Who's for IN and who's for OUT:

[jakswan]

He's an idiot and he will dismantle the NHS. The NHS is not in any danger whatsoever from the EU.

He's an elected politician and he will only be able to do what the electorate allow him to do. TTIP is a danger to the NHS, an EU project.

Sassy seems to think they will be.That's the reason she thinks we are leaving: so we can get rid of Johnny Foreigner.

Well she is wrong.

I chose to debate on that point because it symbolises one of the biggest problems with Brexiters. They forget that this is a two way street. Yes, Europeans are coming here, but that is because our economy is doing well. In worse times, the migration goes the other way. In the 1980's lots of our people went to Europe to find work because there was none in Britain. You Brexiters make it look like we are happy to take from the EU but when it comes to giving back, we are selfish bastards. I do not want to be tarred with that brush and your attitude of take take take makes me very angry.

Mmmm maybe Sass is going down to your level. I have no attitude of take take take and couldn't give a fuck if you pretending I do makes you angry, grow up.

I support Brexit because I think our government should be able to make our own laws, decide how we spend our own money, decide who comes in into the country and make our own trade deals. You support remain because you think the EU should have the power, or at least influence, over those things.

Don't get on your high horse because you've deluded yourself that the EU that it has everyone's interests at heart with things like a everyone is welcome policy, it doesn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36558694

I totally agree Sass is bigoted, xenophobic and prejudiced, labelling anyone who doesn't agree with you the same gets you the same labels with a big dose of hypocrisy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He's an elected politician and he will only be able to do what the electorate allow him to do. TTIP is a danger to the NHS, an EU project.

Well she is wrong.

Mmmm maybe Sass is going down to your level. I have no attitude of take take take and couldn't give a fuck if you pretending I do makes you angry, grow up.

I support Brexit because I think our government should be able to make our own laws, decide how we spend our own money, decide who comes in into the country and make our own trade deals. You support remain because you think the EU should have the power, or at least influence, over those things.

Don't get on your high horse because you've deluded yourself that the EU that it has everyone's interests at heart with things like a everyone is welcome policy, it doesn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36558694

I totally agree Sass is bigoted, xenophobic and prejudiced, labelling anyone who doesn't agree with you the same gets you the same labels with a big dose of hypocrisy.

The EU does not have THE power and as far as I can see no one here wants it to have THE power. Another plausible sounding Brexit myth although when brought into the cold light of day it doesn't sound all that plausible.

[jakswan]

The EU does not have THE power and as far as I can see no one here wants it to have THE power. Another plausible sounding Brexit myth although when brought into the cold light of day it doesn't sound all that plausible.

You are wrong the EU has the power to negotiate trade deals, spend some of our money, makes some of our laws,decides who is allowed into the country.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are wrong the EU has the power to negotiate trade deals,

As can we - so we get two bites at the cherry.

spend some of our money

We are part of the EU so the notion that they are 'spending some of our money' is no more true than that the UK government 'spends some of our money' - actually a hell of a lot more that the EU. Why is tax payer money any more the UK governments, than the EU - actually it comes from us.

makes some of our laws

Via democratic processes, just as the UK government does - and all laws need to be ratified at member state level, most with vetoes - so if the UK doesn't like it, it doesn't happen.

decides who is allowed into the country.

Really!!? When I last entered the UK (last Tuesday lunchtime) I could have sworn I had to pass through border control which is run entirely by the UK government.

[jakswan]

As can we - so we get two bites at the cherry.

We cannot, all trade deals are subject to tariffs that the EU sets. It is not possible for the UK to do a free trade deal with any country without getting approval from 27 other countries.

We are part of the EU so the notion that they are 'spending some of our money' is no more true than that the UK government 'spends some of our money' - actually a hell of a lot more that the EU. Why is tax payer money any more the UK governments, than the EU - actually it comes from us.

I can hold UK government to account via our culture, voting, getting in touch directly with MPs. The EU is a remote bureaucracy who I have no engagement with. Not that this was the point Vlad claimed the EU didn't have any power, you seem to have conceded that point.

Via democratic processes, just as the UK government does - and all laws need to be ratified at member state level, most with vetoes - so if the UK doesn't like it, it doesn't happen.

Again you have conceded the point, the EU does have the power.

Really!!? When I last entered the UK (last Tuesday lunchtime) I could have sworn I had to pass through border control which is run entirely by the UK government.

Another attempt at obfuscation. Who is allowed to pass through those border controls is in some way dictated by the EU, i.e. they have the power.

Can we try to clean this debate up a little. You feel the EU will offer a better form of government than our own, I get that, I feel the UK government will offer a better from of government than the EU. Neither is perfect, however I feel UK politicians are held to account much better than EU bureaucrats.

I think the time has gone when anyone was going to change their mind.

[Udayana]

...
Can we try to clean this debate up a little. You feel the EU will offer a better form of government than our own, I get that, I feel the UK government will offer a better from of government than the EU. Neither is perfect, however I feel UK politicians are held to account much better than EU bureaucrats.

I think the time has gone when anyone was going to change their mind.

I'd like a UK government to manage UK matters and an EU government to manage EU wide matters (in the absence of other groupings). Both should be fully democratic and accountable, but this doesn't mean that conflicts can always be avoided.

[ProfessorDavey]

We cannot, all trade deals are subject to tariffs that the EU sets. It is not possible for the UK to do a free trade deal with any country without getting approval from 27 other countries.

Wrong - there are loads and loads of trade deals that don't involve changes to tariff arrangement - indeed the vast majority. Why the obsession with tariffs. Most barriers to trade aren't tariffs but non tariff arrangements.

And actually on tariffs it isn't the EU per se which requires harmonisation of tariffs, it is the European customs union, which isn't congruent with the EU. Indeed there are non-EU countries that are in the customs union and some territories that are part of the EU that aren't in the customs union.

And of course it is self evident that is you abolish customs between territories you have to have harmonisation of tariffs or a exporter could simply export into the country with the lowest tariff and then transfer the goods (without customs check) into a country that has a higher tariff.

I can hold UK government to account via our culture, voting, getting in touch directly with MPs. The EU is a remote bureaucracy who I have no engagement with. Not that this was the point Vlad claimed the EU didn't have any power, you seem to have conceded that point.

You can do exactly the same with the EU and remember you don't just have one MEP (as is the case with MPs) you have several, so you are much more likely to find one minded to take up your cause. And of course the UK government is directly involved in the decision making of the EU, so if you have a say in the UK government (which you claim you do) then you also have a say in the EU.

Another attempt at obfuscation. Who is allowed to pass through those border controls is in some way dictated by the EU, i.e. they have the power.

And those arrangements have been agreed by the UK government and they are subject to veto. So, no the EU doesn't have the power - the power is vested at the level of member state governments. If the UK didn't want it to happen they can veto and it won't happen.

Can we try to clean this debate up a little. You feel the EU will offer a better form of government than our own, I get that, I feel the UK government will offer a better from of government than the EU. Neither is perfect, however I feel UK politicians are held to account much better than EU bureaucrats.

Where did I ever claim the EU governance was better than the UK. Both, in my opinion have strengths, both have limitations. That isn't the point, it isn't one or the other. I want decisions to be taken at the most appropriate level. I don't want the UK government taking a decision that is better taken at local level. I don't want the EU taking decision that are better taken at UK level. But there are issues where it is most appropriate that the decision is made in a cooperative manner across EU countries.

The other point is that having different levels of governance provides checks and balances, and as we both agree that neither the EU nor the UK government is perfect, those checks and balances are important. If we leave I'd be genuinely concerned that far, far too much power would become vested at the UK government level - we currently have too much that is decided in Westminster rather than at local level, and if we leave we'd end up with decisions that really need to be taken at international level also vest at Westminster too. As you fully accept that Westminster is far from perfect do you really want them having yet more power?

I think the time has gone when anyone was going to change their mind.

I disagree - just today we have seen an ex minister defect from leave to remain. And given the events over the last few days I think there are plenty of people who toyed with leave who simply cannot hold their nose hard enough to maintain that position.

Certainly the betting has shifted massively this morning.

[wigginhall]

Watched Cameron on TV last night - I don't like him really, but I admired his performance under pressure.  He is remorselessly articulate, and has good sound-bites, Britain doesn't quit, and so on.   He looked flustered about immigration, but if I was a Tory, I would see him as an asset to stay with, rather than BoGove.

[jakswan]

Wrong - there are loads and loads of trade deals that don't involve changes to tariff arrangement - indeed the vast majority. Why the obsession with tariffs. Most barriers to trade aren't tariffs but non tariff arrangements.

And actually on tariffs it isn't the EU per se which requires harmonisation of tariffs, it is the European customs union, which isn't congruent with the EU. Indeed there are non-EU countries that are in the customs union and some territories that are part of the EU that aren't in the customs union.

And of course it is self evident that is you abolish customs between territories you have to have harmonisation of tariffs or a exporter could simply export into the country with the lowest tariff and then transfer the goods (without customs check) into a country that has a higher tariff.

When I say a trade deal I mean tariffs not just business deals, the UK is unable to negotiate its own trade deals.

You can do exactly the same with the EU and remember you don't just have one MEP (as is the case with MPs) you have several, so you are much more likely to find one minded to take up your cause. And of course the UK government is directly involved in the decision making of the EU, so if you have a say in the UK government (which you claim you do) then you also have a say in the EU.

No MEP can propose legislation, since they do not belong to a party containing a large number of MPs the chances of me swaying a large group of MEPs is not possible, I have never seen a leading EU bureaucrat being held to account by the media. 

And those arrangements have been agreed by the UK government and they are subject to veto. So, no the EU doesn't have the power - the power is vested at the level of member state governments. If the UK didn't want it to happen they can veto and it won't happen.

You will have run that past me again, being part of the EU means freedom of movement are you suggesting that the UK can remain and not have freedom of movement?

Where did I ever claim the EU governance was better than the UK. Both, in my opinion have strengths, both have limitations. That isn't the point, it isn't one or the other. I want decisions to be taken at the most appropriate level. I don't want the UK government taking a decision that is better taken at local level. I don't want the EU taking decision that are better taken at UK level. But there are issues where it is most appropriate that the decision is made in a cooperative manner across EU countries.

So trade deals are better negotiated at EU level? What to do with £350million a week better in the hands of the EU rather than Uk government?

The other point is that having different levels of governance provides checks and balances, and as we both agree that neither the EU nor the UK government is perfect, those checks and balances are important. If we leave I'd be genuinely concerned that far, far too much power would become vested at the UK government level - we currently have too much that is decided in Westminster rather than at local level, and if we leave we'd end up with decisions that really need to be taken at international level also vest at Westminster too. As you fully accept that Westminster is far from perfect do you really want them having yet more power?

Compared to EU, yes!

I disagree - just today we have seen an ex minister defect from leave to remain. And given the events over the last few days I think there are plenty of people who toyed with leave who simply cannot hold their nose hard enough to maintain that position.

Certainly the betting has shifted massively this morning.

I don't think I'm changing my mind, are you?

[ProfessorDavey]

When I say a trade deal I mean tariffs not just business deals, the UK is unable to negotiate its own trade deals.

Oh, moving the goalposts I see. There are all sorts of non-tariff trade barriers that are dealt with in trade deals. And the UK can, and does, do all sorts of deals of this type.

Note you've ignored my point about the custom area, which isn't congruent with the EU. So unless the UK wants to remove itself from the customs area (and good luck with selling that one to either business or the general public) then the UK will still be bound by tariff harmonisation even if it leaves the EU.

What to do with £350million a week better in the hands of the EU rather than Uk government?

I thought you'd be bright enough to understand that the £350million a week figure is a big fat lie. If you still believe it then it is hard to take any other comment from you seriously to be honest.

I don't think I'm changing my mind, are you?

No I'm certainly not changing my mind - not so sure about you. But there are certainly plenty of people who have done so over the past few days and will continue to do so up until Thursday. The reality of a real decision, a real ballot paper focuses people's minds and that (as with virtually all referendums) tends to produce a late swing to the status quo as people get cold feet about a jump in the dark.

[jeremyp]

He's an elected politician and he will only be able to do what the electorate allow him to do. TTIP is a danger to the NHS, an EU project.

Ha ha. That's so funny.

The problem is that the electorate is allowing the Tories to dismantle the NHS.

Also, could you explain how TTIP is a threat to the NHS. I think it's bollocks.

In any case, we have a veto.

Mmmm maybe Sass is going down to your level. I have no attitude of take take take and couldn't give a fuck if you pretending I do makes you angry, grow up.

It looks very much like that is your attitude from here.

I support Brexit because I think our government should be able to make our own laws, decide how we spend our own money, decide who comes in into the country and make our own trade deals. You support remain because you think the EU should have the power, or at least influence, over those things.

Who is "we"? In your answer, account for the fact that the current government got around 35% of the vote in the last election.

Don't get on your high horse because you've deluded yourself that the EU that it has everyone's interests at heart with things like a everyone is welcome policy, it doesn't.

The EU certainly has the average person's interests at heart more than Michael Gove.

[Hope]

Also, could you explain how TTIP is a threat to the NHS. I think it's bollocks.

Some years ago, when TTIP was first being mooted, several groups managed to get hod of a draft copy of the discussion papers and they showed that TTIP would require Europe to allow US Health Maintenance Organisations to take over various parts of a nation's healthcare provision.  For many parts of Europe, this wouldn't make that much diference, but for us with our NHS (and all our cross-border healthcare agreements whish allow us to gain at least some free or reduced rate healthcare whilst abroad) it would mean that much of the healthcare system could not only become privatised, albeit funded by taxpayers, it would require US-style health insurance leaving millions out in the cold - ie a return to pre-1948 conditions but worse.

In any case, we have a veto.

As far as I'm aware, TTIP is all or nothing.  There is no veto, like we can veto a European army, as TTIP would seem to be outside of that provision.  The problem is that, as the negotiations that have been ongoing for some 20 years now, are secrtet and no-one is allowed to say anything about them, by order of the Americans we don't actually know what we have.

If anything, we ought to be having an EU-wide referendum on TTIP not Britain's membership of the EU.

[L.A.]

Some years ago, when TTIP was first being mooted, several groups managed to get hod of a draft copy of the discussion papers and they showed that TTIP would require Europe to allow US Health Maintenance Organisations to take over various parts of a nation's healthcare provision

Would it actually be a bad thing to allow US Health companies to run parts of the NHS? This could only happen if they could demonstrate a competitive advantage which would mean that the NHS would save money, and so presumably would have funds to use elsewhere.

I really don't understand why this would be an issue as long as:

A/ The company could demonstrate competence.

B/ Treatment remained free at the point of delivery.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I'm aware, TTIP is all or nothing.  There is no veto ...

Wrong - approval for the TTIP requires all 28 member states to agree. The is, therefore, a veto for every country including the UK.

The reality is, of course, that the TTIP is the sort of thing the current Tory government loves, more so the right wing economic libertarians e.g. IDS, Redwood, Gove etc. So were we outside of the EU and relying on the current government (or its Brexit reshuffled version) to agree a bilateral agreement with the USA, they'd be all in favour albeit we'd have less bargaining power so it would be more likely to be tipped in favour of the USA. It is the power of the EU, notably the notion that there must be unanimous agreement that is much more likely to result in TTIP being canned, or more likely amended in the interests of the EU member states.

[Hope]

Wrong - approval for the TTIP requires all 28 member states to agree. The is, therefore, a veto for every country including the UK.

Sorry, PD, that is not what I have been told or read.  Furthermore, there doesn't actually seem to be that much information, let alone detail, as to what TTIP (EU-style) includes.  We have 'chapter' headings and broad concept headings - eg Market access, specific regulation and broader rules and principles and modes of co-operation, but currently very little detail has been announced.  Some has been leaked, but even then we're not sure where that originated from or whether it properly reflects what is in the treaty.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, PD, that is not what I have been told or read.

all member states must approve the TTIP, and therefore all member states have a veto.

Here is the relevant article (207(4)) on trade deals such as TTIP - direct quote:

'For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, the Council shall act unanimously where such agreements include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules.

The Council shall also act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements:

(a)in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing the Union’s cultural and linguistic diversity;

(b)in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.'

TTIP requires unanimous agreement from all member states.

[jakswan]

Oh, moving the goalposts I see. There are all sorts of non-tariff trade barriers that are dealt with in trade deals. And the UK can, and does, do all sorts of deals of this type.

Note you've ignored my point about the custom area, which isn't congruent with the EU. So unless the UK wants to remove itself from the customs area (and good luck with selling that one to either business or the general public) then the UK will still be bound by tariff harmonisation even if it leaves the EU.

We may well leave the customs union, free market, EU.

"One of the consequences of the customs union is that the European Union negotiates as a single entity in international trade deals such as the World Trade Organisation, instead of individual member states negotiating for themselves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Customs_Union#EU_territories_with_an_opt-out

Is Wiki wrong?

I thought you'd be bright enough to understand that the £350million a week figure is a big fat lie. If you still believe it then it is hard to take any other comment from you seriously to be honest.

Who controls that £350 million is the EU, happy to clarify its £175 million a week net!

No I'm certainly not changing my mind - not so sure about you. But there are certainly plenty of people who have done so over the past few days and will continue to do so up until Thursday. The reality of a real decision, a real ballot paper focuses people's minds and that (as with virtually all referendums) tends to produce a late swing to the status quo as people get cold feet about a jump in the dark.

No I don't think so, yet to hear a compelling argument to remain, I keep an open mind though.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who controls that £350 million is the EU

No, yet again a great big whopper.

Because the £350m lie fails to recognise that it includes the rebate, which is never 'sent to the EU' - and who controls that veto - the UK government does as it has a veto over any changes to it.

Stop lying Jakswan - but hey when you don't actually have any cogent arguments to back up your views then lying is all you are left with.

[jakswan]

No, yet again a great big whopper.

Because the £350m lie fails to recognise that it includes the rebate, which is never 'sent to the EU' - and who controls that veto - the UK government does as it has a veto over any changes to it.

Stop lying Jakswan - but hey when you don't actually have any cogent arguments to back up your views then lying is all you are left with.

Let me rephrase for you, the EU has some sway over UK funds upoto £350 million a week. Noted you don't challenge  the £175million a week itself a large amount of cash, and other points raised, I'll consider you have conceded those.

[L.A.]

Let me rephrase for you, the EU has some sway over UK funds upoto £350 million a week. Noted you don't challenge  the £175million a week itself a large amount of cash, and other points raised, I'll consider you have conceded those.

It was pointed out in one of the More Or Less programs that £175million a week was actually a very small figure compared to our value of our trade with the EU and only a very small decrease in that trade would wipe it out.

[ProfessorDavey]

Let me rephrase for you, the EU has some sway over UK funds upoto £350 million a week. Noted you don't challenge  the £175million a week itself a large amount of cash, and other points raised, I'll consider you have conceded those.

No they don't - the UK has a veto on the rebate so the 'EU' has no say whatsoever on this - the only people how can decide to remove the rebate is the UK government.

And your net figure is also wrong, and is, frankly irrelevant. The only relevant 'net' figure is what we directly contribute adjusted for the benefit to our economy that arises. And that is about £10 of benefit for every £1 we pay to the EU.

[jakswan]

No they don't - the UK has a veto on the rebate so the 'EU' has no say whatsoever on this - the only people how can decide to remove the rebate is the UK government.

Blimey Dogma Dave you do see things in black and white, being in the EU is complex negotiating process.

from BBC:-
The level of the UK rebate is decided every seven years, as part of the EU's long-term budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is negotiated by the EU leaders.

Sure he can veto its one of the things the UK negotiates with but we are not in full control of the £350 million.

And your net figure is also wrong, and is, frankly irrelevant. The only relevant 'net' figure is what we directly contribute adjusted for the benefit to our economy that arises. And that is about £10 of benefit for every £1 we pay to the EU.

In that case lets end the NHS, all public spending, and just send the EU all our money.

[ad_orientem]

Exit. I hope you guys don't bottle it like the Scots did last year. Hopefully it will be the beginning of the end for the EU.

[SusanDoris]

And would you be happy with Boris, Gove and Farrage in charge?

[Rhiannon]

Why would they be? They might be acting like s government in waiting but that is down to their arrogance.