EU referendum

[mancity dan]

Just make sure you take in a pen to vote, rather than use one of their pencils...cough cough ;)

 

[Ancient Citizen]

So how can McDonald's freely trade in the uk then, the us is not part of the eu?

An American company approaches you and says, 'We want to do business in your country, we'll buy the premises, employ around 1,000 people initially,
buy beef and other products off you, then if we're successful, we'll expand around the country and hopefully employ many times more than that,'
'Fuck off, you're not in the EU.'

 

[AlgarveBlu]

As for countries performing better outside the EU than in it...

4 of the top 10 economies are inside the EU.
The three largest are the USA, China and Japan - with huge populations and manufacturing bases.

Leicester performed better than anybody else too, but I wouldn't jump ship from City to join them.
Ethiopia, Turkmenistan, Congo, Mongola, Mozambique, Cambodia, Rwanda and countless other nations had higher growth rates than even the USA / China and US - they 'performed better' - you have to be very careful about this brexit 'most of the world performed better' mantra.

I think you mean 3 don't you in the context of the discussion you're having - you can't include the UK in that list - The percentage of those 3 eu nations in terms of GDP from the top ten nations is around 16%

 

[mcfc1632]

I'm a firm remain now, originally I sat on the fence and did my own research to get to this point. What turned my back on the leave vote was that my questions about leaving and the risks to personal and business life were just not answered, the leave campaign is just too aspirational and lacks a strategy with actions. For such a big decision this is madness to follow and is too much of a gamble to take. Many use the immigration argument but we control non eu immigration and because governments have never nailed this, the EU is not to blame for this. As for other arguments such as legislature and economic- what the dickens has our successive parliaments been employed to do if they are hand bound by Europe??? As for laws, what have we been paying the lawyers to do for decades? Edit : it's refreshing to hear our parliament and legal system has been wasting it's time because the eu bureaucrats have really been running the uk!

That is understandable - but it does highlight a significant issue that is seemingly totally missed and one which leaves Cameron guilty of a gross dereliction of his duties to the country.

This is not a GE with people voting for a political party in accordance with a published manifesto. It is the government of the day that should have been undertaking the planning for what actions should be taken should there be a vote to leave and placing that in front of the electorate. Instead Cameron has hijacked the entire government apparatus to operate project fear.

 

[FanchesterCity]

That is IMO just a lazy generalisation - much the same as if Leavers state that the Remainers are a bunch of scared kiddies sheep-like in their need to treat the Project fear rhetoric as if it is gospel

It's harder to sell 'remain' because we're already in the EU and there's discontent and rightly or wrongly many of today's issues are being laid at the EU. It's a lot easier to sell 'leave' because it plays on ideals and aspirations for the future and it's selling the notion of a favourable outcome by leaving. Everything that is bad today is at least in part because of EU membership and everything that COULD be good in the future will come from leaving the EU. Classic sales technique right there - what you have is inadequate, what you could have is available to you if you agree to buy right now...

That view is the opposite to conventional wisdom - which is that it is much harder for an organisation pushing for change to win over one seeking the status quo - I do sense that Remain ae getting nervous

I did say 'not all' - but a great many exit voters are posting youtube clips with 'nailed it' type comments after a 30-60 second clip of political soundbites - which to my mind is indicative of being swayed by rallying speeches. Those clips tends to be laden with emotive language and 'great nation' and overt optimism.

As for the 'harder to sell change' - yes, if you're trying to sell to businesses who have to implement the change, but here we are talking about politicians selling to the public who are not having to implement the changes. That's when 'change' (for something better) is a far easier sell. I've yet to see a single brexit MP mention the cost of eventually gaining... it's all 'we will gain' without a word of the initial sacrifices.

It's one thing to say 'I'm going to increase your salary and you'll have a better standard of living' etc - but it's another say 'but you might have to move jobs, and relocate, and for a short period, you'll have to lose your company car too'. The whole exit campaign is sold on the perceived (possibly accurate) improvements, without a whisper of the impact in order to get there.

- Better control of borders
Yes, if we pay for the extra staffing required in order to exercise those new powers

- Improved trading terms with nations of our choosing
Possibly, if we are able to sustain our SME until those agreements are made and if we're able to adapt our business to trade with Canada instead of France. There's a lot of small business who would become insolvent within a couple of months of troubles trading with the EU. The big businesses can cope, the small ones, less so.

- We'll stop the EU migration
Wonderful - but what about the businesses already employing EU citizens, both in the UK, or elsewhere in Europe. Are we going to repatriate them all? and if we do, what about the impact of those businesses?
Again, it might all work out in the longer term, but the short term impact still has to be addressed. It's totally glossed over by brexit.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Again - just making conversations/observations - but your post here and the EB2's that you were replying to do seem to contain a level of 'Remainer concern' that a leave vote could win. Could I ask you and EB2 whether your confidence level in a Remain vote has increased/decreased it the last week or so/

I have always thought it would be closer than people think but that most of the noise would always be leave. As mentioned I backed Brexit at 6-1 as I have always thought it was 6-1 on a 2-1 bet . I haven't really changed on this view from the beginning, I think 60:40 in was the likelihood and haven't changed . Betting wise I would wager the small money and the volume of beta will have always been on Brexit with a much smaller Volume of bigger bets on in.

 

[mcfc1632]

I gave you the exact figures, 2 weeks ago (give or take a day) 87% of bets were for leave

Today 57% of bets placed are for remain

No opinion, just facts.

Ah - are you stating the 'volume' of bets on a given day e.g. 87% backed on leave on a given day and then on another (today) 57% backed remain?

 

[EalingBlue2]

Now this confuses me, you say businesses will benefit - so why do these businesses all say different. You say red tape makes our businesses uncompetitive - why does Germany have no issues exporting its goods worldwide dwarfing our exports? You say it will be a huge boost to our economy - why is it the 'experts' all say different?

For those that don't like immigrants I have no argument, vote to leave. It probably won't lead to less immigration but it might make you feel better for a day or two

ps what are these 'laws we don't agree with' - what EU law keeps you awake at night?

In many industries Germany is more productive, has higher education levels and had a massive advantage of starting from scratch after the war rather than building everything from more of an existing base

 

[mcfc1632]

I have always thought it would be closer than people think but that most of the noise would always be leave. As mentioned I backed Brexit at 6-1 as I have always thought it was 6-1 on a 2-1 bet . I haven't really changed on this view from the beginning, I think 60:40 in was the likelihood and haven't changed . Betting wise I would wager the small money and the volume of beta will have always been on Brexit with a much smaller Volume of bigger bets on in.

Fair enough - as an experienced gambler I also backed Brexit @ 6/1 and as I use Betfair laid it back at the equivalent of 11/4 - so guaranteed profit whatever the outcome. As you will know this means that the odds are shifting because (like you and I) people have recognised that 6/1 was a silly price - and now it is more akin to the 2/1 you envisaged - actually about 5/2.

Monkfish - this is the reality of betting market trends - not 1 day snapshots

 

[FanchesterCity]

I think you mean 3 don't you in the context of the discussion you're having - you can't include the UK in that list - The percentage of those 3 eu nations in terms of GDP from the top ten nations is around 16%

No. I mean 4. The UK, France, Germany and Italy. they are 4 nations in the top 10. and yes, although they are in the top 10, two of which are in the top 5, we are dwarfed by China and the USA, and Japan has a healthy margin - which isn't unexpected.
If you measure things by number of countries, then most of the world has a smaller economy than any of those four countries - which you COULD interpret as a sign of the influence those 4 economies have. If you do it by percentage, then yes, their influence is far smaller. But as a combined 'EU' economy it's huge.

I'm arguing that 'the rest of the world is doing so much better' is entirely misleading.

 

[mcfc1632]

So more big money bets have gone on Leave recently then?

I do not think that he understands

 

[cibaman]

That is understandable - but it does highlight a significant issue that is seemingly totally missed and one which leaves Cameron guilty of a gross dereliction of his duties to the country.

This is not a GE with people voting for a political party in accordance with a published manifesto. It is the government of the day that should have been undertaking the planning for what actions should be taken should there be a vote to leave and placing that in front of the electorate. Instead Cameron has hijacked the entire government apparatus to operate project fear.

I don't really get that. Are you saying that the government should have offered a choice of either "Remain" or "Leave - and on these terms"?

 

[mcfc1632]

A succinct and well put point of view.

Succinct indeed - but he nicked my Titanic analogy

 

[EalingBlue2]

1. SOME countries outside the EU have performed better. MANY clearly have not.

2. How many of these that have done better have 44% of their exports going to the EU? How many of them have a domestic manufacturing base that is dominated by foreign investment that is there largely because of the country being in the EU? How many of them have an economy dominated by their services sector? Answer: None.

You paint an irrelevant picture because we are uniquely dependent upon the EU in a way that none of the countries you might compare us to are.

Was thinking the same , Lawson is more intelligent than to pretend for example that The UK can be judged in the same way as a market at the other end of the world that doesn't trade with Europe

 

[mcfc1632]

I don't really get that. Are you saying that the government should have offered a choice of either "Remain" or "Leave - and on these terms"?

I genuinely mean no offence - but you are in the majority in not understanding this reality.

The Brexit camp will not be implementing the transition plan should there be a leave vote - it will be the elected government of this country.

It is absolutely Cameron's government's job to be undertaking contingency planning for this eventuality and ensuring that the populace is fully informed about the pros and cons of each outcome.

The fact that 'as an individual' he supports a Remain position is neither here nor there - his government's responsibility is to plan strategies and manage implementation on behalf of the coutry and this does include in the contingency planning for large impact possibilities - this is after not a 'no-briainer' it is a close vote.

Therefore he has totally abused his position in favour of his personal preference - indeed to intentionally limit and skew the amount of information available.

 

[FanchesterCity]

WIthout getting into 80's politics too much, when Mrs T came into power, she believed that manufacturing and labour were things for lesser nations, and that we shouldn't have to do such things - we should focus on more advanced 'services' - non tangible products. Selling advice / experience / consultancy etc and let the lesser nations do the menial manufacturing and mining tasks etc.
There was some logic to it (at the time), but decades later we've found ourselves still requiring tangible goods (no shit sherlock!), and being at the mercy of those capable of manufacturing them (or mining them). She thought we'd be so wealthy, we'd have no difficulty buying the products from the lesser nations, and there'd be enough nations doing the manufacturing that we couldn't be held to ransom.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with selling services, but its dangerous if the balance is tipped too heavily between services and tangible goods.
Whilst we still manufacture products, it's now often for foreign companies, so in essence we're now supplying the labour that she fought against, without reaping the iion's share of benefits of owning the company!

Germany is manufacturing very well, but also for it's own German businesses (as is the case with China, USA and Japan). We're the odd ones having become mostly a labour market (for manufacturers).
I don't want to diminish some great genuinely British manufacturers - but they're in the minority sadly.

Germany offers over 3 times our manufacturing output, Japan over 4 times, France about 10% more, Italy about 35% more. We're 11th in the manufacturing league - which is very respectable, but we aren't manufacturing for ourselves - we're doing it for foreign companies.

 

[FanchesterCity]

I genuinely mean no offence - but you are in the majority in not understanding this reality.

The Brexit camp will not be implementing the transition plan should there be a leave vote - it will be the elected government of this country.

It is absolutely Cameron's government's job to be undertaking contingency planning for this eventually and ensuring that the populace is fully informed about the pros and cons of each outcome.

The fact that 'as an individual' he supports a Remain position is neither here nor there - his government responsibility is to manage on behalf of the coutry and this does include in the contingency planning for large impact possibilities - this is after not a 'no-briainer' it is a close vote.

Therefore he has totally abused his position in favour of his personal reference - indeed to intentionally limit and skew the amount of information available.

I agree that any government needs to be planning for either outcome.
It will be very difficult for him to survive if we vote to leave.

Personally I feel the entire debate has become a bit of a farce on both sides, and as usual, more about personalities than policies. However, it's almost inevitable with a subject like this - it's akin to being for or against serious military action etc - you can't help but put forward personal opinion and dread the consequences of the alternative view being put into action. It's very hard then (should a vote go against you) to keep your position since you clearly cannot believe in the policy and will be perceived as being unable to fully commit to it thereafter (which might be unfair sometimes, but that's politics).

Sad as I am to say it, I suspect the vast majority of politicians nailing their colours to the mast are planning their own career strategies is the vote goes against them, rather than the nation's strategies.

 

[Matty]

There shouldn't be a referendum, and the fact there is should be enough, after the event, for David Cameron to resign, regardless of the result.

We vote in General Elections to decide upon a government, that government is then tasked with actually governing for the next 5 years, making the decisions that are required to keep the country running. We, the general public, have done our bit. We headed down to the polling stations in our millions, we cast our votes, we elected a government. It might not be the government some wanted but it's an elected government.

So, should we stay in the EU? How about those we actually elected make the fucking decision?! It's what we voted for them for, to make tough decisions and, more importantly, to be abreast of all the facts when doing so. Your average man on the street has absolutely no fucking clue whether we'd be better in or out of the EU, and you simply can't expect him to either. So quite why it was felt a good idea to put this decision in his ill informed hands is beyond me. A vote on something as fundamentally integral to the way the country will exist over the next few decades should be made from a cerebral place, the facts should be studied and a sensible, well thought out position should be reached before voting. That's not going to happen in a huge number of cases. Emotional votes will be cast, votes which simply ignore all the facts and evidence and go with what "the gut" says. That's a frightening position to find ourselves in, and it was an entirely avoidable one too.

Cameron's own bravado, cockiness, and intent on "going down in history" lead us into this referendum. He was convinced he'd be able to control the elements of his own party and that the referendum would be a resounding win for the "stay in" vote. Now he's realised the Tories are as divided on Europe as they ever were and he's running scared that the vote will go against him.

If a decision was required on staying in/leaving the EU then those who we elected to make such decisions should have been the ones making it. To delegate this decision to the masses is a huge mistake. Individual members of the public are intelligent, informed people who know what they are talking about and can reach an educated position on this matter. The general public as a whole are fucking morons who have no idea what they are voting for or the repercussions of it. We've entrusted the future of our country to the types of people who watch Geordie Shore and voted a dog the most talented act in Britain, twice. As I said, Cameron should resign after the vote for putting us into this dangerous position in the first place. Of course he won't, even if he's humiliated in defeat.

 

[west didsblue]

I genuinely mean no offence - but you are in the majority in not understanding this reality.

The Brexit camp will not be implementing the transition plan should there be a leave vote - it will be the elected government of this country.

It is absolutely Cameron's government's job to be undertaking contingency planning for this eventually and ensuring that the populace is fully informed about the pros and cons of each outcome.

The fact that 'as an individual' he supports a Remain position is neither here nor there - his government responsibility is to manage on behalf of the coutry and this does include in the contingency planning for large impact possibilities - this is after not a 'no-briainer' it is a close vote.

Therefore he has totally abused his position in favour of his personal reference - indeed to intentionally limit and skew the amount of information available.

That is the a key point. Any "manifesto" pledges made by the leave side are utterly meaningless and at best highly aspirational. As the majority of the cabinet and conservative MPs are pro-remain, it's highly unlikely that the pro-Brexit leaders will be part of a government following a leave vote.

 

[AlgarveBlu]

There shouldn't be a referendum, and the fact there is should be enough, after the event, for David Cameron to resign, regardless of the result.

We vote in General Elections to decide upon a government, that government is then tasked with actually governing for the next 5 years, making the decisions that are required to keep the country running. We, the general public, have done our bit. We headed down to the polling stations in our millions, we cast our votes, we elected a government. It might not be the government some wanted but it's an elected government.

So, should we stay in the EU? How about those we actually elected make the fucking decision?! It's what we voted for them for, to make tough decisions and, more importantly, to be abreast of all the facts when doing so. Your average man on the street has absolutely no fucking clue whether we'd be better in or out of the EU, and you simply can't expect him to either. So quite why it was felt a good idea to put this decision in his ill informed hands is beyond me. A vote on something as fundamentally integral to the way the country will exist over the next few decades should be made from a cerebral place, the facts should be studied and a sensible, well thought out position should be reached before voting. That's not going to happen in a huge number of cases. Emotional votes will be cast, votes which simply ignore all the facts and evidence and go with what "the gut" says. That's a frightening position to find ourselves in, and it was an entirely avoidable one too.

Cameron's own bravado, cockiness, and intent on "going down in history" lead us into this referendum. He was convinced he'd be able to control the elements of his own party and that the referendum would be a resounding win for the "stay in" vote. Now he's realised the Tories are as divided on Europe as they ever were and he's running scared that the vote will go against him.

If a decision was required on staying in/leaving the EU then those who we elected to make such decisions should have been the ones making it. To delegate this decision to the masses is a huge mistake. Individual members of the public are intelligent, informed people who know what they are talking about and can reach an educated position on this matter. The general public as a whole are fucking morons who have no idea what they are voting for or the repercussions of it. We've entrusted the future of our country to the types of people who watch Geordie Shore and voted a dog the most talented act in Britain, twice. As I said, Cameron should resign after the vote for putting us into this dangerous position in the first place. Of course he won't, even if he's humiliated in defeat.

Good post - there will be people actually voting in this that will not even know what the letters eu stand for which is quite scary