registered electorate figures are for Scotland, but let us say it's 67% of the population of 5.38 million. That's about 3.65 million. 73% turnout (?)- that's therefore about 2.63 million voted and 62% of them voted to remain - about 1.64 million. That's not a particularly promising proportion in anything other than democratic terminology.
Over the last few days things have fundamentally changed compared to the situation in 2014, and for anyone to pretend otherwise is head-in-the-sand stupidity.
Agreed; a minority of the Scottish population have actually chosen to vote for the UK to remain in Europe. It would be interesting to see what a poll for Scotland to enter the EU would show.
Incidenatlly, if you look at the list of 400-odd voting areas for last week's referendum, the bulk of the leave votes came from predominantly Labour areas. Perhaps the SNP ought to have been a bit more supportive of the Tories, Lib Dems, Greens and Welsh Nationalists ;)
-
Incidenatlly, if you look at the list of 400-odd voting areas for last week's referendum, the bulk of the leave votes came from predominantly Labour areas. Perhaps the SNP ought to have been a bit more supportive of the Tories, Lib Dems, Greens and Welsh Nationalists ;)
What on earth are you on about.
Scotland doesn't have '400-odd voting areas', in Westminster terms Scotland has only one Labour MP, and why should the SNP can be 'supportive of' other parties in a referendum that isn't based on party affiliation. By the way, we don't have any Welsh Nationalists in Scotland (thought you'd have known that)?
Even then I'm struggling to see what your point is, or indeed if there is one at all.
-
Hope didn't say Scotland had 400-odd voting areas, he said:
"...if you look at the list of 400-odd voting areas for last week's referendum, the bulk of the leave votes came from predominantly Labour areas. "
He was talking about the entire UK, not Scotland specifically.
If the majority of leavers hailed from traditionally Labour areas, then Remainers might well have more in common with other parties (including Plaid Cymru), if only on this issue. Hope put a ;) after saying what he said.
That's my interpretation of Hope's post anyway.
-
If the best the negotiator can get is a Norway type deal (ie Freedom of Movement is still in force) then this will be seen as ignoring the referendum result unless either the PM was elected with a mandate to get such a deal, or the deal is put to the electorate in another referendum.
Could be a get out of jail free card. Norway type deal = out of the EU as per the referendum question, but really just like being in so same acccess.
-
Could be a get out of jail free card. Norway type deal = out of the EU as per the referendum question, but really just like being in so same acccess.
When things bite there will be more regrexit because you cant odds having what you've had one week and fuck all the next.
-
When things bite there will be more regrexit because you cant odds having what you've had one week and fuck all the next.
You'd have thought - given that the campaign was so vitriolic and full of misinformation, that the result was unexpected and was unprepared for by those who set the referendum in motion and that it has had the side-effect of seeing both the Labour and Tory parties in Westminster implode and be reduced to squabbling among themselves instead of dealing with the core issue of Brexit - that someone, somewhere, would step in and stop the current nonsense and start again.
That the last few days has been little more than a beauty parade of Westminster power-hungry uglies surely suggests that where we are now isn't where we planned to be, or where we want to be.
-
That the last few days has been little more than a beauty parade of Westminster power-hungry uglies surely suggests that where we are now isn't where we planned to be, or where we want to be.
Sturgeon has been on parade as well, she might be "fan dabby dozy" but pretty she ain't.
-
It's been seven days since Britain was given the key to the drinks cabinet and drugs trolley. Some are getting high on what they found. Others are smashing up the furniture for a fire in the front room in order to smoke out the neighbours who have their washing out..............That'll teach them.
-
Interesting article
http://infacts.org/second-referendum-probably-legally-required/
-
I blame Hope's prayer groups.
I'd certainly be interested to hear what the believers think God wanted the result of the referendum to be!!! :)
-
Dear Susan,
Funny but I never consulted God over the Referendum, I think the answer to my prayers would have been, are you bloody stupid son, take a look at the mess the Tories have made, the people of your nation are sick to death of austerity, they are going to vote leave in protest, of course they will not blame the real culprits for their suffering but will point the finger at the weak and innocent.
I suppose, like the prophets of old all the signs were there, greed, hatred, poverty, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Gonnagle.
-
I'd certainly be interested to hear what the believers think God wanted the result of the referendum to be!!! :)
....And I would like to hear what secular humanists and their fellow travellers think of secular Britain at the moment.
Has it turned out to be a paradise of inevitable human progress?
-
Vlad - Thank you for your comment - I'll answer tomorrow.
-
....And I would like to hear what secular humanists and their fellow travellers think of secular Britain at the moment.
Has it turned out to be a paradise of inevitable human progress?
Well, I haven't seen any comments by secular humanists recently, but will make a point of listening to the next NSS newsletter. As far as I'm concerned, it worries me that a person wishing to be the PM of this country is not aware that, even if she believes a God exists, it does nothing that would distinguish life from what it is without a God.
The world will never be a paradise, since that, like all gods, is an idea which is a product of the evolved human brain's imagination.
-
....And I would like to hear what secular humanists and their fellow travellers think of secular Britain at the moment.
Has it turned out to be a paradise of inevitable human progress?
We are in worrying times.
That said most of the problems are entirely outwith the sphere of secular humanism vs theocracy. There is little of the EU debate that relates to that at all, beyond a rather vague secular humanist notion of being better when we work together and the occasional nasty streak that implies that a reason not to allow Turkey into the EU is that they aren't a 'christian' country.
I have concerns though about Leadsom as she comes across as the kind of 'certain of her views' socially conservative christian that worries me for the continued progress of a progressive equality agenda, which of course is only compatible with secularism in its purest notion. I worry that she'd look to reign back equality gains and would place religious groups even more on a 'not to be touched' pedestal than they are currently.
-
Dear Prof,
We are in worrying times.
Worrying!! understatement of the year old son, desperate is the word I would use.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36739781
Nevermind, it will all be over by Christmas, and yes I claim the prize for being the first poster to mention Christmas this year. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
I can see British soldiers bringing home Polish and Estonian brides. Aaaargh! More foreigners!!! We soon won't recognise Our England with so many white faces!
-
Dear Brownie,
Aye! poor old England, you can pull the drawbridge up on the Caley tunnel but you have those back stabbing Jocks with their down and dirty open hand of friendship willing to accept any Tom, Dick or Abdul, those Scots won't care about a border, hell the tartan hordes will also accept Englishmen :o :o their is no depth to their depravity. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
I can see British soldiers bringing home Polish and Estonian brides. Aaaargh! More foreigners!!! We soon won't recognise Our England with so many white faces!
And then she might ban Diwali and replace it by a special day early in November when we shall light fires and let off fireworks to celebrate her rescue of Parliament from the Bremainers (who will be burnt on the fires).
-
Well, I haven't seen any comments by secular humanists recently, but will make a point of listening to the next NSS newsletter. As far as I'm concerned, it worries me that a person wishing to be the PM of this country is not aware that, even if she believes a God exists, it does nothing that would distinguish life from what it is without a God.
The world will never be a paradise, since that, like all gods, is an idea which is a product of the evolved human brain's imagination.
I believe I mentioned Secular humanists and their fellow travellers.
Personalities aside and I think when we are considering the personalities who may be PM who are pitching their political and spiritual resumes at a constituency.....Brexit, as you seem to have missed is about 52% versus 48%. It is about swathes of people in what is ostensibly a secular society who haave a fear of foreigners. It is about permissive racism and I guess about intellectualism vying with antiintellectualism with chauvinism on both sides.
It gives lie to the secular and Dawkinsian notion of inevitable social, political, scientific and moral progress supposedly unleashed after the enlightenment.
To see this as a problem of anything other than nationalism and globalism is to fail to see the issues.
More important for this site is that the idea of a majority and unifying moral zeitgeist has seriously been called into question by a 52-48 split.
-
Interesting article on the BBC website regarding previous Prime Ministerial resignations and departures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36779083
Note the reason given for the 1975 referendum under harold Wilson:
Wilson surprised everyone when he resigned in March 1976, saying that he had lost interest in the grind of day-to-day politics. Since coming to power for a second time in 1974, he had held a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Economic Community - in an effort to avoid a split through the middle of his Labour Party - and seen a collapse in the value of the pound. Wilson later told BBC journalists he thought MI5 had been trying to undermine him.
Labour seem to have been where the Tories are now several decades earlier.
-
And then she might ban Diwali and replace it by a special day early in November when we shall light fires and let off fireworks to celebrate her rescue of Parliament from the Bremainers (who will be burnt on the fires).
In effigy only! The 'common' kids would make them, dressed in discarded red, white and blue clothes, put them in discarded shopping trollies and stand with them on street corners asking passers by for spare euros.
-
In effigy only! The 'common' kids would make them, dressed in discarded red, white and blue clothes, put them in discarded shopping trollies and stand with them on street corners asking passers by for spare euros.
And raise money by asking for a farthing for the Farage.
-
Indeed, very English! Farage and Boris masks would be a great feature, Boris easy to make with lots of straw on top.
-
Brexit means Brexit but what does Brexit mean? Let's have a brainstorm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219143
-
Brexit means Brexit but what does Brexit mean? Let's have a brainstorm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219143
If ever we needed a strong competent opposition pressing the government in the right direction it's right now - and what have we got? . . .a 1970's tribute act that would have us emulate Venezuela .
-
Brexit means Brexit but what does Brexit mean? Let's have a brainstorm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219143
If May is going to be that clear then we can't trust anything she says.
-
If ever we needed a strong competent opposition pressing the government in the right direction it's right now - and what have we got? . . .a 1970's tribute act that would have us emulate Venezuela .
That's right we need UKIP to push the government to a full brexit. ;D
-
That's right we need UKIP to push the government to a full brexit. ;D
pity they only have 1 MP. Of course they might have avoided that if they had consistently campaigned for OR but they like the 2 party system
-
If ever we needed a strong competent opposition pressing the government in the right direction it's right now - and what have we got? . . .a 1970's tribute act that would have us emulate Venezuela .
of course it might be more useful to have a govt that was useful rather than rely on an opposition to make it so, or indeed as you did previously claim that the govt's plans on Hunan Rights to enact a policy from the manifesto was somehow a plant comment made by the opposition. Which at least if they did that would surely show them as borderline Machiavellian. The actions of the govt are theirs, and your obsession with blaming the Labour Party is bizarre. Inept as they are , Corbyn and the Labour Party are not responsible for the actions of the govt.
-
pity they only have 1 MP. Of course they might have avoided that if they had consistently campaigned for OR but they like the 2 party system
That wasn't the point of the post I replied to nor my reply.
-
That wasn't the point of the post I replied to nor my reply.
you implied UKIP could be an opposition. I was just pointing out factually wrong in part because they have supported the two party system
-
you implied UKIP could be an opposition. I was just pointing out factually wrong in part because they have supported the two party system
Some one said that the Tories need a good opposition as Labour are shit. I said UKIP would be a good opposition. The fact they can't be because of the reality of the situation is besides the point - they would make a good opposition in getting full Brexit.
-
Some one said that the Tories need a good opposition as Labour are shit. I said UKIP would be a good opposition.
But UKIP has only one MP and problems selecting a competent leader. Plus they are a bunch of racist twats.
-
Some one said that the Tories need a good opposition as Labour are shit. I said UKIP would be a good opposition. The fact they can't be because of the reality of the situation is besides the point - they would make a good opposition in getting full Brexit.
which given that is current govt policy is not exactly opposition
-
of course it might be more useful to have a govt that was useful rather than rely on an opposition to make it so, or indeed as you did previously claim that the govt's plans on Hunan Rights to enact a policy from the manifesto was somehow a plant comment made by the opposition. Which at least if they did that would surely show them as borderline Machiavellian. The actions of the govt are theirs, and your obsession with blaming the Labour Party is bizarre. Inept as they are , Corbyn and the Labour Party are not responsible for the actions of the govt.
I am unhappy with this government in a great many ways , but they appear to be pretty safe as long as the Corbynistas rule Labour.
-
Some one said that the Tories need a good opposition as Labour are shit. I said UKIP would be a good opposition. The fact they can't be because of the reality of the situation is besides the point - they would make a good opposition in getting full Brexit.
But UKIP are in the same boat as labour. Just like labour are left but aren't sure what that means and therefore split asunder, so are UKIP unsure of what Brexit means outside some slogans.
I'm afraid just like the writing being on the wall for future of EU membership in the European 2014 elections It was the election of Mark Reckless in Rochester when UKIP voters interviewed said that he would not be there in 2015 because it was a general election.
They are at least as factionalised as labour and just don't have it to displace the tories.
They have of course the huge problem of being an alliance of the have nots and wealthy social Darwinians. I suppose what unites all of them is the right to stain other peoples lives, livelihoods and lifestyles.
-
I am unhappy with this government in a great many ways , but they appear to be pretty safe as long as the Corbynistas rule Labour.
... and the SNP rule Scotland and UKIP have quite such a hold over previously Labour voters!!
-
... and the SNP rule Scotland and UKIP have quite such a hold over previously Labour voters!!
Hark, is that the sound of Francoist gloating?.
-
Moderator
Given we have the result, and discussion has moved on this thread is being 'unstickied'
-
I come to this thread very late and obviously haven't read the 110 pages, but will not allow my lack of research or knowledge to inhibit my posting. :)
I voted leave.
Naturally I have been branded as a rascist, racist, bigot, little Englander &.c.
But I wish to clarify my position. I feel no nationalism. I am not proud too be British, I am grateful, I acknowledge my luck, but I cannot feel pride in something I made no contribution to. I feel that Britain is the best place in the world to live. For that reason I understand and welcome that people might want to move here.
But I have beef with the EU as an organisation. I think it started out as an idealistic, Socialist utopian vision. But over the past forty years we have seen it develop into something else. Like the precious goldilocks, centre ground of Western politics, the EU has become the prevail of a Corporate control. It is run for the benefit of the elite. Secret trade deals, legislation influenced by and sustaining big business interests. The term 'gravy train' is a bye word for a culture of greed and corruption found in thee EU.
I know that our own government is not perfect. But it has a level of accountability which the EU does not. MPs have surgeries, they respond to letters and emails and if they don't you have avenues of redress. Not so with Brussels. Which is the direction my thoughts head towards. The vision of the EU is a political one. The debate in the UK is pragmatic, how much? How many? That kind of discussion. But in Europe thee discussion is different. It is about a European project, of political union, of a federal Europe.
But I feel that the larger the government, the less direct accountability there is to the individual. I recall the horror shown by US senators when viewing BBCs Question Time. They found it unimaginable that senior politicians would be face to face with us, the great unwashed.
So when given the option to leave what is known to be corrupt, what is becoming less accountable and increasingly manipulated by the greedy, i said yes.
I hope our cousins on the continent join us and we can redesign things for our mutual benefit. Perhaps be able to show more compassion for the needy and less tolerance for the crooked.
-
I come to this thread very late and obviously haven't read the 110 pages, but will not allow my lack of research or knowledge to inhibit my posting. :)
I voted leave.
Naturally I have been branded as a rascist, racist, bigot, little Englander &.c.
But I wish to clarify my position. I feel no nationalism. I am not proud too be British, I am grateful, I acknowledge my luck, but I cannot feel pride in something I made no contribution to. I feel that Britain is the best place in the world to live. For that reason I understand and welcome that people might want to move here.
But I have beef with the EU as an organisation. I think it started out as an idealistic, Socialist utopian vision. But over the past forty years we have seen it develop into something else. Like the precious goldilocks, centre ground of Western politics, the EU has become the prevail of a Corporate control. It is run for the benefit of the elite. Secret trade deals, legislation influenced by and sustaining big business interests. The term 'gravy train' is a bye word for a culture of greed and corruption.
I know that our own government is not perfect. But it has a level of accountability which the EU does not. MPs have surgeries, they respond to letters and emails and if they don't you have avenues of redress. Not so with Brussels. Which is the direction my thoughts head towards. The vision of the EU is a political one. The debate in the UK is pragmatic, how much? How many? That kind of discussion. But in Europe thee discussion is different. It is about a European project, of political union, of a federal Europe.
But I feel that the larger the government, the less direct accountability there is to the individual. I recall the horror shown by US senators when viewing BBCs Question Time. They found it unimaginable that senior politicians would be face to face with us, the great unwashed.
So when given the option to leave what is known to be corrupt, what is becoming less accountable and increasingly manipulated by the greedy, i said yes.
I hope our cousins on the continent join us and we can redesign things for our mutual benefit. Perhaps be able to show more co passion for the needy and less tolerance for the crooked.
Have you got any evidence to substantiate any of that or is it just what you have been fed by our rabid media?
-
That would be the rabid media then. :)
-
I come to this thread very late and obviously haven't read the 110 pages, but will not allow my lack of research or knowledge to inhibit my posting. :)
I voted leave.
Naturally I have been branded as a rascist, racist, bigot, little Englander &.c.
But I wish to clarify my position. I feel no nationalism. I am not proud too be British, I am grateful, I acknowledge my luck, but I cannot feel pride in something I made no contribution to. I feel that Britain is the best place in the world to live. For that reason I understand and welcome that people might want to move here.
But I have beef with the EU as an organisation. I think it started out as an idealistic, Socialist utopian vision. But over the past forty years we have seen it develop into something else. Like the precious goldilocks, centre ground of Western politics, the EU has become the prevail of a Corporate control. It is run for the benefit of the elite. Secret trade deals, legislation influenced by and sustaining big business interests. The term 'gravy train' is a bye word for a culture of greed and corruption found in thee EU.
I know that our own government is not perfect. But it has a level of accountability which the EU does not. MPs have surgeries, they respond to letters and emails and if they don't you have avenues of redress. Not so with Brussels. Which is the direction my thoughts head towards. The vision of the EU is a political one. The debate in the UK is pragmatic, how much? How many? That kind of discussion. But in Europe thee discussion is different. It is about a European project, of political union, of a federal Europe.
But I feel that the larger the government, the less direct accountability there is to the individual. I recall the horror shown by US senators when viewing BBCs Question Time. They found it unimaginable that senior politicians would be face to face with us, the great unwashed.
So when given the option to leave what is known to be corrupt, what is becoming less accountable and increasingly manipulated by the greedy, i said yes.
I hope our cousins on the continent join us and we can redesign things for our mutual benefit. Perhaps be able to show more compassion for the needy and less tolerance for the crooked.
Welcome back T8, your wonderful OPs have been missed here (by me anyway).
Excellent post which echoes my thoughts, entirely. I'm not agin immigration either albeit no doubt some terrorists will be accessing our shores. It's sad that many 'leavers' have been given labels such as 'racist' when many have views similar to yours and mine. The mainstream media has been no help in that respect plus it is almost impossible to find any background through MSM on the EU and thus many do not realise the power structure and control that the leaders of the organisation hold. You may just be lucky to come across an article on this in the Independent. So, you have to dig. I'd never heard of the Bilderbergers until I did some research.
Hope you hang around for a while.
-
I come to this thread very late and obviously haven't read the 110 pages, but will not allow my lack of research or knowledge to inhibit my posting. :)
I voted leave.
Naturally I have been branded as a rascist, racist, bigot, little Englander &.c.
But I wish to clarify my position. I feel no nationalism. I am not proud too be British, I am grateful, I acknowledge my luck, but I cannot feel pride in something I made no contribution to. I feel that Britain is the best place in the world to live. For that reason I understand and welcome that people might want to move here.
But I have beef with the EU as an organisation. I think it started out as an idealistic, Socialist utopian vision. But over the past forty years we have seen it develop into something else. Like the precious goldilocks, centre ground of Western politics, the EU has become the prevail of a Corporate control. It is run for the benefit of the elite. Secret trade deals, legislation influenced by and sustaining big business interests. The term 'gravy train' is a bye word for a culture of greed and corruption found in thee EU.
I know that our own government is not perfect. But it has a level of accountability which the EU does not. MPs have surgeries, they respond to letters and emails and if they don't you have avenues of redress. Not so with Brussels. Which is the direction my thoughts head towards. The vision of the EU is a political one. The debate in the UK is pragmatic, how much? How many? That kind of discussion. But in Europe thee discussion is different. It is about a European project, of political union, of a federal Europe.
But I feel that the larger the government, the less direct accountability there is to the individual. I recall the horror shown by US senators when viewing BBCs Question Time. They found it unimaginable that senior politicians would be face to face with us, the great unwashed.
So when given the option to leave what is known to be corrupt, what is becoming less accountable and increasingly manipulated by the greedy, i said yes.
I hope our cousins on the continent join us and we can redesign things for our mutual benefit. Perhaps be able to show more compassion for the needy and less tolerance for the crooked.
Spot on post! I see you are getting the same dirge I've been getting from Jeremy for years.
I think one of the important points in your post for the future is that the rest of the continent, as well as our cousins across the pond, join us in the move to reject the rich elites, and so called technocrats and experts, because Brexit alone isn't enough. We also need to change Westminster because they have been the servants of Brussels and not of the British people. The political landscape is shifting!
SweetPea, thank you for the heads up.
-
Moderator As the result of the referendum is now known, we have set up a stickied thread Brexit - The Nest Steps for ongoing discussion on the topic. Link below
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12832.msg644050#msg644050