Flew to Copenhagen from Manchester today. The plane was full of them. There again, I always thought the Danes are Eurosceptics.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
EU referendum
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Flew to Copenhagen from Manchester today. The plane was full of them. There again, I always thought the Danes are Eurosceptics.
Chancy Termites
Well-Known Member
The last paragraph fully supports that the EU imposes nothing on anyone. As is the case with almost everything, all countries have the right to veto, something the UK does often.
So this scaremongering that Europe does this, that or the other can finally be put to bed as a myth.
Since the Lisbon Treaty came into force in November 2014, very few areas of EU Council legislation can still be vetoed by a single country. It now takes 4 countries representing at least 35% of the population to block any new laws.
purplenose
Well-Known Member
Just been having a peep on rag caf at their EU thread and the results at the mo are almost the opposite of the poll here. They are around 70/30 in favour of staying in. Obviously quite a few of the thick twats will think they are voting to stay in the CL, but that aside I wonder what it says about the location of their fanbase? Someone posted a UK map earlier in this thread which showed the NW being anti EU compared to London/South iirc.
At the end of the day anybody who supports that shower of shit aint going to be the sharpest tool in the box...thick red twats.
jimbopm
Well-Known Member
I'm not picking holes, I'm asking for more information. Given how out of date the info you posted is.
It wouldn't matter if I had published data that was bang up to date (as far as I am aware, they are the most recent comprehensive migration studies available), you - as is par for the course with the Brexit supporters - would find someway of discrediting it. Rather than finding their own studies that point to a glorious future of Britain outside of the EU (There isn't one), all Brexiters do when confronted with latest damaging evidence to their campaign is cry foul. It's scaremonging, it's project fear, it's inherently biased, take your pick.
Take today's treasury report for instance. You've basically had all three of the above default excuses trotted out by the usual suspects from the vote leave campaign. "How can anyone tell us what the economy is going to be like in 2030 when they can't even predict next year?" seems to be the typical response. Well I can't forecast how much I am going to weigh next year but I can predict that I eat nothing but jam doughnuts I am going to get fat.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
It wouldn't matter if I had published data that was bang up to date (as far as I am aware, they are the most recent comprehensive migration studies available), you - as is par for the course with the Brexit supporters - would find someway of discrediting it. Rather than finding their own studies that point to a glorious future of Britain outside of the EU (There isn't one), all Brexiters do when confronted with latest damaging evidence to their campaign is cry foul. It's scaremonging, it's project fear, it's inherently biased, take your pick.
Take today's treasury report for instance. You've basically had all three of the above default excuses trotted out by the usual suspects from the vote leave campaign. "How can anyone tell us what the economy is going to be like in 2030 when they can't even predict next year?" seems to be the typical response. Well I can't forecast how much I am going to weigh next year but I can predict that I eat nothing but jam doughnuts I am going to get fat.
So you admit it was a fantasy forecast designed to do nothing but scare folk.
He has been accused of being unable to predict the economy in 15 years because he has a track record of not being able to accurately predict it over the life of this parliament so far so forgive us for not lapping it up like good little dogs.
From a purely statistical view of modelling, claiming to be able to accurately predict 14 years into the future (whilst at the same time saying it's a leap into the unknown) is absolute bollocks. Models are built on assumptions and claiming that those assumptions will remain true over such a long period of time is ridiculous.
Take EU immigration for instance - Labour predicted in 2004 that relaxing controls would lead to 15,000 people moving here a year from the EU. Fast forward 12 years and that figure is now over 17 times that estimate. I'm sure very clever people made those predictions for Labour too, but even the smartest people can't look that far into the future.
Take EU immigration for instance - Labour predicted in 2004 that relaxing controls would lead to 15,000 people moving here a year from the EU. Fast forward 12 years and that figure is now over 17 times that estimate. I'm sure very clever people made those predictions for Labour too, but even the smartest people can't look that far into the future.
So you admit it was a fantasy forecast designed to do nothing but scare folk.
He has been accused of being unable to predict the economy in 15 years because he has a track record of not being able to accurately predict it over the life of this parliament so far so forgive us for not lapping it up like good little dogs.
Its partly scaremongering but also tactical. He's trying to pressure the Leave campaign to switch from "it will be alright on the night" to actually specifying the type of relationship they expect the UK to have with the EU.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I've said on here before that the choice we face is one of trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Stay in, and continue to lose sovereignty and be hindered by inward-facing euro-nonsense. Or leave and severely damage our economy, loss of jobs, economic slowdown. It's a tough choice and neither option is good.
But consider this: It's pretty clear that if we were to leave and in so doing, not have any access to the European market, we'd be in a very very bad place indeed. It's our biggest export market and if we couldn't sell to Europe, we'd be screwed. Both sides agree on that.
The Outers say, "ah but don't worry, we'll be able to negotiate a free trade agreement that will give us unfettered access to the market, without tariffs and without having to agree to the Euro-nonsense on free movement of labour, European Court of human rights, Working Time Directive and other such crap." In short, they say we can have our cake and eat it. They argue that the EU needs us more than we need them and it would be in THEIR interests to agree to such terms.
But to suggest this, is dreaming, completely dreaming. Why? Because agreeing such favourable terms for the UK would require treaty change and the unanimous agreement of the other member states. And whereas the EU as a whole exports more to us than we do to them, each individual country does not. Germany exports a lot to us and might well agree to these terms, but the vast majority of the states don't export much to us at all. They would have no incentive to agree to the UK having all the benefits of access to the market, but none if the downsides. Wed be asking them to agree to havjng to compete with us on an uneven playing field; their businesses burdened with euro legislation and costs, but ours not. There is no way on planet earth they would agree to this, and no way the EU as a whole could therefore agree to the sort of terms the Outers suggest we could get.
There's also the "stuff you" factor. Having taken our bat and ball home and left the EU, do we REALLY expect people like the French to agree to us having these marvellous trading terms? Of course not! The French have even told us they wouldn't allow it. In part, this because because they would have got the hump and would relish the opportunity to say stuff you.
But there's another very real reason why they would not and could not agree. The French and Belgians etc are desperately trying to cling on to the European dream. They want all member states to stick together and really don't want countries splitting off. What message would it send to other would-be break-away states if they allowed us to leave and yet keep full access to the market with no tariffs, no fees and no rules? If they let us have what we want, half of the other countries would want to leave too!. Why on earth wouldn't they? We'd have mass exodus with dozens of other countries wanting exactly what we had got.
In short, the UK getting the without-strings, free trading terms the Outers suggest, would lead to the break up of the EU. And therefore, the EU could NEVER agree to it.
The inevitable consequence is that these negotiations would be painful and take many years. And all that time, UK businesses would be in limbo, not knowing whether to invest or not, nor where to invest if they do. Sales would slump, jobs would be lost, our economy would stall, badly. And when we finally did gain agreement in maybe 5 years time, we'd have to agree to the free movement of labour and working time and other stuff anyway. We'd have to agree to the very things that make us want to leave in the first place. Only now, we'd have no say in how the rules would develop in the future, because we'd have no seat at the table.
Much though the idea of "getting our sovereignty back" is very very appealing, the reality is, it can never work without us suffering enormous hardship. We'd be completely mad to vote for this.
But consider this: It's pretty clear that if we were to leave and in so doing, not have any access to the European market, we'd be in a very very bad place indeed. It's our biggest export market and if we couldn't sell to Europe, we'd be screwed. Both sides agree on that.
The Outers say, "ah but don't worry, we'll be able to negotiate a free trade agreement that will give us unfettered access to the market, without tariffs and without having to agree to the Euro-nonsense on free movement of labour, European Court of human rights, Working Time Directive and other such crap." In short, they say we can have our cake and eat it. They argue that the EU needs us more than we need them and it would be in THEIR interests to agree to such terms.
But to suggest this, is dreaming, completely dreaming. Why? Because agreeing such favourable terms for the UK would require treaty change and the unanimous agreement of the other member states. And whereas the EU as a whole exports more to us than we do to them, each individual country does not. Germany exports a lot to us and might well agree to these terms, but the vast majority of the states don't export much to us at all. They would have no incentive to agree to the UK having all the benefits of access to the market, but none if the downsides. Wed be asking them to agree to havjng to compete with us on an uneven playing field; their businesses burdened with euro legislation and costs, but ours not. There is no way on planet earth they would agree to this, and no way the EU as a whole could therefore agree to the sort of terms the Outers suggest we could get.
There's also the "stuff you" factor. Having taken our bat and ball home and left the EU, do we REALLY expect people like the French to agree to us having these marvellous trading terms? Of course not! The French have even told us they wouldn't allow it. In part, this because because they would have got the hump and would relish the opportunity to say stuff you.
But there's another very real reason why they would not and could not agree. The French and Belgians etc are desperately trying to cling on to the European dream. They want all member states to stick together and really don't want countries splitting off. What message would it send to other would-be break-away states if they allowed us to leave and yet keep full access to the market with no tariffs, no fees and no rules? If they let us have what we want, half of the other countries would want to leave too!. Why on earth wouldn't they? We'd have mass exodus with dozens of other countries wanting exactly what we had got.
In short, the UK getting the without-strings, free trading terms the Outers suggest, would lead to the break up of the EU. And therefore, the EU could NEVER agree to it.
The inevitable consequence is that these negotiations would be painful and take many years. And all that time, UK businesses would be in limbo, not knowing whether to invest or not, nor where to invest if they do. Sales would slump, jobs would be lost, our economy would stall, badly. And when we finally did gain agreement in maybe 5 years time, we'd have to agree to the free movement of labour and working time and other stuff anyway. We'd have to agree to the very things that make us want to leave in the first place. Only now, we'd have no say in how the rules would develop in the future, because we'd have no seat at the table.
Much though the idea of "getting our sovereignty back" is very very appealing, the reality is, it can never work without us suffering enormous hardship. We'd be completely mad to vote for this.
EalingBlue2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 5,571
That had been encouraged by every government for decades as it brings in generally more productive people, allows economic growth and the expansion of the economy, helps keep up prices especially for Homes and maintains the Ponzi scheme. If the tap is turned off very hard decisions will need to be made and no one inner or out seems to acknowledge this or gave the brains and courage to make them.You can find all sorts of statistics to support one side or other, but they are by nature bias as to who prepared them, common sense will tell you that if you flood a market it effects prices of supply and demand.
Where there are more workers than jobs the wage rates go down, where there are more people than houses rents/ prices go up, where services are already struggling to cope dumping large amounts of new people will have a negative effect.
Those are cold hard facts, it can never work any other way
I've said on here before that the choice we face is one of trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Stay in, and continue to lose sovereignty and be hindered by inward-facing euro-nonsense. Or leave and severely damage our economy, loss of jobs, economic slowdown. It's a tough choice and neither option is good.
But consider this: It's pretty clear that if we were to leave and in so doing, not have any access to the European market, we'd be in a very very bad place indeed. It's our biggest export market and if we couldn't sell to Europe, we'd be screwed. Both sides agree on that.
The Outers say, "ah but don't worry, we'll be able to negotiate a free trade agreement that will give us unfettered access to the market, without tariffs and without having to agree to the Euro-nonsense on free movement of labour, European Court of human rights, Working Time Directive and other such crap." In short, they say we can have our cake and eat it. They argue that the EU needs us more than we need them and it would be in THEIR interests to agree to such terms.
But to suggest this, is dreaming, completely dreaming. Why? Because agreeing such favourable terms for the UK would require treaty change and the unanimous agreement of the other member states. And whereas the EU as a whole exports more to us than we do to them, each individual country does not. Germany exports a lot to us and might well agree to these terms, but the vast majority of the states don't export much to us at all. They would have no incentive to agree to the UK having all the benefits of access to the market, but none if the downsides. Wed be asking them to agree to havjng to compete with us on an uneven playing field; their businesses burdened with euro legislation and costs, but ours not. There is no way on planet earth they would agree to this, and no way the EU as a whole could therefore agree to the sort of terms the Outers suggest we could get.
There's also the "stuff you" factor. Having taken our bat and ball home and left the EU, do we REALLY expect people like the French to agree to us having these marvellous trading terms? Of course not! The French have even told us they wouldn't allow it. In part, this because because they would have got the hump and would relish the opportunity to say stuff you.
But there's another very real reason why they would not and could not agree. The French and Belgians etc are desperately trying to cling on to the European dream. They want all member states to stick together and really don't want countries splitting off. What message would it send to other would-be break-away states if they allowed us to leave and yet keep full access to the market with no tariffs, no fees and no rules? If they let us have what we want, half of the other countries would want to leave too!. Why on earth wouldn't they? We'd have mass exodus with dozens of other countries wanting exactly what we had got.
In short, the UK getting the without-strings, free trading terms the Outers suggest, would lead to the break up of the EU. And therefore, the EU could NEVER agree to it.
The inevitable consequence is that these negotiations would be painful and take many years. And all that time, UK businesses would be in limbo, not knowing whether to invest or not, nor where to invest if they do. Sales would slump, jobs would be lost, our economy would stall, badly. And when we finally did gain agreement in maybe 5 years time, we'd have to agree to the free movement of labour and working time and other stuff anyway. We'd have to agree to the very things that make us want to leave in the first place. Only now, we'd have no say in how the rules would develop in the future, because we'd have no seat at the table.
Much though the idea of "getting our sovereignty back" is very very appealing, the reality is, it can never work without us suffering enormous hardship. We'd be completely mad to vote for this.
I don't think anyone can claim to know what our relationship will be, but I believe it will be somewhere between free trade and no trade. It may be that we have to pay a smaller fee to be part of the EEC (like Norway) or it may be that there is a tariff on trade like most non-Europe countries have.
I also think that our markets would change massively in the event of an Out vote. The EU imposes tariffs on non-EU trade, so without those tariffs in place (or negotiating them lower than an EU tariff) that Chilean wine is at a favourable price to that French vintage and that Japanese car becomes relatively cheaper than that German one. It increases our ability to shop around and I don't think there's a lot that we get from the EU that we can only get from the EU.
The economic arguments have to be a best guess at the moment, which invariably is skewed by whoever's presenting the argument and the side they favour. It may well be that we lose out a bit financially (though I seriously doubt an Out vote would cripple the country given the vast majority of our trade is internal) but I think the benefits in sovereignty and governance outweigh it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.