EU referendum

EU referendum

  • In

    Votes: 503 47.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 547 52.1%

  • Total voters
    1,050
Status
Not open for further replies.
you can still get pretty much 3-1 on leave - the bookies are certain of the result

The bookies were also certain when united were 8 points clear of us in the last month and two of them paid out on the title to all the punters on the rags.

The pricing is odd and more difficult to price than a one off sporting event, I believe the weighting of bets has been 75% in favour of leave but they will definitely be covering their exposure with other bookies in the event of a leave win.
 
The real problem with this referendum is that neither side can produce anything which solidly supports what would happen if Leave wins.

As such, Leave have constructed their straw man of Big EU and are using it for a Project Fear. It's all rhetoric and hot air.

Remain's case can only argue against Leave ("keep things as they are" won't get anywhere), meaning they too are trying to deconstruct a hypothetical outcome. The best way of doing that is to highlight potential bad things, or to coin a phrase, Project Fear.

They're both as bad as each other because this a cross-party platform, and thus they cannot say "if we win, we will do this" (well Johnson does this anyway, seemingly thinking he'll be PM if Leave wins).
 
Can any of the Brexiters please explain to me why if we came out of the EU there would be no border controls between Ireland and Northern Ireland but integral members of the EU (France and Belgium) should have had a Berlin Wall dividing themselves for the past 40 years?

I won't be too sad whichever way the vote goes. I might have a wry grin for a couple of mates (of Asian Orgin) who will probably vote out because if Brexit begins on 24th June, it will be their first day as second class citizens in their own country!

I don't understand the question, the Berlin wall was in Berlin?
 
Only answering the questions that were given on the subject...this is far more than just our policies on immigration...so much more

It might be to you mate, but immigration is BY FAR the most important thing on most Leavers' minds and if it was not, the vote would not even be close to being close - Remain would walk it.
 
Come on man...even at your most bias...you can't say remain covered themselves in glory last night...most of the time it was crap digs at Boris for cheap laughs

Even if I was completely neutral...watching that I would have sided with Leave...the remain came across as aggressive and just spouted that we should remain without giving any good reasons for doing so other than 'It's better to be within the EU' they were piss poor

Meanwhile on the beeb...Eddie Izzard..I actually like the guy...but fuck me hahaha

No body covered themselves in Glory mate.....and for me, if I'm expect to change my view...I need Boris to answer direct questions....this 10.6billion saving rubbish is a complete lie....his own supporters have told us that....and his comment on the average working class person should pay to use the NHS is an absolute joke....Its the freedom to use the NHS that makes his country great.....and if it was up to him, he'd start charging us!!!! again, none of this is my opinion...they were comments by Boris that are complete rubbish and if he now didnt agree or has changed his view....he had his chance to deny or admit it was an error in front of millions last night and he didnt/couldnt.....
 
I see John Mann and Dennis Skinner have come out for leave today - I really do think that the traditional Labour vote may take another hammering on a remain victory in the future.
 
It might be to you mate, but immigration is BY FAR the most important thing on most Leavers' minds and if it was not, the vote would not even be close to being close - Remain would walk it.

I'm not saying immigration is not an issue...it clearly is...an open door policy is ridiculous...even more so on an island...regardless of whether we leave or remain it needs to be addressed at some point...however...to a more educated voter it's a much bigger picture
 
I draw some comfort from that, Monkfish, but I wonder how much that is skewed by bigger bets being placed on Remain, rather than more bets? You bet £1,000 and ten people bet £10 and the odds will be much shorter on the £1,000 side and yet a subsequent vote would yield a win for the £10 side.

The "rich" are strongly favouring leave, whereas the "poor" are strongly favouring Remain

mjuvxw.png


2nkqsu9.png
Which is a deep irony as it is the poorest who proportionally will lose the most and will suffer the greatest from new competition and deregulation. I think a lot of the very rich are voting leave too as its the poor who they think gain too much from europe
 
I'm not saying immigration is not an issue...it clearly is...an open door policy is ridiculous...even more so on an island...regardless of whether we leave or remain it needs to be addressed at some point...however...to a more educated voter it's a much bigger picture
Yes but there's only a couple of dozen of you in that camp judging by the arguments coming out for Brexit, usually based on everyone's lying, immigration or believing that we can go back to the glorious 50's (which I assume means 1850's)
 
I see John Mann and Dennis Skinner have come out for leave today - I really do think that the traditional Labour vote may take another hammering on a remain victory in the future.

If left/labour voters had all the information in front of them...they would ALL vote leave

People think that a vote for leave is a vote for the right...which despite the idiots Farage & Boris...is not even remotely the case

THE EU is not defending workers’ rights as the Remainiacs never cease to claim.

In fact the EU is directly behind the huge assault on wages, pensions, collective bargaining and other workers’ rights across the EU, including the current battle going on in France.

Moreover it is being done in contravention of its own treaties in a typically bureaucratic and Byzantine way.

Officially, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, Article 153.5), explicitly states that the EU has no competences in the area of wage policy.

Yet this has not prevented EU institutions such as the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) or even the European Council from demanding wage “moderation” across the EU.

The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG), regularly produced by the Commission since 1993, always included demands for wage “moderation.”

However a new system of European economic governance began to emerge in 2010 with the adoption of the controversial, neoliberal Europe 2020 strategy, which included a yearly cycle of EU economic policy co-ordination.

This explicitly includes wage policy which is considered the most important adjustment variable for promoting “competitiveness.”

The legal basis for this new form of “authoritarian neoliberalism” as it has been called comprises above all the Euro Plus Pact adopted on the initiative of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in March 2011.

As a result, while EU competence over wage policy is still expressly forbidden, with the Euro Plus Pact wage policy intervention at EU level is now mystically allowed.

Now the EU issues annual policy recommendations for all member states which must then be transformed into national “reform programmes” whose effectiveness will again be assessed by the EU.

The annual economic co-ordination cycle was further developed in 2011 with the adoption of a package of five Regulations and one Directive.

The so-called “six-pack” contains two new major instruments in order to intensify economic policy co-ordination: one is the establishment of a new system of surveillance and the second is the introduction of fines on those countries that fail to comply.

The 2013 Treaty for Stability, Co-ordination and Governance (TSCG) further reinforced mechanisms to enable the EU to “co-ordinate and monitor the economic and budgetary policies of the member states.”

Each February the Commission publishes detailed reports on each country and their “progress.” This year’s report pointed out an “excessive” imbalance — too much public expenditure and a lack of competitiveness.

However, it recorded “substantial progress in the matter of reducing the cost of labour and retirement pension reform.”

On April 13, the French government adopted its EU National Programme of Reform (NPR) and acquiesced to EU demands for “giving more latitude to companies, to adapt wages and working hours to their economic situation” — ie huge changes to French employment law.

It is this that French workers are fighting against.

The scope for EU attacks on wages and collective bargaining expanded most rapidly in those crisis-hit countries which rely on “bailouts” from the EU and/or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In exchange for bailouts, these countries had to introduce “reforms” laid down either in so-called memorandums of understanding with the Troika of EU, European Central Bank (ECB) and IMF in the case of Greece, Ireland and Portugal, or in “stand-by arrangements” with the IMF, in the case of Hungary, Latvia and Romania.

These policy measures comprised attacks on wages, social services and public ownership and far-reaching labour market “reforms” including the abolition of systems of collective bargaining.

There is a simple reason for this — where there is no collective bargaining there is a decline in wages.

For the hard-line German member of the ECB Executive Board Joerg Asmussen, labour market “reforms” such as removing collective rights are even “the key if a country wishes to remain within the euro.”

As a result attacks on workers at national level are being driven by a new EU interventionism in an unprecedented way.

For example prior to the 2008 crisis, Romania had a legal system that supported dialogue between trade unions, employers and the government, resulting in widespread collective bargaining at all levels.

By 2011, at the behest of the EU, the government had scrapped all collective agreements and changed, without parliamentary debate, the main labour laws, making it impossible to have cross-sectoral collective agreements.

The recession was thus exploited by the EU and a compliant government in Bucharest as a pretext to rip the guts out of the existing industrial relations system and lower labour costs.

Even the EU-funded European Trade Union Confederation general secretary Bernadette Segol identified two fronts where collective bargaining is coming under attack: the decentralisation of bargaining and allowing employers to ignore trade union bodies in favour of non-union bodies.

Addressing the theme of Social Europe, she points out that “policies that are being implemented are attacking industrial relations systems, putting pressure on wages, weakening public services and weakening social protection.

“These are the core aspects of the social model,” confirming the view of many observers that the model is now dead — if indeed it was ever alive at all.
 
I'm not saying immigration is not an issue...it clearly is...an open door policy is ridiculous...even more so on an island...regardless of whether we leave or remain it needs to be addressed at some point...however...to a more educated voter it's a much bigger picture

Viewed the right way, I think this is an important element. Most people, and that includes me on some aspects, don't know all the ins and outs, and many will know very few.

Immigration is banged on about by Farage, the Mail, Express, Sun, etc, as if it's the be all and end all.

It is important, but is it more so than what the effect on the economy would be? I don't think so.
 
It might be to you mate, but immigration is BY FAR the most important thing on most Leavers' minds and if it was not, the vote would not even be close to being close - Remain would walk it.

I agree mate.....a couple of elderly people I know, were talking about the vote yesterday and the only reason they gave for wanting to leave was immigration....nothing else mattered...found this really interesting and shows some of the votes will be a "Generation thing"....as most of those elderly people were very comfortable financially and dont have a mortgage, debts or a job as they were retired, I guess the impact of leaving would alot less for them, so immigration is the "only" thing that mattered....again...trying to keep my opinion out of these comments and just passing on what I what they said...
 
The real problem with this referendum is that neither side can produce anything which solidly supports what would happen if Leave wins.

As such, Leave have constructed their straw man of Big EU and are using it for a Project Fear. It's all rhetoric and hot air.

Remain's case can only argue against Leave ("keep things as they are" won't get anywhere), meaning they too are trying to deconstruct a hypothetical outcome. The best way of doing that is to highlight potential bad things, or to coin a phrase, Project Fear.

They're both as bad as each other because this a cross-party platform, and thus they cannot say "if we win, we will do this" (well Johnson does this anyway, seemingly thinking he'll be PM if Leave wins).

Whereas no-one can be certain, people just need to use a bit of common sense and the answers become obvious.

Is it likely that the EU will give us full access to the EU markets, without us agreeing to playing under the same rules as every other country, i.e. they will voluntarily give the UK better terms than every other country in the EU has got? They will give the UK terms that they have never given before to any country, even the three economies bigger than ours? No, obviously they will not.

Is it likely that all of the foreign businesses that have invested in the UK so that they can freely export to Europe will decide to stay in the UK, even when they can't freely export to Europe? No, obviously some of them will move out.

Is it likely that the right wing Tory government that for the past 40 years has been hell bent on flexibility in the labour market (at the expense of workers' rights) has had some sort of brain transplant and now believes passionately in protecting those safeguards it's fought tooth and nail to avoid? <Laughing at that one>

Is it likely that Britain, with a population of 65 million will be such a huge attraction for China, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Japan that we will be able to get trade deals and investment with them OUTSIDE the EU market of 500m people that are SO much better than the ones we already have? How would that happen? What sort of trade deals? Why would China give a shit about a piddling 65m potential customers compared to 500m? How would we make SO much more money by doing this?

The ONLY thing the Remain camp offer is the *possibility* of reducing net immigration. Something that (a) they are not committing to do! (b) Because they know that we need it. There are more immigrants WORKING in the NHS than being TREATED in the NHS, so if we didn't have any immigration at all, the NHS would be under even MORE strain than it is now.
 
If left/labour voters had all the information in front of them...they would ALL vote leave

People think that a vote for leave is a vote for the right...which despite the idiots Farage & Boris...is not even remotely the case

THE EU is not defending workers’ rights as the Remainiacs never cease to claim.

In fact the EU is directly behind the huge assault on wages, pensions, collective bargaining and other workers’ rights across the EU, including the current battle going on in France.

Moreover it is being done in contravention of its own treaties in a typically bureaucratic and Byzantine way.

Officially, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, Article 153.5), explicitly states that the EU has no competences in the area of wage policy.

Yet this has not prevented EU institutions such as the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) or even the European Council from demanding wage “moderation” across the EU.

The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG), regularly produced by the Commission since 1993, always included demands for wage “moderation.”

However a new system of European economic governance began to emerge in 2010 with the adoption of the controversial, neoliberal Europe 2020 strategy, which included a yearly cycle of EU economic policy co-ordination.

This explicitly includes wage policy which is considered the most important adjustment variable for promoting “competitiveness.”

The legal basis for this new form of “authoritarian neoliberalism” as it has been called comprises above all the Euro Plus Pact adopted on the initiative of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in March 2011.

As a result, while EU competence over wage policy is still expressly forbidden, with the Euro Plus Pact wage policy intervention at EU level is now mystically allowed.

Now the EU issues annual policy recommendations for all member states which must then be transformed into national “reform programmes” whose effectiveness will again be assessed by the EU.

The annual economic co-ordination cycle was further developed in 2011 with the adoption of a package of five Regulations and one Directive.

The so-called “six-pack” contains two new major instruments in order to intensify economic policy co-ordination: one is the establishment of a new system of surveillance and the second is the introduction of fines on those countries that fail to comply.

The 2013 Treaty for Stability, Co-ordination and Governance (TSCG) further reinforced mechanisms to enable the EU to “co-ordinate and monitor the economic and budgetary policies of the member states.”

Each February the Commission publishes detailed reports on each country and their “progress.” This year’s report pointed out an “excessive” imbalance — too much public expenditure and a lack of competitiveness.

However, it recorded “substantial progress in the matter of reducing the cost of labour and retirement pension reform.”

On April 13, the French government adopted its EU National Programme of Reform (NPR) and acquiesced to EU demands for “giving more latitude to companies, to adapt wages and working hours to their economic situation” — ie huge changes to French employment law.

It is this that French workers are fighting against.

The scope for EU attacks on wages and collective bargaining expanded most rapidly in those crisis-hit countries which rely on “bailouts” from the EU and/or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In exchange for bailouts, these countries had to introduce “reforms” laid down either in so-called memorandums of understanding with the Troika of EU, European Central Bank (ECB) and IMF in the case of Greece, Ireland and Portugal, or in “stand-by arrangements” with the IMF, in the case of Hungary, Latvia and Romania.

These policy measures comprised attacks on wages, social services and public ownership and far-reaching labour market “reforms” including the abolition of systems of collective bargaining.

There is a simple reason for this — where there is no collective bargaining there is a decline in wages.

For the hard-line German member of the ECB Executive Board Joerg Asmussen, labour market “reforms” such as removing collective rights are even “the key if a country wishes to remain within the euro.”

As a result attacks on workers at national level are being driven by a new EU interventionism in an unprecedented way.

For example prior to the 2008 crisis, Romania had a legal system that supported dialogue between trade unions, employers and the government, resulting in widespread collective bargaining at all levels.

By 2011, at the behest of the EU, the government had scrapped all collective agreements and changed, without parliamentary debate, the main labour laws, making it impossible to have cross-sectoral collective agreements.

The recession was thus exploited by the EU and a compliant government in Bucharest as a pretext to rip the guts out of the existing industrial relations system and lower labour costs.

Even the EU-funded European Trade Union Confederation general secretary Bernadette Segol identified two fronts where collective bargaining is coming under attack: the decentralisation of bargaining and allowing employers to ignore trade union bodies in favour of non-union bodies.

Addressing the theme of Social Europe, she points out that “policies that are being implemented are attacking industrial relations systems, putting pressure on wages, weakening public services and weakening social protection.

“These are the core aspects of the social model,” confirming the view of many observers that the model is now dead — if indeed it was ever alive at all.

TLDR, but not enough Morning Star articles on here so 'props for that'
 
The bookies were also certain when united were 8 points clear of us in the last month and two of them paid out on the title to all the punters on the rags.

The pricing is odd and more difficult to price than a one off sporting event, I believe the weighting of bets has been 75% in favour of leave but they will definitely be covering their exposure with other bookies in the event of a leave win.
If the weight of bets was 75% leave then leave would be 1/3 or similar and remain would be 5/2 it's as simple as that - the bookies model wins because they broadly shape the market based on £ and that gives the odds, occasionally wild differences between bookies are accounted for but its a no lose game.

It is possible 75% of bets placed are on leave but only about 20% of £ placed is on leave and that could be because the average remain bet is approx 15X the size of the average out bet. Reflecting professional money vs the man on the street
 
I'm not saying immigration is not an issue...it clearly is...an open door policy is ridiculous...even more so on an island...regardless of whether we leave or remain it needs to be addressed at some point...however...to a more educated voter it's a much bigger picture

There is alot of narrow minded people mate.....In my opinion, the "leave" people are winning the argument so far because they using peoples.... passion, Pride and emotion to fuel their argument...This country would stop without an economy but no one will get passionate about trade tariffs, export and import figures......but things like immigration will get people fired up and thats why they are winning votes......any risk to the economy then turns into a side issue that the leaves feel we can deal with later.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top