EU referendum

[cibaman]

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.

Flew to Copenhagen from Manchester today. The plane was full of them. There again, I always thought the Danes are Eurosceptics.

 

[Chancy Termites]

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]

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]

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 Given how out of date the info you posted is.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.

 

[blueinsa]

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.

 

[CityStu]

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.

 

[cibaman]

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]

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.

 

[EalingBlue2]

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

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.

 

[CityStu]

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.

 

[EalingBlue2]

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.

No laws can be vetoed of any note by any region in England that come from the Uk parliament you know , there is not even a second chamber that's democratic or a directly elected leader, U.K. Democracy is actually one of the least challenged most narrowly won democracies with few checks and balances around. If you are so concerned about freedom rights democracy you should also look closer to home

 

[Chancy Termites]

No laws can be vetoed of any note by any region in England that come from the Uk parliament you know , there is not even a second chamber that's democratic or a directly elected leader, U.K. Democracy is actually one of the least challenged most narrowly won democracies with few checks and balances around. If you are so concerned about freedom rights democracy you should also look closer to home

No chance whatsoever. The people in the UK who propose new laws, who say what new laws they would like to bring in, are directly elected. If we don't like their proposals, we don't vote for them. If we don't like their record after getting into a position to make new laws, we vote for someone else next time.

The second chamber, which incidentally I would like to vote for too, does not make any laws at all.

Opposite way round in the EU.

 

[EalingBlue2]

No chance whatsoever. The people in the UK who propose new laws, who say what new laws they would like to bring in, are directly elected. If we don't like their proposals, we don't vote for them. If we don't like their record after getting into a position to make new laws, we vote for someone else next time.

The second chamber, which incidentally I would like to vote for too, does not make any laws at all.

Opposite way round I'm the EU.

No about 15-20% of the population vote for them and depending on who wins it is s highly regionally divided vote and a heavily rural/city split. There are few parts of the country where you won't spend a lot of your life dictated to by a government you didn't vote for that works against your and your communities interests .They can then do what they want for 5 years with no one to challenge them in most cases bar their own lunatic fringes. The EU is in many ways more democratic and had far more checks and balances than the UK that said it is on a much bigger scale . A second chamber elected is vital, especially if the out vote wins as most of our checks and balances will go. The U.K. Would also need better human rights and stronger courts better placed to challenge government, all of which we could take from or learn from Europe.

To sit in the UK with a government of a single parliament elected first past the post by a significant minority at best of voters, with a hereditary head of state, no real bill of rights, a part hereditary, part patronage determined second chamber etc and lecture anyone In the western world on democracy and freedom is laughable.

 

[EalingBlue2]

No chance whatsoever. The people in the UK who propose new laws, who say what new laws they would like to bring in, are directly elected. If we don't like their proposals, we don't vote for them. If we don't like their record after getting into a position to make new laws, we vote for someone else next time.

The second chamber, which incidentally I would like to vote for too, does not make any laws at all.

Opposite way round I'm the EU.

No I'm the EU

 

[Chippy_boy]

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.

I respect that argument. Perhaps the Outers would be better served if they were as honest as this and said, yes there will be pain but it's worth it.

But you say sovereignty and governance? These are powerful ideas that stir up an emotional response. No-one likes being told what to do, right? No-one likes being told they can't make their own laws. But beyond the emotion, what specific things cause us such outrage, such indignation, that we would want to risk years of hardship?

When I sit down and think rationally, what are the things that the EU does to us that make it so intolerable that we must leave? The curvature of bananas? The minimum cocoa solids in a bar of chocolate? Maximum working hours? Human rights?

Infuriating though all their "interference" undoubtedly is, does it REALLY matter? And surely some of the things we get are good for us?

When it comes down to it, I think leaving makes no sense. It's what many of us would like to do because we're pissed off, but in cold analysis, makes little sense. We don't need sovereignty to decide about bananas, and we have veto's about most things that do matter anyway.

Now, if we could leave without risk nor consequence, I'd be gone like a shot, but that's far from the case. We'd face huge risk, and in my estimation, huge hardship. And for nothing that REALLY matters in return. The only thing that is really material is immigration, and we need European immigrants to pay for our aging population and growing pension and healthcare costs. Immigration from other EU states is a good thing.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I respect that argument. Perhaps the Outers would be better served if they were as honest as this and said, yes there will be pain but it's worth it.

But you say sovereignty and governance? These are powerful ideas that stir up an emotional response. No-one likes being told what to do, right? No-one likes being told they can't make their own laws. But beyond the emotion, what specific things cause us such outrage, such indignation, that we would want to risk years of hardship?

When I sit down and think rationally, what are the things that the EU does to us that make it so intolerable that we must leave? The curvature of bananas? The minimum cocoa solids in a bar of chocolate? Maximum working hours? Human rights?

Infuriating though all their "interference" undoubtedly is, does it REALLY matter? And surely some of the things we get are good for us?

When it comes down to it, I think leaving makes no sense. It's what many of us would like to do because we're pissed off, but in cold analysis, makes little sense. We don't need sovereignty to decide about bananas, and we have veto's about most things that do matter anyway.

Now, if we could leave without risk nor consequence, I'd be gone like a shot, but that's far from the case. We'd face huge risk, and in my estimation, huge hardship. And for nothing that REALLY matters in return. The only thing that is really material is immigration, and we need European immigrants to pay for our aging population and growing pension and healthcare costs. Immigration from other EU states is a good thing.

Which goes to the original I made at the start why is the vote happening in the vacuum and not after we have determined what the strategy is for the UK and what the outcome will be if we vote out. Then I think a very rational and real debate could happen and many inners would be outers and vice versa . Instead we are opting to sell our home not knowing if we will move into a bigger one up the road or whether we will be sleeping rough in the park

 

[BlueHammer85]

@Chippy_boy makes a good point. Taking immigration out of the equation - what has the EU done to really hamper this country and our individuals lives ?

 

[bluethrunthru]

@Chippy_boy makes a good point. Taking immigration out of the equation - what has the EU done to really hamper this country and our individuals lives ?

For me the plusses outweigh the minuses - I still think the idea we can step out of the EU and continue to attract outside investment to trade into the EU on the same or better terms than now is fanciful. If that were the case then why would anybody be in the EU and why would it exist? As for immigration as yet that has not been allowed to rule the debate. I fear as the date approaches it will though - and its about many issues not just immigration.

One point on immigration if we come out of the EU and the EU continues to have an immigration crisis it will be in their interest to move immigrants to outside the EU..... there will be a handy island offshore they can encourage them to go to.... rather than take control we truly could be overwhelmed as the EU implements an EU immigration policy in the interests of EU members.

 

[EalingBlue2]

For me the plusses outweigh the minuses - I still think the idea we can step out of the EU and continue to attract outside investment to trade into the EU on the same or better terms than now is fanciful. If that were the case then why would anybody be in the EU and why would it exist? As for immigration as yet that has not been allowed to rule the debate. I fear as the date approaches it will though - and its about many issues not just immigration.

One point on immigration if we come out of the EU and the EU continues to have an immigration crisis it will be in their interest to move immigrants to outside the EU..... there will be a handy island offshore they can encourage them to go to.... rather than take control we truly could be overwhelmed as the EU implements an EU immigration policy in the interests of EU members.

That is certainly a danger , the immigration crisis is a global crisis that needs global solutions. I think as a major actor in causing much of the crisis the UK will need to take much responsibility and to leave the EU because of a problem we played a major part in causing (and not the EU) to leave them to deal with our mess would be the ultimate act of not taking responsibility and being everything that we pretend as a nation we are not.

But against a background of very clear facts there is an outer camping that pretends Britain is a model of democracy whilst the EU is a dictatorship, that the EU will bend to our every whim on exit and that the immigration issue is an EU problem. Against that background of thought it is like arguing with born again Cjritsykans what seems like reasonable , obvious , self evident fact is disagreed with completely.

The outers are just like the Scottish nationalists facts are irrelevant, I remember discussing with a nationalist on the vote, he was convinced that England would take all the debt, he was convinced that oil would allow Scotland to become like Norway and that England and Wales would happily help Scotland go and want its success. I thought he was bonkers and deluded - but we will never know.

 

[YPhrunts]

@Chippy_boy makes a good point. Taking immigration out of the equation - what has the EU done to really hamper this country and our individuals lives ?

I take it you cannot remember what it was like before we were frog marched into the common market by Ted Heath then. And I really can't be arsed to go into the miriade number of stupid regulations that have been forced on us over the years. Because they are stupid. But here's a couple....like not being allowed to climb a ladder higher than 3 metres so that an unscrupulous builder can charge you an arm and a leg to erect scaffolding and use the EU as an excuse to extort money from you. Or an interference with individual freedoms like the ban on being able to slaughter your own animals that you kept for food etc. You now have to transport them causing the animal stress in transport and even more stress on entering an abattoir.

But I will mention one that has been reported to be on the horizon and that will have a shattering effect on us all should it go ahead.

Evidently Monsanto's patent on the use of glyphosate in systemic weed killer is due for renewal next year and there are calls for the use of glyphosate to be banned in the UK. It was reported in the Daily Mail so it might just be a bit of sensationalism on their part but knowing how fucking barmy those bureacrats are in Brussels it wouldn't surprise me if the suggestion had legs. This year one of the EU rulings was that to use glyphosate you had to go on a course and obtain a licence. This stuff has been used for decades by farmers and gardeners without any problems but now suddenly we all need to fork out £150 for a licence.
I'm not going to argue the chemistry of glyphosate with anybody but I don't believe anybody has died of glyphosate poisoning over the years it has been in use.

So the next scare from those that want to see it banned and who have a sort of witchcraft way of thinking is that bees suffer due to its use or that it has caused a decline in the bee population. Utter nonsense. Businesses that manufacture bee keeping equipment have been making massive profits because there are so many people that want to keep bees. So there's hardly a shortage of bees is there. Honey production goes up and down from year to year depending on the weather and has nothing to do with the use of glyphosate. If the substance was harmful then the British Beekeeper's Association would have come out firmly in favour of banning it. They have not.
Christ the British Beekeepers Association hasn't even come out firmly against the use of all pesticides let alone herbicides! And the witches confuse the two together and will vote to stay in the EU because they think the EU is the great protector to all things dangerous. We are being nannied and the witches like it.

All this is even before you get to the problem of what banning glyphosate would do to food production. But it's a scary thought that some misinformed faceless bureaucrats with a grudge against Monsanto might decide that witchcraft wins over objective scientific evidence and rules it out of use in the UK. It would be a massive step backwards. I was against the idea of TTIP until this story broke but I'm not sure now whether TTIP is such a bad thing when you have ignorant people in positions of power and influence. If business can sue against witchcraft then I'm all for them doing it.

I don't want Luddites making any sort of comeback thank you. We invent things, we weigh up the consequences if any and we move on.